City Council · 2026-05-05

Just so you know, if— I don't know if you would like to get a snack. This, this Beautiful spread has been created by Denise, Sydney, and Lori. Thank you, and I hope I'm not forgetting anybody. But if you'd like to get food now, we can, or we can have a break partway through, or you can just— when your stomach tells you, or your head tells you to go over and eat, go eat.

Beautiful.

This looks beautiful. So, yep. So I don't know what you would like to do. Do you want to get some snacks now before we start? Or— sure. Okay, we're gonna grab our snacks and then we will be back to start our meeting.

Start for sure.

Okay, Teresa, are we ready? All right, again, welcome to our work session today. Uh, before we get started with the items on the agenda, I want to turn the time over to Bryn to introduce our new Economic Development Director.

Yes, Mayor and Council, I'm really excited to introduce Garrett Anderson to you. Uh, just— he just started yesterday.

Yeah.

Um, he, he has, you know, family and history from, from the county, but we, we stole him from the good state of, of Colorado. And, and, uh, what's really— well, I'm really excited that he's going to proactively take Orem's economic development efforts to the next level. And without being prompted by Bryce or Ryan and I, he, he already knew and suggested to help us focus on attracting experiential retail to the city. So it comes highly educated, highly experienced, and already kind of with a predisposition in helping with the Orem way and taking that levels. So we've also made sure that he's humble, hungry, and smart, and our expectations are super high. So with that introduction, Gary.

What else to say, right?

Yeah, happy to be here.

We relocated from Colorado just most recently, but originally I'm from the Chicago area.

Spent most of my career in the Midwest in Illinois and Missouri. But yeah, very happy to be here.

Happy to speak to such a beautiful community that's just really focused around experiences and families. And that's mostly what I've been doing in my career anyway, working with sports tourism, downtowns, a lot of, you know, ways that people engage in their communities.

And happy to be here and helping with that too.

Also, You know, invite any of you to reach out to Garrett. And if there's businesses you want to reach out to or meet with, or what you want us to have give special attention to or follow up on, he has a ton of experience and that predisposition to be very public-facing and business-friendly.

The main thing I lack right now is a local network. So please introduce me to anybody you think is an important network. Thank you.

Thanks, good to have you on board. All right, 1.1, I, um, our first item or listed item on the agenda is a presentation on the Public Safety Revenue Dedicated Fund. Turn the time over to Brandon Nelson.

Hopefully it will be relatively brief. Um, the time has come, Will, to make decisions, and especially as we start next week into our tentative budget. One of those decisions that I need to make sure that we're all okay with moving forward with is, is this item that we touched on, I believe, last week, as well as I know Bren has discussed this with hopefully all of you, but if not, many of you. And so that is the idea of separating our public safety, fire and police, into their— out of the general fund and into their own special revenue fund. The more important element of that, to be honest, is the dedication of Durham City's current general operations property tax. The county and the state tax commission need me to notify them of that decision to move forward. And that doesn't mean it is set in stone, but they would like to be able to start getting their things on their ends ready. And it would be easier for them if they know that that's going to be coming. So it's not really anything we necessarily need to— I just need to make sure in that May 12th meeting there will be an item, a resolution where you will put that to pencil— to autograph, if you will. But this is more just to make sure that when I'm presenting that tentative budget, that everybody understands what they're going to see in that presentation and that that is part of that tentative budget. Are there any questions? Hopefully you're— like I said, hopefully you've all seen this. Idea being to move that into The public safety into its own fund so we— it's better visible to citizens as to that fund and the operations of our public safety folks, and then associated revenues that go with that. And as part of that, dedicating the property tax to that purpose. Are there any questions about that? I have a question.

Can you just kind of in a nutshell talk about the genesis of this and if this has been used other places and successes?

Yeah, so there are 3. I'm aware of Midvale has done it, and I believe there are 2 other localities that have already done it. This went into as a possibility into law in 2020. 2019, I believe it was 2019. Um, the— and, uh, not only is it for that purpose, Utah County also dedicated a portion of their property tax to their Health and Human Services Department. Um, so it's not just public safety. Um, other entities have gone through that route dedicating portion of their property tax to whatever specific efforts, um, they want to tie that to. I will say, in talking with the Tax Commission, it is much easier to move— to dedicate— to move it into the special revenue fund, much more difficult to then go back, just so everybody understands.

So, so what you're saying then is if We decide to do this then and move all of our property tax over into this fund, that we need to be very committed to keeping it in that fund, which I, which I support.

Correct.

Just want to make sure you're aware that that will be the case.

So do you have a— I'm sorry, I'm putting you on the spot here, uh, like a guesstimate, the percentage of our budget that would be our entire budget, not just our property tax, but kind of so to give people perspective of what we're talking about.

So you see up here, our fiscal '26 budget was $38.1 million out of approximately $72 million of the general fund. Just short of, you know, just a little over half.

And so the property tax portion will be the $8.1 million?

Property tax, the all— well, so it's not all $8.1 million. The $8.1 million was all of our property tax, which includes the money for our general obligation bonds. So that That portion will not. The actual amount is about $6.5 million. So that remaining $1.6 million is related to the general obligation bonds, and that will stay within, if you will, in the debt service fund/general fund.

Please, any question?

Brandon, I like the benefit of being able to signal That our property tax is being dedicated to police and fire budgets. That seems like a benefit. It helps provide some transparency to residents about where this money goes. Is there any other benefit besides that from a financial perspective? It sounds like one of the potential drawbacks is just we lose some flexibility in the future. And if I understand correctly, Any future property tax revenue would be dedicated to this as well.

So you still, you still retain the possibility of, if you wanted to do a property tax increase specifically related to the general fund, to general city operations, you could do that through Truth in Taxation and add that. They now become, in essence, 2 separate taxes. Obviously, the one is going to be zero for the time being, and the other one would be all dedicated to public safety. That does not eliminate Possibility of going through truth taxation and adding money to the general fund if that ever needed to occur.

But any additional property tax revenues that we just would normally accrue would automatically go into the special revenue?

Right now, yes. Under this proposal, I should say, yes.

And are there any additional benefits to this other than transparency about where that money Those 2.

That's really— those are really the big items, is you get to see the total budget of the, of the Public Safety Fund, and it's right there all by itself, and the associated revenues that are linked to public safety. Um, so yes, and if— so those are the positives that you would get to see. And to your point, the dedicated revenue allowing citizens to see all of their property taxes being dedicated to that source.

I guess I would just like to hear Lease and Fire a bit and see if, if they have any concerns or if you're supportive of this.

Definitely supportive. Um, a, a stable revenue source is comforting. Um, property tax is stable, sales tax not so much.

And so To me, that's—

I see it.

And I look at it as, I think the city dumps a ton of money into all of our employees. I think that we're— employees are your number one asset, and they should be. And I feel like this carves out public safety, not in full, but it, I think, provides an opportunity for all the other departments to be made more whole, um, because of this dedicated fund. So I think across the board, everybody wins by separating this. Less competition for dollars, even though the same dollars. I think the view, my perspective is different. So I look at it as a huge win.

If I can just emphasize, I know that property tax is typically not a well-beloved tax by the general public. At the same time, to kind of emphasize what Chief Robinson said, If there is a downturn and a devaluation of properties within the city in any given year, then the property tax rate actually naturally automatically goes up. So the revenue is intended to always be the same from property tax, and that's just how it's assessed in Utah. And so It does provide another benefit is essentially that sense of safety or protection or being covered to provide the wages and benefits and equipment for our public safety, even in the event of a major downturn.

And just to really clarify, right, it's only 20%. You're still going to need our general fund to be successful. Our economic development director we just met, do his magic so we can continue to fund you at the level that we have excellence.

So, well, and I think that both BJ and I certainly recognize that, but it also doesn't exempt us from downturn in sales tax, that we don't have to tighten our budgets because we have a separate fund. And I think that would be an expectation that you would have across the board for all of our departments, and so it doesn't isolate us. We still have responsibilities to be fiscally responsible.

Actually, it would be more obvious because it's its own fund, and so it'd be much more easily available to not only you but the public to, to see.

I was just saying thank you for having that point of view. I feel like you guys are both very mindful of this is taxpayer money that funds your departments and to be responsible with it, and you are.

Thank you for that, and doing our best to support you.

We definitely feel that from the mayor, council, and the rest of the exec staff. This is, this is a different process, and so speak for both of us when I just say thank you for supporting all of our efforts collectively.

Great.

So I'm hearing, and even though this is in the work session, we don't, we don't make formal decisions, but I'm, I'm sensing that, uh, as we go forward in creating the budget, that we go ahead and this will be part of the budget that we presented to us next week, is to create this fund and then to move and do move the monies into it.

Okay, so that's how you will see it within that tentative budget. And obviously, like I said, there will be a resolution, and that resolution will basically spell that out, and I'll be providing that resolution to the State Tax Commission and the county.

Okay, okay. So next week starts the process.

Doesn't officially happen until we, you know, uh, actually go through that process of certifying our tax rate. So, and another thing, uh, Bren wanted me to make sure we mentioned this. Is separate discussion from a property tax increase. This can, this can happen irregardless of what we may do on that end of the spectrum. And it doesn't affect this.

No, it's a completely separate—

I just want to make sure we understand really 2 totally separate elements.

All right, thank you. All right, the next item on our agenda. Is our continued discussion on the short-term rentals. And as Jake, as he gets set up, just want to express my appreciation to all of you for conversations that we had last week. I feel like we're, we're making progress as far as what we're looking to see in this ordinance. And I would encourage you in this— this is a good— this work session is a good opportunity to, to have discussion. And so.

Thank you.

I would just encourage you to, if you, as you have thoughts and feelings, to go ahead and share those as we try and give guidance to Jake as he's trying, as he's working to put together an ordinance for our review. So, all right, I'll turn the next 75 minutes over to you, Jake.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And hopefully this next section will be as productive. I really do appreciate the Discussions, the conversations we had last week. It was very helpful for me to kind of see where there's comfort, where there's work to still be done, and where the direction we may be heading. So I don't, you know, miscalculate and we end up in Colorado instead of on top of Mount Timpanogos. So I would hate to be that far off track. I left off on this screen. And we had started talking about occupancy and how to potentially deal with short-term rentals and how to best balance effects in neighborhoods, limiting potential party houses, but also providing an economical— or an economic viable option for people if they are going to engage in short-term rentals. So, I actually wanted to take a step Back from that and talk about it, not necessarily in practical numerical numbers, but to take a step back and talk about the general principles or policies that might govern the way that we would approach occupancy. And the way I see it is there's, there's, there's probably more than these 4, but these are 4 that are are typically used or discussed or seen out in actual practice. And the first is that a municipality sets a numerical cap. That a municipal governing body says, we are comfortable setting this as the numerical cap for any short-term rental. And they, they do that calculation based on their other land use zones, based on practice, based on experience with short-term rentals already had been in operation, or what they've seen in neighboring communities. So, for example, you, you could set a cap, and what we've discussed in the past is 8 individuals. Some of the strengths of that is it's really easy to enforce. It's easy for a neighborhood team or a uniformed officer to go out and see how many people are occupying or in that short-term rental at any given time. Um, it helps mitigate nuisance issues. If you're, if you're setting a cap that's, that's lower than what our typical— what we would typically see for a party house, that helps mitigate some of those concerns. Um, also, it helps address some of the public safety concerns that are out there that, again, if you're having overcongestion in a home, it may lead to potential parties or fights or other negative effects within the neighborhood that you're having public safety come out and respond to. Now, there are weaknesses with that. What we've discussed in the past is one size fits none. If you, if you set that cap, that may not necessarily fit a 2-bedroom apartment. Likewise, it's probably not going to fit a 6-bedroom home. And so by setting that cap, that is one of the weaknesses. Also, it provides really limited flexibility for dealing with multigenerational family travel. And also, it produces some economic inefficiencies if, if you have a short-term rental and part of that short-term rental then sits vacant because of the occupancy, they can't actually rent it to its full potential. So that, that would be one potential route. Another potential route is you take an occupancy cap and you set that as kind of the global or the maximum cap. And then you set an internal cap based on bedroom calculation. And I'm going to do this, the 3rd one at the same time, or in lieu of that bedroom cap, you do it based on square footage of the home. Um, some of the benefits of that is it's scalable based on, on the nature of the short-term rental. Um, it may provide better precision for You know, what should occupancy be for this specific short-term rental? Um, it also helps deal with density. And when we talk about square footage, there is the benefit of that may limit the temptation for a short-term rental operator to cram more beds in a bedroom because you're going off of a, a very neutral square footage number that can't be altered or, you know, manipulated in a way that you could cram or put more people in than necessary. But again, they also have their own weaknesses. Requires more administrative oversight at the time of the application. Also provides their own levels of ceiling conflict. Again, what if you have a larger home because you have that maximum occupancy cap? The square footage cap, the internal cap may actually exceed what that maximum cap. So you're still putting a ceiling there. So that still creates that conflict. Um, and then there's also some verification complexity again that is going to be an issue.

Enforcement.

Um, the 4th option is to do it solely based on square footage and to move away from an idea of a maximum occupancy cap and to go solely based on the square footage. That you would determine whatever ratio the council feels comfortable, 1 per X square feet. And from there, you would set that— that ratio sets the occupancy cap. Again, there are some benefits there. Again, it's objective. It's easier to determine objectively. We could also use county land records to help support and corroborate what that square footage— but also know that sometimes those land records are inaccurate. And so there may be some discrepancies between what a short-term rental operator is reporting is the square footage versus what we see on the land record itself. Um, however, the weaknesses here is it does allow also for potential mega groups, and the larger the home, the larger the number of people, Um, you know, you could argue the slippery slope that it does allow for potential larger groups, which would likely lead to potential party homes.

Or event centers.

Yes, not everything's a party.

Sometimes it's just an event.

Um, and then we would also need to— if the council were wanting to go this direction, we would absolutely need to review our other occupancy limits. elsewhere within our code. We'd need to make sure that we are consistent through our code in other land uses. So what does that— oh, Steve.

So the options that you're talking about here, I assume, are for the number of unrelated people who can occupy an SDR.

Are we—

is there an underlying assumption that a family, a group of unrelated or of related people could also occupy? So if you had a family 15, that would be—

So you're kind of jumping 3 slides ahead.

All right.

Sorry.

So, um, right now what I'm just talking about is occupancy in general, not even singling out single family or unrelated. So I'm just talking about different ways you can calculate occupancy. So, how that would look is if we aren't even talking about single family, we're just talking about people. What does this actually look like in practice? So if you were to take a 2-bedroom, 800-square-foot condo, what does that look like under each of these different scenarios? Same goes for a 4-bedroom house that's 2,400 square feet, or a 6-bedroom estate that's 6,000 square feet. So that kind of gives you numbers that are actually practical numbers to see what that would look like. Now, we have also talked about single family being something that we could overlap or overlayer. And so, if we were to adopt a single family, um, and in many instances exempt them from an occupancy limit, unless we're doing an internal home occupancy limit. This is what it would look like if we did that overlap. So, for example, if we were to say a global max of 8— oh, I, I'm using the wrong computer.

Oh, there we go. Yeah, can you go back to that one? Can we look at that one for just a minute? Yes, you talked about it and we've been looking forward to it.

Lost.

Yeah, I'm— would you define global max?

So global max, again, it would be saying we set a standard across the city that for short-term rentals, the maximum occupancy you could have would be X. And in this scenario, I've picked the number 8. Internal would be looking at the actual STR itself. What is the capacity of that short-term rental, either using short square footage or bedroom capacity? And how that would interplay. So, if you notice, um, for example, on that, on the 3rd column over, if you were to choose a square footage, you still run into a ceiling where if you were to say 1 per 400, that really allows 15 people there. But if you're putting a global max saying the maximum we're going to allow for any short-term rental is 8, That's what you would— you put this artificial ceiling there at 8, even though you have that internal occupancy limit that would exceed it. So, if you were to then overlap that definition of single family, this is kind of how that is. And if you have a single family that is a larger single family, parents and number of kids, you can have a larger capacity as opposed to the— if this makes sense.

I'm not taking too much leave.

Yeah, they could clarify. State family, you're talking about housing and family reunion types of things, or are you talking about Maybe a family.

Is that not—

what's in your entity? So it's already in our single family definition, defined as—

and it's up here.

So total person lives by himself, related group, group of people who are related by blood, marriage, adoption. This also includes 2 guests that Are there? So in that instance, Quinn, um, you, you could have grandparents, uncles, uh, children, grandchildren. That, that single family could actually be a quite large group.

So I have 7 siblings. We have 15 in the neighborhood. We could, all of us, all 17 of us, Go in a home and qualify as a family?

If that home was large enough, yes.

The large enough parameter is what?

Based on number of bedrooms or based on square footage, again, depending on how you're deciding to move forward with occupancy.

Bedroom or square footage?

Correct.

And bedroom, you're— did you say— I'm trying to remember if you told me this here, um, 2 beds or 2 people per room. Where did I see that slide?

So again, under, under this, 2 people per bedroom.

Okay.

And Jake, in theory, you could also have a mixed rule which says 2 people per room or square footage requirements, whichever is higher or lower, right?

Correct. The question then becomes how complex you want to make this for enforcement. Yeah, we could. You can have multiple layers, but the more complexity you add, the harder it's going to be for both our licensing official to determine occupancy at the time we issue the license. I think it would be beneficial at the time the license is issued is to set that occupancy limit. So, what I'd want to see happen is applicant comes in and says, so, if we've decided the bedroom route, my home has 6 bedrooms. Determine occupancy at that time and issue an occupancy limit on the license itself. Or if we're going under square footage, that we have the square footage, we corroborate it with the Utah County land records. We have an agreement as to how many square footage qualifies, and then we determine occupancy at that time and print it on the license.

And then we could see How the operators advertise for that space, right?

Yes.

Because, so how do you, how do you prevent people from counting couches as places to sleep? Like, if you have a home that has bedrooms, but it has a whole bunch of gathering areas, large rooms, what, how would you recommend you then Stop 20 people from being there.

So, if you were to— if you were to go for the option of bedroom, what we'd want to do is define bedroom and occupancy per bedroom. As other cities have done this, you look at about 100 square feet and you say a room that's 100 square feet or larger, that is a bedroom. You could put 2 people in that. Anything between 70 and 99 square feet, House 1 person in that bedroom. Anything below 70 square feet, um, I would not want us to define that as a bedroom, because what you end up starting doing is having homes segregated into small zones to add occupancy.

Closet under the stairs.

You end up with Harry Potter STRs.

But would you ever add window? Like, to be a bedroom, you gotta have a window legally.

Fire code, you do.

And a closet.

And a closet. I mean, do we have a definition of bedroom?

I guess maybe that's most, most, uh, building code.

You say we do?

Yes, building code. Yes, but most other short-term rental regulations, when we're talking about occupancy, they aren't throwing in an egress window. They're not throwing in a closet requirement. They're talking square footage.

But if we say bedroom, then we know we've covered the safety. issue of risk.

Oh, yeah, I mean, it would—

we would definitely have to— we would want to address that. The problem is, is we don't police fire code in residential facilities.

If they're getting licensed, we could go inspect.

Okay, any other questions so far on this? Okay. Um, as we look at what makes up a single family, again, you could really end up with a large group as long as the— as long as you have somebody who is related by a qualifying relationship under our code, um, that covers all of the occupants, that would count as a single family. So if you had a great-grandparent there, you had all of the posterity off of the great-grandparent, all of that would qualify as a single family. As you get to the cousin level, though, if you only had 2 cousins coming to rent an STR, cousin and cousin, and nobody higher up that then relates, those cousins would not qualify as a single family. That is where our code delineates and box out single family. But as long as you have 2 brothers or a brother and a sister and then their posterity, then everybody below that still counts as a single family. Does that make clear sense how that works? So again, you still end up with larger groups under the single family definition above and beyond what we would count for the unrelated individuals. I want to come back to this, and I would like to hear the council's thoughts about the different respective approaches on how to address occupancy within short-term rentals.

Can I ask what your recommendation is? Legally, what is What is easiest to maintain and justify and enforce and all of that?

So there are a couple different ways to, to address that question. I think one is from the area of enforcement, as you have an officer responding or a neighborhood improvement team member responding, the clearer that we can make the ordinance, The easier it is for enforcement. The minute we get into multiple tiers of complexity, the harder it is. So, going back to, you know, what I was taught early on in high school is keep it simple, stupid. The simpler we can keep something, the clearer that we can have the expectations to the public.

It's difficult for us to determine your relationship Is a family.

Yeah, get that app out that we— what is it?

Ancestry family tree.

So think about that.

You're the officer coming to— I'm saying me and Mark Cousins are related. Sure, prove otherwise.

So that's the difficulty.

So you're kind of saying 8, a number?

I'm just—

I'm, I'm letting you know that it's difficult to enforce that.

Please, on the license, I, I've had experience enforcing family occupancy in different relationships quite a bit in previous city. You can come up with a definition on the license. It can go through a process and be determined. And that's fairly straightforward because we can go do an inspection. We can see, count the number of bedrooms if you want to do it by bedroom. We can do that. If you want to do a global limit, we can do that. The simpler it is, the easier it is for us to do it.

That's—

That's this much. The big rest of the iceberg is the actual enforcement. A call comes in and a complaint, and when an officer goes to the door, they will have no idea how many people are there. They can ask. And believe it or not, people will say, if the limit is 8, it will be 8. That will be the answer you'll get. And because they will know, that's the difficult part of occupancy. If you're hoping to enforce short-term rentals based on occupancy, it is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, job for the police to do.

Can we do— you've separated out occupancies on square footage. Can we do a bedroom calculation only? Is that— I don't see that option up there. Not—

we could do it.

So just say if you've got 6 bedrooms, 12 people.

You could take that approach as well.

Just remove the cap and just say how many are in the— how many bedrooms are there in the house? And then we know that there are this many.

But does that open us up for—

You could potentially end up with getting, you know, bedrooms, more bedrooms built within a home to add occupancy.

Well, if it's on the license, I mean, if that's predetermined and inspected, this is how many bedrooms, and there's 2 per bedroom. This is your max. Yes, everybody understands that.

Owner, city.

But it knows that's your max.

Does that open us up for group homes? Using that same definition to be able to fight for them to have more occupancy.

Yeah, so, as I indicate here, both on the bedroom side, as well as the square footage, the minute we start increasing occupancy above what we've allowed for other uses within our code, that opens us up to, are we treating vacationers? Better than we would be treating other members of the public that have a right to residence in our residential zones. That could be group homes, that could be sober living facilities. That could be just generally our unrelated individuals that we limit to 3. Um, there's a whole spectrum there that we're gonna have to consider.

So this would impact our long-term rental.

As well, possibly.

We would have to decide if we say, well, you know what, it's— I'm not a lawyer, but we discussed this yesterday, Jake and I did, saying that the argument that, well, I'm only renting out 10 days a month or 15 days a month. So the impact is less than if it's a long-term rental. Their way, it's— that's what we get to decide as a council is. What, what level of risk do we take? And can I, can I just, can I just add something that we talked about yesterday too? Yesterday I met with 2 different families, several different people about, about short-term rentals. And one of the discussions we had was about occupancy. And you're probably going to go back to the option 3 at some point, which is the occupancy solely square footage. Uh, but we would— I think something, if that's something that we're interested in doing, in order to avoid the concern that the legal staff has as far as sober living and short-term rentals, we as a council, if that's an option we want to look at, for example, the option 3, 1 person per 800 square feet for specific estates. We have to be comfortable with that applying to other uses as well. So, if somebody were to have a sober, a 6,000 square foot sober living facility, we would— and we said our standard was 1 per 800 square feet.

It would be—

we would have to apply that same. We could apply whether they would do it or not. That would be up to them as far as what their state requirements are and what best practices are for their for the treatment and things like that. But as we discussed, really the only way to do option 3, I think, to do safely, if that's something we want to do, is we're going to need to go in with the understanding that we can't single out short-term rentals. Am I explaining that correctly?

Yeah.

So, I would—

how I would boil that down is if you are interested in allowing vacationers to occupy residential homes at a higher occupancy rate. As a council, you've got to be willing to review and consider increasing your occupancy rate for other uses in residential zones.

I think there's one caveat to that that may be that we probably would enforce STRs differently. They're subject to regular inspections. They're subject to specific parking and other requirements that maybe the long-term rentals aren't, which may make them an exception.

No, that— well, that's not true because we, we, uh, sober living homes are subject to inspection regularly. I mean, that's the concern. It's not long-term rentals that we're necessarily—

The restrictions that we would place on the use as far as, um, you know, inspections or occupied really comes down to, are you allowing an occupancy rate that is different than another occupancy rate? And does that create any sort of facial challenge to our ordinance? Does that create any other sort of discriminatory treatment to any group of individuals?

I thought it was if we classified these as transient facilities versus residential or long-term occupancy, which group home or any other category might be, that I feel like those are different rules. Is that not the case?

Again, under the FHA and the ADA, they're not going to look at it that way.

They will look at it as transient home.

Uh, this is going back to the question that you posed to us, and I really appreciate the way that you outlined a variety of options here. And I appreciate the feedback as well. I would like to avoid a one-size-fits-all policy, right? Because I think that our potential properties that do this vary widely in terms of space and bedrooms and all those things. And I'd like to recognize that they're quite different from each other. I'm also very hesitant to have special carve-outs for For people who are related, just because of the enforcement issues. I just, I can see from Gary and that, that's just a nightmare. And it's just, I don't know how you would necessarily enforce that. So I guess I would be interested in exploring either 2 people per bedroom or a square foot model. When you had those 2 different models up there, maybe, yeah, right there. So it feels weird to me on the far right one that we would have a 2-bedroom condo of 800 square feet that can only have 2 people, right? If it's a couple, maybe that other bedroom is vacant. That seems off to me. But I also recognize, right, that you might have a 6-bedroom, very large property where 8 just doesn't make sense. And so in that case, either the multiple bedrooms or the square footage, I think, is a much better way of measuring density of occupancy of that property and I know that that adds some potential complications to our lives because of the way that we define occupancy in other types of venues. But being able to have something that feels equitable in terms of the space that's available and the density of occupancy of that space makes sense to me.

So are you saying no 8-person cap?

Yes.

So you're not concerned about the sober living?

I believe that if a space is large enough, right, that people can occupy it in an appropriate space. I'm not worried about who's in there.

Tell you what just happened in our neighborhood. We have a sober living home. It used to be men, now it's women. Had 4 of them come to our church with us, were introduced to them there, um, and that's how we knew it was women, not men anymore. And there was a concern by one of them, reached out to, um, um, someone in our board, um, that said owner has delivered 4 more mattresses and he's finishing the basement. Right now we have 8 people, and he's talking about adding 4 more people. There is 1 kitchen. There are 2 bathrooms, and they're very small. It was an older home. These, you know, that is that. You help us with that. So we have another one just up the street a little ways that is autism, children with autism. I would hate to see this similar thing happen there, because at that situation, in that situation, if we have them where they finish the basement, they add more bedrooms, we don't, we don't have the 8-person cap. That results in a lower standard of care for that type of home for the, for the tenants, a potential for a lower standard of care for the tenants in that type of home. So if they had 12 children, with autism, and they're able to do that because of what we do here with an intent, the good intent to help someone who's trying to short-term rental more square footage. We're putting other people at risk unintentionally, I believe. So that's why I'm— I kind of tend to lean with our recommendation from our legal staff. The 8-person cab. So we don't go down that road, which will potentially be very harmful to these ladies. What's happened to them? We had to stop it. Or to this other home. Now, I don't know of all the homes, but I do know of those 2. Um, foreseeable outcome. The one was actually going to happen. So he would have been out of— maybe that would have been caught. They were putting 12 where they can only have 8. But maybe not. And then, of course, if then we allow this, it would have been okay thing for them to do according to—

You think the space in that facility is large enough that—

Just putting it on bedrooms, they're qualifying that as a bedroom. I mean, I know my house, a 1980s split-level house, the bedrooms are very, very small. Has a window, has a closet.

I can barely fit a bed, a bedroom, much less a dresser and everything.

So I'm hearing maybe square foot is better.

I don't think we— I'm not comfortable with going beyond the occupancy because the can of worms that it opens up for our long-term rentals, for sober living, for any of these home-type situations. We are putting that burden on neighborhoods to bear that burden for a business. It's a hard burden to bear. And it's, it's not a great— you're right, it is a one-size-misfits-all problem. But that's the problem we have when we're putting business in a residential zone. It's not gonna fit. That's why there's different zoning.

And there was a large home in my— I just thought of another one in my brother's neighborhood that he used to live in, in PG. A large home was purchased, and everyone was excited for a new family, and it became a sober living home. And same thing, they ended up finding they were only supposed to have 8, but they had 12 and sometimes 14 people in the house. And every time the neighbors had to say, well, that's a new face, or, you know, they had to—

Who's that?

You know, I just don't think that's fair. To have to be put in that situation because we're trying to help a business owner, a commercial enterprise in a residential neighborhood succeed.

I do have some— sorry, I do have some additional thoughts just in terms of what we're trying to accomplish with this. Um, but I'm willing to save them, Jake, if you want to still focus on occupancy limits specifically for now. Are you on this topic, Jeff?

Yes.

So, question. So, I think a bigger concern than short-term rentals is long-term rentals where we have multiple people living in the same house.

Right?

You know, hear this from people constantly. We have this house that's— it's a long-term rental. And we don't know how many people are there, but there are cars coming and going constantly. And, and I know that's a major problem for the NIT folks. Impossible to keep up with. That's aside from short-term rentals. Um, so are you saying that if we change the occupancy for this, then those long-term rentals, that actually opens up for more people to cram into a home?

It depends. Um, how I would answer that question is, if we were to adopt a scaling Version for short-term rentals. And we have a flat numerical cap for long-term rentals. It does open up some legal arguments to be had as to the validity of our cap on our long-term rentals.

That's how I'd answer that question, Jeff.

So, I know, I know that that's, that's always a concern is we have 5 couples living in this house, and there are 10 cars in the driveway and on the street. I mean, there's just— there's no parking in the street because of that. That's a continual concern, nothing to do with short-term rentals. These are people that live there. They're students, they're families, they're multiple families. And so that— thank you for that. Um, but I, yeah, I would have a concern if we're opening that to—

Parking is a separate issue, right?

Parking is a completely separate issue.

So even with a larger property, if we allow them to host more people, we could still put all kinds of parking requirements to keep everybody off the street. That would be the case in your case too.

Yeah, I think I'm just— if I can just go back to— I'm just saying I'm not comfortable with saying, okay, right now we have this many people in this home, single-family home. But now we're going to, we're going to add a few more layers on top of that. So I'm not saying one way or the other. I'm just saying that's, that's a bit of a red flag to me.

Are you saying we go to the 3 or more than 3 unrelated like we have in our long-term rentals?

No, I'm just saying to me, that's a bigger problem. That's a bigger fish to fry than short-term rentals because I hear about that continually. And I know again that the neighborhood team, it's just something that's impossible for them to keep up with. And so it's just kind of always out there bubbling and brewing that we have these long-term renters, and we don't really know. Kind of the same concerns. We don't know how many there are. We don't know how they're related, if they're related. And, and so I just would hate to Add to that?

I think that's one of my biggest worries, is that as we are trying to make something for short-term rentals, we are going to be messing with what is allowed for long-term rentals. We all know that that's a big issue in the city right now, and the enforcement— I see BJ like shaking his head, you know, he's got thoughts on this— because the enforcement arm, that's the most difficult part of this. We can make all the rules that we want and it's not going to matter because people are still going to to do what people do, which is walk right past those rules. And then we put it on our amazing officers to try and figure out how to enforce that.

The other side of that coin, though, to me is it seems to me that the short-term rentals play by the rules better than the long-term rentals. As far as the owner-occupied, they're there, they're on top of it. Where short-term rentals— I mean, we have a home in our neighborhood. I mean, a long-term rental. The guy lives in Vegas and he doesn't know what happens there. We have a better idea of what's happening there than he does.

And that's—

I feel like the— I feel like because of the requirements of Airbnb and VRBO and the fact that you have to If you're gonna, if you're gonna have success, you have to hit a certain level of professionalism in that, in those rentals that I feel like it's, it's a little bit of a different animal than a long-term rental where, you know, they're there.

And I don't even think we should be talking about them.

I know, I, and I'm different here. They're 2 totally different things that we would even consider anything.

Is occupancy, right? In regard— so I feel like we're getting into the weeds here because the 8, the whole topic I think that Jake's trying to say is that 8 count can be probably— if we exceed the 8 count, that can be problematic from a federal litigation standard.

And my— and yes, we did go into the weeds for a minute, but my point was That was my question is, where does this take?

No, I understand what your question is. I'm not going to impact the other things. We're not talking about long-term rentals. They impact each other. What's the relationship of the impact? I know Jen had a comment, then I have a question.

Well, I guess just to tag along with what Jeff and Quinn were talking about, it's just the way that we regulate STRs is a lot different than how we would regulate a long-term rental. So, you know, with an STR, you'd have inspections and parking minimums and work maximums and permits and local contact and all of those things. And we could suspend the license, you know, where we couldn't really do that with long-term. So, like, I think Renee was saying also, they're just different animals that maybe don't bear comparing. But to that point, I also agree with Quinn. I think that though the one-size-misfits-all, I think that's a great fit either. I think that based on occupancy, you know, like in your example here, a 2,400-square-foot home, have the same occupancy as a 6,000-square-foot home. Essentially, you know, I like— I don't love that. So I would tend to side with— let's go with a simple, easy 2 per bedroom, move on. Just my input.

So is all of this— as I think back on your first slide, this is about non-owner occupied, right? Or can this be applied to owner occupied?

It can also be applied to owner occupied.

Okay, thank you.

So, whatever we apply to short-term rentals, though, have to realize that it will be applied to long-term.

Not necessarily law enforcement, but other—

So legally, it could be challenged in that way.

Does open up some arguments there. Whether those arguments are going to be valid or not, I don't know.

That makes me uncomfortable.

Does open potential lines for argument.

Sometimes you get up your 6,000, 7,000 square foot homes, and you don't necessarily have more bedrooms.

Right.

Older homes with your really nicer amenities. So, so your square foot— what I'm trying to say there is I don't think square footage is a good measure. I think that misfits all. I think you've got to look at bedrooms. Then we, we are considering the safety that, that Chief was talking about. Um, so here's the balance. Bedrooms for me, bedrooms and, and the 8 max. I'm very concerned about the sober living issue because I've seen it in my area, and I guess maybe I live different place than you guys do, but it's in my area and I've seen it. So I think we need to be respectful of people who live in those kinds of areas and recognize that it can be difficult to maintain a certain standard of a neighborhood. If we get to that, that's—

Chris, if I could impose and maybe ask what your thoughts are.

Yeah, I think probably the bedroom would be more of my limit per bedroom.

Whatever, more than 8, whatever that limit is.

I, I'm— that would be my, my enforcement would be bedroom. I'm gonna have to find out about whatever's larger than. And also, there's— I would also think that there would need to be some maximum, whatever that is, some maximum occupancy limit.

Is that what I'm understanding?

Maximum occupancy limit, but also number of bedrooms up to the maximum would be. Um, that's where I'm leaning. The concerns that I have is Um, there's 2 sides to it. You have a family of 30 that's coming in for a family reunion. They're all related. That's a grandma and all of her other grandkids. And, um, the issue with, like, group homes or sober living, they're living there for longer than 3 to 5 days. So can you set— you can be there for up to 30 people for— they're all family related, up to 3 days. More than that, the maximum is whatever.

That's so—

that's just my thinking outside the box, but just saying, I have empathy towards the family wanting to go do a family reunion. I also have empathy for— because I have that same group home experience. The maximum was 8, and I went to the city council meeting 15 years ago when we had that issue.

Again, if I could just maybe just so I have a clear understanding where everybody is, if I could have everybody just restate what their thoughts and where they may feel comfortable with it. Jeff, if I could start with you.

So I'm— I right now I feel comfortable with the 2 per room.

With any limitation or no limitation?

With limitation. And I, and I I don't have— I guess so, a larger home that has 4 bedrooms, and I appreciate what Lynette's saying, because some, some of those homes have a theater room and they have a, you know, they have lots of other amenities and things. But, um, I like— I think I feel comfortable with 2 and then a maximum See, Quint.

The choices we've looked at today, I think the square footage one resonates most with me. I think that's the most customizable to the property. I might also be open to 2 per bedroom. Not comfortable with a limit of 8. I just think that that doesn't fit a lot of Our larger properties.

That's a good question about that. I mean, and I'm not— I'm just— this is a legitimate question. How many groups of 8 people, more than 8 people together to stay together in a facility? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that, and I don't know that there is an answer to that, but I did— I think it's a—

I've been part of family reunions where we've rented an area.

But family reunions are different.

Right? I'm not a fan of discriminating between family and non-family. Those are the enforcement issues. So I think that's just really hard to do. So I—

Well, that's a good point.

I've stayed in a— I mean, the best family reunions I've ever been to were in an Airbnb that hosted 30 people. I mean, it was magical.

So—

All right.

Was that for a family? Was that a family reunion, family gathering?

It was a family reunion.

And that is, again, why we have talked about the overlapping of having the single family as an option, which would increase that occupancy for a single family provision. But yes, does it create enforcement issues?

It does.

And then, Quinn, you said something of the options you've looked at today. Is there something else that's out there that you're thinking that might be a better solution?

Specifically on occupancy or picture? Well, I think if I was to design one right now, I would say That 2 people per bedroom, right? Up to 4 bedrooms or something like that. And then if the property is a much larger property, then you could have a square footage thing that kicks in or additional bedroom thing that kicks in. I'd be comfortable with that.

One thing to understand again is, and I understand, I'll let everybody speak, and then I want to clarify something.

Janet. I would support either of the options Quinn suggested. I would also support 2 per bedroom, and I think an important thing to point out here too is it would be limited by parking capacity. So you have, you know, 2 per bedroom, and then whatever the max parking capacity is, which will be a limiting factor.

Right.

And that's it.

My parking would be definitely have to be—

We might not have enough parking to have 2 per bidder.

Yes, that's right.

And I have the rooms, but you don't have the parking.

But then you're not going to have like 30 people when you only have 2 spots. I think that's just a natural—

I'm not comfortable with any ordinance that spills parking into the street.

That's a question right there. Chris just said, unless they're bringing a bus, and we saw a bus at the BYU— I have a picture on my phone of the bus at the BYU house. Of the volleyball team.

I would say that's just not a one-off event either. We've seen that in other properties.

One at the Aspen House too.

There's the adult house.

Names for all of these.

Is there anything that you want to add beyond your bedrooms, the bedrooms and a max 8?

Yeah, so. Documented bedrooms, legal safety bedrooms, you know, square footage. I like that idea where we are defining what a bedroom is, that it has a window.

Yeah.

That, yeah, I just can't get past the 8 because I've seen that, and that just, you know, we do it and we have zero control and are subject to federal standards. I hope everybody understands that. Then are subject to federal standards that happened in my brother's neighborhood. I mean, you know, it's gonna be— and I mean, I know when we've had the one home, my second year on the council, Jeff, I think you're there where they had the autism home over on Center Street. Center Street, and it was totally legal. Everything was great, and more than 8, and the emails we got and the pushback we got. And we have zero control over that. It's the federal standards. Um, but the neighbors were very concerned to have— um, who is a neighbor? Have a commercial enterprise in their neighborhood. So I, I would love to be compassionate here. I would love to be— no, I would love to provide family union spots for families in Orem. But I have to really go with protecting our neighborhoods, protecting our residents who bought homes in areas anticipating residential use. And I don't know, this is a new thing, right? When I grew up, we rented a hotel room and we slept in sleeping bags on the floor. 7 kids.

Oh my God.

Not rich.

We were a very poor family. So we made it work, you know, and it was fun. And when I traveled with friends before we had kids, We wouldn't get a hotel room. We would go in somebody's room and play cards, and then when it was time to go to sleep, we would go to our hotel rooms. It worked great. You know, when I went on family reunions, stay with, with family members, um, their homes, or stay in hotels. You know, it's worked for years and years and years. This is a new thing, and I just feel like, oh, I just have such— well, I really appreciate that experience and that opportunity. I don't see a need to impose upon neighborhoods and the Privacy and sanctity of people who— that's their biggest investment in their life is their home. And the connections that they are making with their neighbors are very, very important. So that's kind of where I am. I, I think that person here, and I'm sounding like I am because I know I got these people sitting behind me, right? And I get it. But I just have to say, this is what I'm, I'm struggling with, but I have to come down on principle and safety and neighborhood protections and residents and You know, legal, legal exposure, all of that.

Crystal?

I'm more on the numerical cap. Unless the courts change precedence on the fair housing type things, that's a can of worms that I'm not willing to open up in our city.

Mayor?

Oh, okay.

I'm here making notes. I have a couple of questions before I end. You might not know the answer before I say what I'm at right now. Where did the number 8 come from?

So, number 8, and I don't have all of the history here. Steve probably worked on that original sober living facility ordinance long before I graduated from law school.

Um, but not to put you on the spot. Do you know what? And what's horrible is I was on the city council at the time. I'm like, Steve, why did we do this? I was 8.

But I believe, and again, correct me where I'm wrong, Steve, I believe you can remember that.

I can't. I just admitted I can't remember that long ago.

Where I believe is there was, there was conversations, there were studies, there were concerns about what the therapeutic level So it was a few benefits, and Orem decided that 8 was gonna be that magic number based on therapeutic value of a group home and a sober living facility. That's where that number came from.

Steve, if—

Yeah, one other thing I'd add to that is some of the thought, not just in Orem, but throughout the country dealing with— we're talking about residential group homes. So group homes that are in residential neighborhoods, typically in single-family homes. We're not talking about group homes that are in, you know, we have some commercial, more commercial-like institutional type facilities. And, uh, as Jake mentioned, 8 is a standard that's been therapeutically effective, financially viable, but it's also one that's been commonly, uh, determined— a number that fits into a residential neighborhood without changing the character of the neighborhood. There's, there's been a concern, there is a historical concern—

Oh my goodness.

—when you start getting larger and larger numbers of residents in a group home, You also have more staff members. You also have more services being provided. It starts to look more— less like a residential facility and more like an institutional facility. So that's where that 8 number kind of— for the 8 for group homes kind of comes from.

Good job. Okay, thank you. Even though you're that old.

Not bad for an old guy.

And so, this is a kind of a correlated question. Do the state regulations for group homes and sober living Facilities, do they have a square footage requirement? I'm wondering.

I believe the state does have requirements for group homes, uh, square footage requirements. I don't remember what those are. They're fairly— I think they're fairly lenient, to be honest with you.

Okay, they're like 80. Yeah, 80 square feet.

80 square feet, pretty lenient.

So it's okay.

Okay.

Well, all right, so I like the bedrooms. Owner occupied only. That's something that I didn't— I think that I don't— but that was part of the discussion. But I—

But you're bringing up the previous.

Thank you for that.

That's— I don't envision this being something in a non-owner occupied situation. I'm struggling. I might be able to go feel like we could raise the cap a tiny bit, a couple maybe. But again, I don't, I don't know. I'm a little distant here that it's 80. But I do, I do like the bedroom.

So, Mayor, if I can clarify that the number that the state— that's just for the purposes of their licensing. That's not something that we have to follow.

Oh, I know. I would— what I was, what I was thinking was, what if sober living homes required You know, my higher number of square feet that we could— that would make it to where— never mind, I'm not gonna say it, but it would change, probably change the situation.

So, uh, that's—

I'm struggling with this, some of the Silver Living and their group homes. I have, I have no— I want to have some flexibility because I do believe that one size misfits all. But I'm struggling with how to, how to deal with the universal applicability of that.

So, Jake, maybe one clarification. We're talking about short-term rentals in residentially zoned areas. This would not preclude the council from Approving in a commercial zone, uh, basically a facility that had different occupancy levels that did more like hospitality, but had maybe a residential feel in the design and look.

Right now, what we're talking about solely is residential zones. If, if in a future Uh, project, you wanted to look at allowing them in a commercial zone or creating a hospitality zone where we'd have different standards. We could absolutely have that conversation in a— and put standards that are different and separate and distinct from those that would be occurring in a residential zone. Um, something else I want to also clarify is, you know, as we talk about bedrooms, Um, I do want to just make sure the council is going into this with eyes wide open. Is if you had a, you know, a 6,000 square foot home, you had a large basement, and that basement was a wider open space. You may have applicants coming in to refurbish or change the footprint within the home to add bedrooms to increase that occupancy. I just want to make sure that. You're going into a bedroom calculation, understanding that that maybe is used to increase occupancy with that in that internal structure of the home. Next, I'm running out of time, unfortunately.

Clarify, I'm not— I don't want to do the bedrooms. I'm 8 only.

The next thing I want to speak about is Is parking, and, and I understand again that this is one of those areas where there may not be a lot of consensus, but we may be close. But really is one, I think the one where there is consensus from the group is we would require that tenants of short-term rentals park off street. They are not using on-street spots to park and to facilitate the rental of the short-term rental. The next area I'd like to talk about, though, is as we, as we have them submit a parking plan, what would count as potential parking spots? Tandem parking or not?

Is that—

is that something that the council would want to restrict? And by that, I mean, as you can see from the example, if you have 2 spots, but they're front and back, does that count as 2 spots, or does that count as 1 spot? Or do you want to go based on width? So a spot and a spot and a spot as you go across horizontally. Are there any strong feelings one way or the other?

I love the idea that if they can fit it in the footprint of their driveway and their garage, then it's fine. As long as it's not spilling over onto the sidewalk, whatever, they can play Jenga however they want to, and it's up to the STR owner to manage that. And if they don't, then they lose a license. But I think That's fair.

I lived in a place that had tandem parking. My husband and I had to park behind each other, and we did not on the street because it, you know, honey, come move your car so I can back out. It's always a problem. And I think that's the nature of short-term rental tenants, is they're coming and going a lot of times, and they're going to be on the street. And how will you know if that's them? Once again, we're putting the onus on our residents to then report.

This is kind of a crap question, but not quite on this. How realistic is it to have a parking plate result in an official strike if we went with a 3-strike rule or whatever it is, and having their license taken away? Like, is that a hard thing to accomplish once we have an ordinance, or is that—

I think, again, it depends on the circumstances, right? I mean, if we have— as well, we've— as we've talked to different neighbors of STRs that have made complaints, the refrain always is, if there is an active nuisance, Please call it in while it's active. While it's active, if it's during the 8 to 5 hours, we can have an NIT team member go out there and, and respond. Do a knock on the STR, identify what that vehicle is. We could run the license plate. We could understand that it doesn't belong to any of the neighboring homes. You collect a witness statement from the neighbor saying it's not one of our vehicles. You could have an off— a uniformed officer offside of hours do the same thing. Again, we would then go through the ALJ. Some of them are really obvious. I mean, again, when we've had a school bus park in a neighborhood and they parked and they take up that parking, that's really obvious. Other times it's going to be a little bit less obvious. So again, I'm going to give you the attorney answer of it really just depends on the circumstances.

Are pictures submitted by neighbors considered Evidence. So it doesn't have to be corroborated by an officer coming out there and looking at it, but a picture would suffice.

Again, it comes down to— I mean, part of it is when neighbors say, I don't want to necessarily be involved. Well, the way to not have the neighborhood neighbor be involved is we have the NIT officer go out, collect the photo. But Aaron, yeah, prosecuted these. Yeah, so I often do the enforcement on this and often receive photos from neighbors, and photos are helpful.

But they're not always sufficient.

And what I mean by that is, there can be a photo of a vehicle out in front of that STR, but how do we know that that vehicle belongs to the tenant of that STR as opposed to someone who's visiting a neighbor across the street or something, right?

And so photos are good.

If there's video showing them park it and go inside the STR, that's better, right? It depends.

So I have— so I don't like the tandem back to the parking, but if someone had a side and they could do angle to get people to— so then you could have someone in the driveway have a problem with that. No, if they're all off street, there's no tandem moving to cars. Um, but to that point, I will tell you, I had I have had residents call me and say they have called our dispatch trying to get someone to go out, and dispatch— the police are busy doing other things.

Important things, right?

So I don't know, um, if we would then consider just hiring, you know, have code enforcement officers that are available 24/7 to make sure that we always had someone available to go out and to you know, get the evidence that we needed to so we can honor the, the, the, you know, the call from the resident.

And, and I understand the situation you're talking about because I believe that resident also then texted me, and at about 11:45 at night, I called the watch commander and had them send out a uniformed officer. Uh, we've done training memos, we've worked through the dispatch on that, so, um, Again, we've— again, we don't necessarily want to use uniformed officers to enforce a civil mechanism. So the idea is, again, officer would go out, collect the initial information, and then refer it over to NIT to do the follow-up.

And that's kind of the thing is, I really don't want to put our officers— they're busy. They're busy doing other things. This is so low. on the duties of a police officer to protect our citizens, right? Um, so to me, the answer is we have to somehow, um, have code enforcement so you're not getting texts at 11:45 at night. But, or, you know, how are we going to handle that when that happens?

Because that is a concern, and it's very hard for our residents to I just need for y'all to talk me through how, how would this work with owner occupied? Because in a tandem parking, you might have a garage. And then let's say you have 3 people living upstairs, owner and spouse and kid, and then your, your separate STR might be 2 bedrooms. So they would have to have We would have to have the separate— so within this footprint of garage and driveway, you would have to have the parking that would be for them, right? And then in this, in the 2-bedroom additional, 2 off-street parking spaces. I'm trying to—

that's what it sounds like—

figure it, figure this out.

It does create, you know, either I don't necessarily want to say this in a public meeting, but it could be gamed too by owner occupied. The owner could then park in the street and the short-term renter parks in the driveway. Yeah, it can be gamed.

The owner can park in the street anyway.

Right. And that's why we wouldn't control it. We can't control that. So, again, the idea is you'd want to put some sort of effective way to try to incentivize enforce that parking to come off the street. So, is there any strong feelings about tandem parking or not? I guess it would be the question I posed to the group.

My perspective is, if it's off the street, I'm okay.

Yeah, that's where I'm at as well. If it's garage or driveway, if it's off the street, or if they create a little parking off to the side, I'm okay with that.

Again, I'm the same.

I don't like tandem.

I don't have a strong opinion.

Okay, thank you.

What, Chris?

Well, I apologize.

Same as left me.

Tandem's okay as long as it's out of the way and it's off the street. So same off the street.

Oh, my brain, it just, it left my brain again. Okay, so we're talking, we talked about last week that we're not talking about room sharing. Correct. Are we talking about a separate STR? Because then, because I'm like, okay, if we're going to do shared rooms, and we do have to do the number of bedrooms, including the primary bedroom of the owner, and that— Because I, I did not like it. I decided it's not for me. But one time I stayed at an Airbnb where I'm just one of the fam, and they had, you know, I could go use the kitchen, and they had their master bedroom, and the sister lived there. And they rented out a couple of rooms, and it wasn't— this is my cup of tea. But how would you— so we decided last week, I thought, that that wasn't— that that was more of a boarding house kind of situation, and that was not something that we were— I just want to make sure that I have an understanding that that was what the conclusion we came to.

So, Mayor, that is a natural lead-in to the next slide.

Oh, great segue.

Oh, but you're—

but you know what, our time's about up, but do you mind if we keep going a bit more?

Are you—

do you need a break or anything? Don't worry, we'll get to— I know we've got Brandon and Taggart and Thane. Hang in there with us, friends.

So, um, we've heard the concerns and just what you articulated is, do you want to engage in room sharing where, um, an individual just rents a room within the residential home itself? on Airbnb or VRBO, or you want it more formalized where this ends up being a separate dwelling unit. Basement, an apartment over the garage, some type of designated segregated space within the home or the footprint of the home that is rented as though it were an accessory apartment or an ADU. But on a short-term rental basis, if you were to do that more formalized process, what we would recommend is that we have an accessory apartment permit required as part of doing the short-term rental. What are the thoughts and concerns from the council as to that process? I'm going to start with Chris on this time since I've been picking on Jeff. No concern.

I like the idea to eliminate the boarding house. I prefer it to have some form of accessory so that they're separate and distinct. And when you come as a short-term rental user, you have a defined space that's yours for that permitted time.

I like having an accessory dwelling as well. One of the concerns I've heard from some people who have those is that Am I gonna have to every time? I, I have some people who have accessory dwelling apartment type things that they sometimes short-term rental and sometimes don't. Like, do I have to re-get that every time? And I'm in my head, it's, you know, you have the accessory dwelling one, and then if you want to short-term rental it, then you'd have to have that permit as well. And that's— You can come and go with that as needed upon availability or whatever we decide. Is that correct?

There would be a— there would be, in essence, a duplicate layer here. First, as you attend, you obtain your ADU or accessory apartment permit.

And then if you want to do—

if you want a short-term rental, you obtain your short-term rental license.

Now, I think we—

didn't we, Jeff, try to think? They only have to get that once. They don't have to get a license every year with an ADU, right? They just have to certify once.

You get the ADU.

Not double.

Yeah, once you annually renew to renew.

Yeah, so it is. Yeah, definitely want a separate place. I think there's more protection for there and better enforcement, easier enforcement. Yeah, helps the standard of Airbnb or STR. Yeah.

Jen?

I like the idea that there's separate spaces to live in, but whether that's the owners live in the basement and they're on the top floor, or vice versa, or whatever combination that is, I don't have strong feelings about that. I do worry about the financial burden it might place on families depending on how it's organized and how you write the legislation. I think it could disproportionately impact middle-income homeowners and also older housing stock, and those are the people that often are renting those units out. for the financial reasons. And so I don't want to penalize them. So, depending on how it's constructed, and requiring a specific ADU license, I think I'm not totally a fan of, but maybe an ADU permit or some kind of permit that may be a little bit different, I would be in favor of.

Wait, I didn't understand what you said. So, yes or no, right?

If I can reframe that, maybe, um, the question I, I think, Shannon, let me make sure I understand your concern is, let's say the STR Operator wants to live in the ADU, they obtain an ADU permit, and they live in the ADU and wanted to STR out the main dwelling portion of it. That main dwelling portion isn't necessarily subject to the ADU permit. And then there's also concern that by adding that duplicative layer of licensing, it may price out middle-income families.

Yes.

To both those things. Is that correct?

Yes.

But wait, how does it price them out? It's the same.

There's gonna be an additional fee.

There's fees for each of those.

You pay ADU fee once, and then you pay the STR fee. That's what I was talking about that Chris and I did. It is the only annual one would be the STR. The ADU is not an annual fee.

Well, maybe it depends on what kind of you're going to require for the ADU, what kind of standard that needs to be.

We already have that.

It's the current law.

It's the current law. We changed that.

And how many other cities require ADUs?

Um, I don't have a numerical number on that off the top of my head. I do know that other cities have other licensing that is required before you obtain your STRL, like you go through conditional use permit process, or you have other permitting processes that are subject to being eligible to then get your STRL.

So I would be in favor of that. I'm not sure I'm totally in favor of an ADU.

Requirement.

Well, wait, I don't— do we have that?

We don't. We don't have that.

We don't even have that.

But I understand what you're— what you're saying. Um, so the question again, what I understand from Jen is you'd be open to, in lieu of an ADU, adopt a policy where there's a conditional use permit process. Is that correct?

Yes. And for example, let's say you have an older home that was built in 1940, and the windows in the basement don't meet current egress standards. So the owner says, well, I'm going to live in the basement of my home. I can do that, and I'm going to rent out the top floor. So he wouldn't qualify for an ADU permit, ADU, whatever license. So I don't want to penalize them because of that. That makes sense.

So, can I just speak to that? And I'm sorry, I have experience as I did insurance claims, and I saw those types of homes, and I would never want to approve that. I got a call like a couple years ago from someone in Orem that was trying to do an ADU, and he was complaining to me, they're making me cut out my windows because my windows are too small, and it's going to cost me $8,000 more to certify my ADU. And I just said to him, would you want the people that you're renting to, to possibly die in a fire because they couldn't get out the windows? Because I saw that happen. Your chief sees something like that, right?

That's why there's a fire code.

That's why there's a fire code. So I just, I, I, I don't know if that, and I'm just saying from my experience to kind of help you hear my experience, and maybe that would help you see that it sounds simple, but when you actually see it happen in real life, you understand why we have fire codes. And we don't like them because a lot of times they cost us money, but they do save lives.

Okay, Jen, anything else you want to add?

And that's fine to still have that, that opinion. I'm just, I'm just kind of, I'm not, you know, you're fine.

I totally get what you're saying. I agree with you to an extent. I think where I get a little bit thrown off is, well, by that logic, we would have to then go inspect every home in Orem and say, well, this doesn't qualify. You got to bring your home up to code. So where does that line go?

No, this is only people who want a license.

But I also think it's a little bit different when you're renting out a basement. Separate from the top, because then you can't access that top part to get out, so to speak. Does that make— and there should— I'm guessing they would have a separate entrance and exit and all that. But that's where, to me, it becomes a little bit different, is the— You've got separation of spaces there where the basement can't necessarily access the Floor as another way to get out if needed. That option's gone.

Quinn, if I could get your opinion.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not comfortable with rentals where it would be a hostel-style thing where you are renting a bed in a room with other people that you don't know. I'm not comfortable with that. I think it needs to be a space designated for the renter. If even if it's 1 room, I would be okay with that. I am worried about overregulation on this and worried about the cost of whatever part of the home receiving an ADU license. I'm also concerned about controlling which part of the home Is allowed to be rented out. I think, again, we have a lot of different families in different situations. Maybe they— their kids are gone, they have a large home, and it doesn't make sense for them to just rent out the ADU portion of the home, but maybe it makes sense for them to rent out their— the main living space. I would be cautious about overregulation here.

Thank you, Jeff.

Um, so I'm thinking of a couple of different people, uh, older seniors that, uh, have mentioned to me that they're, uh, the only way that they're able to stay in their home is because they rent out a room. I don't like that. I don't like the, you know, the the hostile— hostile sounds hostile— the, the, that situation. I, I think that everyone should have their own space. Um, I, I don't know. But at the same time, I'm concerned about— and I don't know how many people would fit into that category— but people that, you know, this is helping me make my mortgage payment, I'm in my 70s or 80s, and I'm renting out a room. You know, it's a single man who owns a home. He's renting out a room to a single— another single man who's in town on business. Um, and I don't like the consequences of him losing his home because he's not able to make that— make that income. So having said that, I think I would prefer to not have the hostile Situation. So I don't know if there's a way that they're— I don't know how you get around that. I don't know how you navigate that, thread that needle.

But—

So which one? I didn't quite understand either.

So I would prefer to not have the hostel, but at the same time, my heart goes out to those who might be in a situation where it's helping them keep their home.

He means hostel as in boarding room.

I went to yesterday.

Yeah.

The ADU, so the ADU, the separate— There's your choices.

I agree. I don't— like, in this particular situation, I wouldn't step into there. I didn't step into their kitchen. It's like, I'll just put the stairs down anyway. I don't care which part of the owner lives in, up or down, or half of the house, or half of whatever it is they do. I am comfortable with the accessory apartment permit, and this is why, because of the safety issues. that are involved. I, I under— I do want to minimize duplication of, of licensing and inspections. And if there are laws, if there are rules, I would like to— if we're writing the new ordinance, look at that accessory apartment ordinance, which I know you'll do, and do that. But I also do think too is that that creates an apartment in the dwelling that is long-term rental ready. What I can see happening is somebody doing short-term rentals for a while and then saying, I don't really want to do this anymore. I just want to rent it out. Even though a lot of times we hear from people saying the other way, that they would prefer to do short-term rentals. But then that way we're not trying to deal with what would be at that point an illegal accessory apartment because it wasn't brought up to the standard. I'm concerned, and I appreciate where you're coming from with that. I've had some, as a council member, some pretty Tough situations with conditional use permits. And personally, I would prefer not to have— I'd like to have as few of those in our ordinances as possible. And let's not talk about casitas or guest houses today, or next week, or next month, or next year. Okay, but that's sort of—

I'm out of time. I want to respect everybody else that is on the agenda today. Just to preview, I would still like to talk about a couple different areas, which is a dormancy period for short-term rentals. Um, high level is this would allow us, and we're not asking it to be consecutive days that it is dormant, but in a 30-day window that it'd be dormant for 5 days. Not consecutively, but this way it does reduce a loophole for somebody to potentially use STRs for student housing or in another way that could be not what we are foreseeing the STR use for. A legacy status, there's 4 Individuals that have obtained a rental dwelling license that may be not able to get a license given to other regulations. So please look at that for future. And then ultimately, um, a path forward with how do we bring this through Planning Commission and let Planning Commission review that, provide a recommendation, have the public have a chance to see whatever that final ordinance is, and then coming back. the council with an ordinance with any recommendations from the Planning Commission. So, I don't know when you'd like me back. Maybe you never want me to come back. I understand that.

I don't know, council. A couple of different things I would just want to ask is, do you feel we need some more work session time? That's the first piece to talk about some things I would like to discuss. The one provision that says that it has to be occupied for— if it's owner-occupied 183 days a year, I would like to see that increase. We don't end up 5+ months of the year possibly having 2 rentals. But then, um, if we— and then if the process to where the public can have ample opportunity to give feedback on a proposed ordinance. So I know that the process is to go to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. So I was— what, what, Council, what do you think about— what do you think would maximize to your, to your level of comfort the level of opportunity for public input on this? So first of all, works— do we need another work session? And second, what kind of public input process is it? Do we follow the hearing process, or do you want to have Like, in the hearing, say we're going to talk about occupancy and then take public comment, and then we're going to talk about parking and then take public comment. Or what is it that you would like to see?

That's on another work session.

Another work session.

We're done.

Yeah, we haven't talked about geofencing density.

Okay. So we want to have you back. It's very deep.

And to your point of public involvement.

Yeah, the public.

I really like that idea if we were to put on our agenda. We're going to talk about occupancy.

I mean, look at us.

We've got all these different ideas, right? So maybe if we— and we have some public comment about their experiences, their ideas, their thoughts. I think we could benefit from that.

Okay, so what you're suggesting then is—

Maybe put like what you said, occupancy. I mean, what are the big ones? Occupancy, density, parking.

And that would be separate from the public, from the agenda item where we look at the item as a whole. Okay, what do you—

Jake, we could have a public hearing in the Planning Commission. Yes. So I think that that would be beneficial to notice that so that Planning Commission can also have public feedback.

So City Council and Planning Commission. I like that idea.

So I want to get some clarity then on what our path forward is. So I'll come back for a future work session, uh, finish off the discussion with that. Hopefully, I think I've got some good ideas of where council is on different things. I would draft an ordinance.

Mm-hmm.

At that point, do you want me to come back and have a public hearing at the council level, or do you want me to first go to the Planning Commission? go through the public hearing at Planning Commission? I guess that's my question. What are those routes?

So I would think procedurally they would come to us first, and then we would tweak any ordinance, and then go to the Planning Commission, and then come back to us, uh-huh, once the Planning Commission has heard the final ordinance.

So are you saying do that in a work session, then go to the Planning Commission?

No, I'm saying have city council meeting where we Agenda items with, with a public, um, hearing where they can talk on these hot-button issues, the ones that are the most impactful to residents. Then that helps us refine the ordinance and then go to the Planning Commission, because the Planning Commission really is not gonna— they have no— for people to go and talk at Planning Commission, you would have to be there. It Planning Commission has no legislative authority on this. It's just a formality. So I think if we're going to really hear the public, we need to put— set aside time as a council to hear their opinions on specific parts of this one. Because I don't know about you, but I've had a lot of people ask me, what does the ordinance say? I don't know what to, what to ask you for. Because I don't know, and I'm like, I don't know yet. We haven't seen it. We're still formulating it. And, Lynette, are you thinking like the council meeting we would do like 2 topics a night, or you think you'd just do them all in one night, just separate them by topic? I guess I'd have to see what they were. I don't know, Jake.

You're—

I mean, the way I would anticipate, if this is the direction you'd like to go, is we could come back work session. Then I could come back for a council meeting as an agenda item, during which you could— there's no requirement to do a public hearing with that agenda item, but you could do a public hearing with that agenda item. That draft would be public and available, and individuals from the public could speak on whatever issue they have with that draft. That gives council feedback on that draft. Based on that, We could then tweak the ordinance based on that public hearing. Council, after closing the public hearing, could say, upon hearing this, we'd like to see X, Y, or Z. And then I could take it to Planning Commission and go through the Planning Commission process, go through that public hearing, and then come back to council for a final meeting. Is that—

Just a point of clarification, with the intent That everything go to Planning Commission, because some of this, there could be an ordinance amendments dealing with licensing, ordinance amendments dealing with the zoning code. Not all, not necessarily does business licensing issues go to Planning Commission. So you would want everything to go to Planning Commission because it'll just help us.

Yes, we formulate fees or You know, and that's licensing, right? Is that what you're saying? And maybe—

Our intent would be everything go through Planning Commission.

Everything. Okay.

Where do you think Planning Commission will be most helpful to us, Gary?

Well, certainly on the zoning code, those things have to go to Planning Commission. Planning Commission could be helpful on other things. But we just give you a recommendation. Our code anticipates this anyways, that anything the council, whether it's traditionally or under state law or city code, there's to deal with if you want to give assignments to Planning Commission to look at. But it— I think it could be— they could be helpful in both areas. One, they have to. The other one, they could be very helpful. It just more helps me. know how to fashion agendas and deal with those issues and present it to Planning Commission and educate them on what they would be doing. And they'll need a little bit of context. Frankly, I would imagine we'd need a work meeting with Planning Commission. It's taken how many meetings here to get some? I think we need at least 1 work meeting to bring Planning Commission up to speed. So that they can understand it and then hold a formal public hearing where people would come in and then they could make recommendations to you. So I don't think it'd just be one night, a quick thing if you want meaningful input from the— at least 2 meetings.

Yes.

So, Gary, Planning Commission would respond to the overall policy direction that would come from the city?

Yes.

We would take that and make clear.

Yeah.

Yeah. And that's what we would make clear to them is, okay, this is what's happened based on what the council did. We have a draft of several ordinances to look at. We would explain to them what they do, kind of the philosophy behind them, so that they can then read them, understand, and be able to really respond to it and then hold a public hearing. and get input. And plus, it would give them time to, once we introduce something to them, to think about it, because they may be, oh gosh, I've never thought about this. This is difficult to work through. And so I think those 2 Bs, did that answer your question?

So they would respond to an overall policy direction with, assumably, some guardrails and You know, that has something for the— that's going to be something formal and drafted, so they know where to kind of stay within. So the benefit would be they're going to respond to that to suggest or advise potential refinements, but it's— they're not going to go in— they wouldn't have the expectation to spend another year and a half.

And that would be part of that work session to explain What the council would anticipate, a work session to bring them up to speed, think about it, hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation that you cannot continue it, you know, several times, because this is a big, important issue.

And—

But this would be after we have another work session. Is that right? Can we get that scheduled as soon as we know thus far? As soon as possible.

Yeah, it's ready kind of a mode for that.

And, and just for those in the room who are visiting us this evening, this afternoon, and online, we're not trying to— we all love our attorney friend here. We're not trying to give him extra job security by making this longer. The point is, is we want the public to have ample opportunity to give input and to see what we're considering. That is, I know as a council, as I've talked to each council member, public input and opportunity for that is crucial. So that's— we're not just trying to prolong it to make anybody's lives more difficult. It's just that we want to make sure that you as a public have the opportunity to weigh in on this.

So.

So, yeah.

All right, thank you. We need a break, a brief break. Okay, we'll be back here at quarter to 5, and Integra, maybe what it has to say, ready to go.

Thanks, Jake.

All right, our next item on the agenda is item 1.3. It's a presentation of our budget present— part of our budget presentation, our CIP. And Taggart Bowen, city engineer, is our presenter. So our capital improvement project. So thank you for your patience, Taggart, as we wrestled with the other things for a while.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, like, like Mayor said, this is the presentation for Capital Improvement Project, CIP, for fiscal year '27. And we'll, we'll go through a list of projects here, many projects, dollar figures, some pictures. If you have any questions, feel free to stop me or, or ask those, and we'll get to those. I'll provide a brief description for each one and move quickly through these so we can get to the, the other preconceived notions. This first slide here is just showing all the dollar amounts for those. Um, at first we have the CIP fund, just over $5 million. That includes CARE funding for water, $5.2 million.

So that includes the $3.6 CARE?

All of CARE is not capital projects.

Okay, just the—

okay, thank you.

Uh, sewer, $8.5 million. Stormwater, $3.6 million. Then our, uh, streets fund, $5.3 million, for just under $8 million. The first project, City Center wayfinding. That includes signage. If you've seen out here by the park, got that all concrete sign. When I first saw this, I thought it was like 3 feet tall, and then I walked out there to it and Pretty big, nice sign. Also wayfinding signs. And then this is a nice sign out there on the corner. Signs like these just around City Center campus is what that item would be for. Nielsen Grove improvements would include improvements to— got some ponds there, liners for those ponds, some buildings that need maintenance. Some other things at Nielsen's Grove. RC mower, $75,000. This is that steep slope down here on Center Street. That would be a remote-controlled mower.

Pretty cool.

Wow. Make it safer. Tree planting for $150,000. This would be various areas and city-owned properties for trees. Windsor Park, all filled with dirt. would be similar to out here at City Center. Nice ball field dirt for Windsor. Bonneville Sports Court— we've put this out to bid, and that'd be, uh, replacing the current asphalt basketball court with a post-tension concrete court in Bonneville Park. Uh, this one I Didn't know what this was. This is Canyon View Park. Not that familiar with this type of project. Dog park and rainbow bridge for $85,000. Guess it's kind of like a pet cemetery, or—

Remains will be there.

Dog collar on there, or locks, or special things to memorialize the pets that passed away. And this is Canyon View Park. $15,000 for some— correcting the softball dugouts from Element 3, getting run down there, freshening those up. Now Timpanogos Event Center for $40,000, some maintenance type improvements there at Timpanogos Park. Uh, the last 2 here is— let's go back to that Community Park— $500,000 pump track. And it's a pretty, pretty cool thing over in Cook Park in Pleasant Grove. If you've been there and familiar with that, the kids love these pump tracks. They're really popular. These are just examples of what could go in there, and that's a community park. Another project at Springwater would be right down there by the treatment plant with a RC track and then a pump track option there. The last item on this slide, $925,000 for Lakeside Playground replacement. Playground's been well used here and definitely needs replacement. So have some concepts here of— there's an above-ground view of slides and swings. And then on the left there, Ninja Warrior type, really cool layout concept for Lakeside Sports Park. That totaled $2.2 million. Another slide with OCIP proposed projects. Major corridor beautification would be major streets like University Parkway, State Street. If businesses want to beautify their frontage, they could Apply for a grant. This money would go to pay for kind of like a carrot to get them to incentivize them to beautify their property, and the city could pay a certain percentage of reimbursement to those properties. Cemetery master plan projects for $500,000 would include the Children's Memorial Cremation Garden and Memorial Trailhead. This is just off the Murdoch Canal Trail on 800 East. They're between the upper and lower cemetery. It's a concept layout for a memorial garden there with reflecting pond. Nice access there from cemetery.

And the—

could also include a Right there, there's some comments. This item for $100,000, the police training facility design services, would be over, um, up the canyon at our, uh, gun range.

Yeah.

Um, I don't know if this has a pointer on it, but on the left there, See how the slope's been cut into the mountainside. They want to expand that back so that short range, we could extend that to increase that depth. Or also on this, this other side here where that steep slope is, we could expand the parking to a possible retaining wall there. And then the picture on the right shows the rifle range, which is currently not being used. There's an option there to possibly drop that. And similar to the left where they've cut out of the slope, we could cut that down and create a safer backdrop for them to shoot. And so that $100,000 would go to a consultant to help us, uh, first design services. A public safety parking lot pedestrian crossing, $2,000. This cost would be just for the crossing through the parking lot with the speed tables And safe, safer crosswalks, sidewalk improvements, in addition to the money we already have for the wall. Part of Downtown Phase 1 for $960,000. I don't know, Gary, you have more on this, or—

Nope, you're familiar with downtown.

Okay.

Library Garden, $125,000. That'd be potentially the north side of the library, um, park option there. Fire Station 33 remodel would include a possible concept of remodeling the kitchen, some other costs there to restore Fire Engine 1, um, some fire department equipment, then the council chambers audiovisual for $100,000. So take that total with the other, it comes to just over $5 million for CIP.

You go back really quick. What was the council chambers audiovisual we put on there?

That's $100,000 to improve some equipment here in the council chambers.

What, what needs improvement?

Trevor, how much time do you have?

Um, we'll do picture-in-picture and, uh, on-site storage for the recordings, as well as the ability to stream directly to YouTube without having to have Zoom to do that. Um, and I think that $100,000 might include something that's actually already funded through another project for the, um, USC to have Zoom.

Can we add a TV on the back wall? How much are those?

That budget, yeah.

Would it—

because when you use half the room, like we did that for Neighborhood Commission once, and all the people that were facing the other way had to turn around to see the TV. Should we have one more back there? If, if that's in the budget, maybe.

Yes, we also have these on carts up in the EOC that can be rolled down, and you took those—

one of those down, so we have some for it. That would have helped.

Yeah, true. Building maintenance, just one item. Station 2 there on North Main Street, $50,000 for floor replacement. Got cracking and just replacing the epoxy coating there. Water lane projects, $2 million, includes master plan projects. It's another couple other maintenance items there. For sewer, $500,000 for maintenance. Master plan, $8 million. Stormwater, $0.7 million. For streets, uh, this is our standard, uh, yearly annual projects. That's $1.8 million. Got our Slurry and crack seal with microsurface, $1.5 million. Memorial Trailhead, that would help to supplement the funding for— from this, the CIP budget for the Memorial Trailhead there at the cemetery. And, uh, your other similar accounts for the proposed budget for trip hazard. Miscellaneous street construction and ADA concrete projects that we do every year.

So, one quick clarification.

You're showing the budgeted cash amount that would go towards these projects. But for example, with water, sewer, storm, that would be the cash portion. You would come back to the council if there was Financing, completing the master plan.

Yeah, we, we went away from budgeting the individual elements within that master plan because what we found is making a guess as to which things were gonna happen when. And so rather than just trying to put information in there that ended up being not correct. It was more conducive just to put, here's how much is available towards all those— any project that's identified within the BENT. And then to your point, Wren, that may not cover the entire cost of a particular project that may require bonding or some other financing element. But that would be determined at the time that particular project was going to—

yeah, we would bring— it was financing, we'd bring it back to the council for an official decision.

That was it for CIP. So any questions, council?

Any questions?

Taggart? These look like great projects. Appreciate you bringing them to us. Excited for those capital improvements. I'm just curious, in your deliberations— I know this is a citywide effort— deliberations, what are some of the things that we would like to fund but we felt like were not our highest priorities this year that didn't make it on your stimulus that we have an interest in trying to continue to fund either next year or through other sources.

Projects, uh, many of these projects come through Public Works. Provide that service to them, helping them to manage these projects, bid them out. So many of the parks— a lot of these were parks projects, you'll, you'll notice. And so we're working closely with Tyler Okay. And so, and I know they're always trying to improve parks with buildings, playgrounds. You might be more familiar with that to answer that question, Chris. But—

I would also say I'd highlight, you notice some of those things says it was for design, for example, improving the gun range and then adding maybe some training components. Tiger's talking about with our Our parks, we can do some, but there's— we can always do more. So, Bryce, you can maybe speak to future plans that you see coming down the road in the near future related really probably more to our big parks.

Yeah, I think what Tyrett said is exactly right. We sometimes also have to get the design impact built out first so then we can go and pursue grants and other funding sources. And so we have to come to y'all with maybe the total price tag and And then it does take a year or 2 or 3 to get it to the most optimized spot. Maybe something like Lakeside, we showed a playground, and that feels really like the direction we want to move right now. But there are a number of ongoing issues that would have to be resolved first. Sometimes those can change our projects. And so I think— To my own point too, of we don't want to— or Brandon's point of we don't want to show you something and then it does get changed. But that is definitely part of what we do. And so I think a lot of the times relying on our Master plans for parks and rec, using those, building out a CIP, reading the room on what the financial year is like or what the opportunity year is like, you know, maybe for other county funds or state funds, federal funds, and then trying to piece it all together. So the plan is always what happens first, the master plan, and then we try to piece those together. Tyler and I and Chris work together closely on sort of a 5, 7, 10-year plan. And we have like a— some things have a very specific order, but a lot of them have a, okay, of these 3 or 4 things, 1 or 2 of these is going to make sense in the next 18 to 24 months. Let's be ready on several, and then we can plug them in as we go. And so I think, you know, Lakeside, we had a responsibility for certain amounts of spending so that we could get matching funds. And so that prioritizes a couple of things there. Maybe a CDBG grant that comes through, through Heather Cox and the strategy and innovation team. All of a sudden we get money there, we need to accelerate something like that. So to that point, there's— oh, we'd love to do all of it now, yesterday, but a lot of it really is being ready with the broad plan and then trying to fit them in in a way that makes sense for us.

If that's the case, of the things that we saw today, how many of them do you anticipate we will complete in the next fiscal year?

Complete as in residents are playing on the new thing? Um, what do you think La Niña is going to look like this fall in our construction period? Um, yeah, that might, that might feel about right. If the money comes in, then we work with designers. We take the designs for a playground to the public. We get their feedback and look to see, can we get it in, in the fall construction period or the spring? And then go from there. The, the Phase 3 bike Park at Mount Timpanogos that we're going to celebrate the opening of this summer. I want to say it was fiscal year '25, so 2 years ago that it got approved, went to design work, found the construction period that made sense, put it in. People will be biking on it this fall.

A lot of what we saw is going to be a 3-year-plus time horizon, but there are a few things in there that we think we will see in the next year.

I mean, the dugouts. Probably done some of those, if you will, smaller type items. Those are certainly kind of intended to be done in the current— within the current fiscal year. Many of the larger dollar items obviously have a longer time horizon.

Windsor Park is an example where we had a couple of major projects. While we are disrupting the park and we have large machinery and people can't really use it, can we go ahead and get in the other 2 things that we might in the next couple of years. So we're not constantly ripping up a portion of a park. So, uh, that may be why we're a little touchy about committing to something exactly, because there is some opportunity cost of just trying to get them all done at the same time, or get something all the way to completion. Then we can move to another part of the city.

I mean, during the process, we— everybody submits through the capital, our capital projects, and we evaluate those and come back to them when we have their meetings. And there's, you know, some horse trading going on, right? Say, well, we don't have enough money for that. Well, is there something else that you would rather do to get done now? And we can put some money away to be able to start the process of saving towards getting that particular thing done. So there's a bit of that that goes on. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I knew— I do know that we do that.

Thanks for having a thorough process.

Or another example could be—

Yeah.

To Bryce's point about sources of funding, as you know, it took us a little bit longer to get full approval for a federal grant related to our fire training facility. And so now that we've got that sort of signed on the dotted line by President Trump, that then allows us to expedite potential rebuild of Fire Station 1. So, so to some extent, it boils down to what's the funding source to get these done. Chris, you could maybe also speak to—

Right.

So cemetery master planning too.

In response to your question about what's on the horizon, that's not identified here. We have about $250 million of work to happen at the Ormwater Reclamation Facility. We're going to be issuing a Approximately a $70 million bond for the first phase and start work in the next year. You know, the next 15 years, we'll do 3 more $70 million bonds just for that facility. We have about $4 million that we're looking at spending on streets right now that are going to be failing in the projected near future. That's pending the TUF adoption, but that's part of our presentation tonight as well. And we have 2 $5 million roads that'll be under construction in the next 2 to 3 years as well. So those are our big ones on the horizon for public works.

And you all thought fire was expensive.

Still do.

Yeah, fire and water.

I love my bathroom and my running water, and I'll take that over a new fire engine every day.

Yes, as much water as you need.

And I just want to highlight with the cemetery master plan, We've been looking at cremation niche, trailhead, and, you know, the Children's Memorial for quite some time. We have looked at both our historical revenues there and projected revenues from the use of a cremation garden, and that proposed budget there anticipates $500,000 being available every year to cover those expenses. And then the trailhead portion would be covered by the funding source that comes from our 5th/5th sales tax that was adopted a few years ago.

Right.

Any other questions?

That was a good question.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. We'll move on to the next item. Item 1.4 is a presentation. It's actually a continuation. of our CARE allocation deliberations, and I'll turn the time over to Brandon Nelson, our Finance Director.

And really, this, this particular component is just asked that we come back with to give you an opportunity after having seen the exhibit to come back with conversation amongst yourselves and deliberation on potentially the items that were as part of that exhibit. Um, and so we really just want to get, um, your discussion about that, any of the items on there.

All right, before we get started on that, I don't know, Quinn and Jen, are you both on the care?

Yeah.

Would you mind just taking— I can't— forgive me if I've already asked you to do this and you did it the last week, but refresh my memory. Would you mind explaining, just talking about the deliberation process, and maybe just give some insights as to how the CARE Commission came to the decisions that they did with funding and not funding. Just—

Yeah, I can start if you want.

Okay.

Please jump in, Jeff.

Thank you.

So there are a couple of components to this, and I'm new to this, so I've been learning and asking lots of questions along the way. We do have a Care Tax Advisory Commission that's composed of 5 residents. They meet primarily to hear presentations for arts grants that are in the small grants category. And for several nights— Jeff, Jeff was recently on this as well— for several nights in March, that commission is in this room hearing presentation after presentation of different groups. and often providing them with partial funding and making calculations as to how do we take the value that they provide for their community and—

That's right.

Match that with the resources that we have available to provide for our small arts grants, and they make collective decisions about the number that they want to award those. So if you go up to the— Brandon, just go up to the small grants, right? Many mid-major grants, they ended up with $143,000 that were allocated across those grants. I would say that the majority of applicants received some money, but a small minority received all the money that they wanted. So much of that deliberation is how can we allocate scarce resources to a lot of deserving institutions. That, that for me is the first time being part of that. That was really insightful and revealing to see how many great things we have in the city. And I've had a chance to attend some of the performances from those groups since then, and I'm glad that we're able to provide them with some funding.

So you did a— and I just was looking at Jen's— there was a rubric Was this the first year rubric was, was done? And so the— okay, so could you, Jen, or elaborate a little bit on—

Yeah, happy to. Um, I— we discussed it and probably peppered Brandon and Trevor with more questions than they knew what to do with, and they were so patient with us. But, um, just wanted to see, you know, how are, how are these decisions being made? What are the criteria being made? Are we all on the same page? So Trevor helped us create a rubric for so that we could evaluate apples-to-apples sort of things. So for example, what is the community need and purpose? Is their need clearly defined? Is the target population specific and appropriate? How are the funds going to be used? Is it— are the funds tied to a specific activity? What is that activity? Are they looking for funds other places as well? Are we the only source of funding? How successful are they going to be? Those kinds of questions. And our commission did a really good job. They had The rubrics open real time as they were— presenters were presenting, and they could fill in their scores, and at the end they could compare how they ranked everybody versus everybody else. And it was a pretty straightforward process, and our commission did an excellent job at being impartial but really thoughtful about the process. So it was really fun, I think, for, for us as well, just to see the amount of good being done in our community through these organizations. And you just were like, I wish we had money for all of you, for all of the things. But I think they made good judicious decisions that will bring the most benefit to OREM.

Senior Counsel, I don't think you saw the big smile that was on Trevor's face when the assignment of making a rubric—

Trevor, thank you.

You did a great job.

It wasn't just the rubric. The magic that none of us could believe that Trevor pulled off was this. We all had a spreadsheet. Jen and I were not voting members, but we all had a spreadsheet Where people could put in the amount of money that they thought they wanted to give to that organization, and then it immediately populated the master spreadsheet so we could discuss that and see what everyone thought. Really a very efficient process.

So, so the numbers that we see here for these different— was there a lot of tweaking after? Was there a lot of discussion after, or as you went through it? Was there a general consensus? I've taken part not in the CARE Act but in other types of grants. I know that there's usually a point where you start and then you tweak. Is that what happened?

Lots of tweaking.

Lots of tweaking.

Yeah, I think that the rubric scores gave us like a baseline, and then the outliers were ones that there was some significant discussion about, yays and nays, and why or why not. Okay.

Particularly when you had a rubric Maybe the score was a 10, and you had somebody else with a 20. And so then you— we had— there would be a lot of discussion about, so why did you go with it? Why did you rank them so low? And why did you rank them?

Okay, so the discussion group—

why would you rank them so high? And then there was a lot of discussion and deliberation on it.

Okay, appreciate the— appreciate the exception for that.

So I have a friend who's on the CARE Commission, a recent friend. She hasn't been my friend for very long. But anyway, and I was just curious because I served with Jeff when we were residents on the Care Commission for 6 years.

Yeah.

Before both of us jumped into this position. And really fun talking to her and finding out how, you know, these rubrics and things had worked and the cohesion of the group and some of the things you've talked about. Very positive, very positive feedback. Um, so much so that I had Trevor send me the, you know, what you guys did, the new forms and stuff, and I love all of it. I think it's been really good. There's a couple things that she suggested that I might suggest too, if you don't mind.

If I take a second—

Are we ready to go on, Council?

Okay.

Any questions about how the— how this was done?

Can I just add one another thing? So this is the, the small arts grants. But we also have mid-major grants, right? So Sarah is the big one there. So separately, aside from the Care Commission, Brandon and Jen and I and Trevor and Bryce huddled and reviewed the Sarah proposal and the Utah Metropolitan Valley proposal as well. And we were able to award the Sarah their full award this year, even though it was considerably larger than last year. And then the rec proposal, capital improvement, and some of the other arts proposals came from staff, and we had a chance to discuss those. Bryce had some really innovative ideas this year around an honorarium program and artist writer-in-residence program and other things.

The yellow.

Can we talk about the— what is the honorarium and the artist writers in residence and artists?

Sure.

Lynnae, did you want to talk about that?

Yeah, no, I can wait. I thought this was folding into what you were saying, but I can wait and add this at the very end. That's complete. This is whatever.

Yeah, okay, that's fine.

I don't know, Bryce, do you want to speak to those, or Brandon?

If, if that's what y'all would like, I'd be happy. We, we had submitted several Recreation has traditionally all—

not always.

Previously, we had submitted the recreation programs, again, part of the CIP process master plan, directly to our council liaisons. And over the last few years, with my dual role in recreation and library, some of these other civic-related arts ones would bounce back and forth with Pete Wolfley and his work with the Arts Commission and I. And so that's where we would take a couple of these civic-related art ones and have our staff write them up. So specifically on the civic-related one, Heart of Downtown, I think we're all pretty familiar with, and there will be a number of art components to it. I don't think, Gary, there's no shovel-ready product projects that we're doing on that. This is so that we have an art baseline budget for when we approach that portion. Number 2 is the Library Hall City Facilities. This will be the 2nd year.

2nd year.

That we will have done this in its entirety. Historically, they— the CARE group would get their grant, but they couldn't afford to do their art anywhere. And so we said, what if we can cover those direct costs through a one-lump sum? And then our staff, instead of being the bearers of bad news of, oh, this is actually what it takes to put on a show, can then reach out to every group that receives a CARE grant and say, we can do a free show for you as part of your performance.

And so—

That's great.

That was our effort to make sure that the art that was being performed and learned was then being delivered to audiences through Library Hall. And so that's what that facilities rental group is there for. And so this last year, 20+ shows at Library Hall made possible through that Library Hall Care Grant. Next is the honorarium program, and this is a little bit an extension of that. Our Arts Commission our events commission, our library commission all have need of bringing in artistic groups to perform, to show, to be at farmers market and be the music on the stage. Maybe they are part of a program and there is often a fee associated with that. We thought by having this set-aside fund, we would be able to have different staff groups tap into those funds to then hire care groups or future potential care groups to come in and perform, and we could pay a small stipend anywhere from $250 to $750 depending on the type of art, the number of performances, everything like that. We were really excited about the honorarium program because in many ways, if they— in fact, if a group were to approach us right now today to say we would love to be care, we'd have to say, great, check back in with us in 12 months. And that's a bit of a bummer answer. Now we can say, don't miss the application deadline next spring. Also, we'd love to get you on this list and we can bring you out. And so we can get some money to some of these groups earlier and throughout the year without having to wait for a once-a-year March set of meetings to be able to have some of those funds. And so that's what the honorarium will be used for— performers in the parade, farmers market, concerts series. It's pretty broad right now, and both the library events and arts commissions will be involved with Soliciting, selecting, choosing who might be able to receive those amounts.

So is concert series, um, is that the live rock concerts?

No, that's a, that's a separate group with them.

That's going to be different then.

That will be a standalone event, not part of an existing city event. Yeah, this would be more like, uh, on, uh, is it tomorrow when the farmers market kicks off? There's always art, um, music being played. Now we'd be able to say, hey, Apply, and also if you're selected, you would be able to receive this amount of an honorarium for performing.

Along with a birthday cake and all that other—

All right, next is the artist and writer in residence, and this idea actually came from the City Council retreat. Councilmember Meekum had brought that up. I think Councilmember Landison, you had mentioned something about a poet laureate. And so the goal here was to say, how do we design a program or put parameters to a program that would meet those goals and also give us a little bit of a beta test on something like this. You know, it's a really new program, and we had a lot of questions as staff. And so we went and researched what had been done in other areas— universities, municipalities— to say, how would you bring in an artist and writer-in-residence? How would you define the value of the art being in? Which is such a crude question to, like, put a monetary value to art, but that's That's the job. And so to say, how do we bring in these folks? What kind of programming would they do? How would they interact with our residents? How do we create that? And this was our best attempt as staff to put a number to something like that. In fact, number 47 and 48 originally were put in as a single one, but the career advancement grants for the artists was actually an effort as part of this idea of writers to bring in and have a scholarship for graduating seniors from each of our local high schools. That would be a part of this. So similar to maybe like a Miss Orem structure where rising seniors can receive some funds, but they're tied to this program. And then we have the professional or other resident programs that could all be a part of the writing. The goal was to put those together. So that was the goal with 47 and 48, is grant funds available to bring in artists and writers. I think about the submittal we did had 2 Yeah. So we had 2 separate ones. One was an artist in residence and one was a writer in residence. So the artist could be much broader. We saw a lot of cities do like a muralist in residence, and their goal is to come in, immerse themselves in the city, learn about us, and then they leave having produced a mural that reflects their time and time spent with us. The writer in residence would again be very broad. It could still be poetry or short story or literature. Or whatever you want. And so the artistic outcomes would be broader to reflect the different styles of writing and go from there.

Are there parameters on what those artists or writers, how they apply for that? Uh, I guess let me back up. My, my concern with putting tax money towards that is, is this is forum tax money and it should directly benefit or help Forum residents. And so I would want to see those artists or writers, local talent, that we are helping to promote local people, not necessarily bring people in. And that's something that we didn't really get a chance to discuss at, um, the retreat, um, but especially because this is tax money being spent, that's something that I, I just want to make sure that it's forum-focused.

One of the reasons I think we wanted to test it was we looked at the way some of these grants up above operate, and are we creating opportunities for people to participate in art but then perform elsewhere in the Valley, or are we creating spectator opportunities for art to go and sit in auditorium and receive the art. And so when I look at, you know, going to a show, you know, you bring in talent and I'm trying to think who was the big finale, the Commodores, was that our—

Oh yeah.

Summer, obviously not from here, but the artistic value is that we as residents get to go and watch and partake of it. And so we had that exact same question to say, what is the value we're creating? Is it an opportunity for an Orem resident to create and produce and go out with their art, or is the opportunity for us to receive? And then how do we quantify that? How do we, to your point, ensure that there's value here? So the model we looked at was the Utah Humanities through the Utah State Department of Museum, People, and Culture. They had a program that was very similar to this, so we wrote a lot of it based off of that. The other thing I would say, Councilmember, is I don't think I would say our staff wanted to write the structure and skeleton of this. I don't think we want Rice to be like, I choose them. You know, I think that's where we say, let's— is this the Art Commission? We've written a structure out of what this program could look like. How do we engage the Art Commission or Library Commission to say, let's now build a really specific rubric, an application timeline, an amount of money? You know, we set aside this amount as our— budget. Do we like those numbers? Do we want to do 2 people across $30,000, or do you want 30 micro artists in residence? And it would look very different. I think that would be really worth exploring in the first year of a program like this if y'all wanted to move forward with it.

Yeah, I agree with Crystal. I don't know, are you done? I agree with Crystal. I feel like, you know, one of the things the CARE studies, the CARE tax, when I was on the commission, and the whole time I've been on the council has been about, um, Orem residents being in these groups, or, and/or touch points to Orem residents. Um, you know, like the Sierra. The reason the Sierra gets so much money is they, you know, how many people do they touch and how many opportunities to experience the arts that they provide? So that's why they have that amount of money. And Do such a fabulous job. So, um, 2 things with this. I would definitely want it to be Orem writers. I would not want to go outside and bring someone in. I feel like we need to reward— if we did this, reward local talent. I actually have a friend who has a writers group. She asked me if they could get a free room here to meet every month, right? And But so I'm guessing there are a lot of those— that talent, there's a lot of that talent around here that maybe we could give them a spotlight, just like the gentleman who did the, um, the art exhibit. Went to that, right? That, um, the Honey Baked Ham guy, Mark. That was amazing. I'd never seen anything like it, and that was super fun to see those artists get their rewards.

Local people.

Um, so that would That would, to me, would be a caveat that would stay within the heart and the theme of our care tax, what our residents passed the care tax for. You know, I feel like I would just— if it's— we're using taxpayer dollars for this, it is an art form, but we would want to definitely have forum residents getting that.

All right, thought on that.

And I'm going to very respectfully disagree. Somewhat, because I was on the City Council when we, when we put this together and we had this exact same discussion. We want to have Orem residents, we want to encourage Orem residents in this case to be the writer or the artist. I'm just not comfortable requiring it because I'm somebody, you know, if you want to, if you want an Orem resident to write, I can write, I can write a mean limerick and, or something like that. But I realize we have some amazing talent in our, in our community. I'm just, I'm just not comfortable, even though I realize it's taxpayer money. I'm viewing it from somebody who, who goes and appreciates art, like Mr. Dowdle here. He does not live in Orem. I appreciate his art, and I don't know what— I'm sure that didn't come from CareTech, but I'm just saying is, is that touchpoint that you talked about. I get the— I get the— I appreciate the art. But I understand what you're saying, but I just— I'm concerned about requiring that it be there, maybe saying that we prefer a preference to this. And I— but I would like to leave it up to the Arts Council and the Library Commission, or wherever, wherever this resides, to help make that with giving them that instruction.

Can I add another perspective to that? So if you have a rider, I, I'm lived in this world. I was in the publishing world for years. You can, you can have a writer that people may or may not know, and you might have 10 people that will show up. So your touchpoint there is 10 people. You have another writer that comes that everybody knows. That person is able to connect with hundreds of people and help hundreds of people inspired in their writing because of who they are and their experience and what they've, you know, what, what they've done with their, with their writing. Um, so yeah, I guess that I, I would agree that that would be a good decision for the Arts Commission to come up with that, you know, how do we want to go about doing this? And I'm comfortable with both ways. I mean, I agree, and I, I remember all the conversations about keeping money in Orem, but Another perspective to that might be we might be able to expand that net depending on what the goal is. If the goal is to inspire more writers, we might be able to do that if we had a person that comes to my head, Stephen Covey. He's not around anymore, but if we had— and he would charge a lot of money, so that's out of the ballpark. But there are writers that I think that would come that we could pack Library Hall.

Like Beth Brower with her So he's an Orem resident.

And so that's—

Yes, that's my point. I didn't mean to say—

I don't—

did I say requirement? I guess I meant preference to Orem.

Oh, okay.

When it was described at the retreat, it was we get someone not from Orem. And to me, I was kind of like, I'd kind of like to try— maybe if we exhaust all of the Orem opportunities, absolutely, we could. I'm not to where it just— So yeah, that's where I am. But can I add one more little— I'm sorry, I'm gonna kind of be a little disagreeable here. Um, we already have— I just rolled off the Arts Commission and we have still not funded our sidewalk art, uh, crosswalk art, and our utility box, um, art.

Oh.

So I feel like this probably needs to wait until that which has already come before our Arts Commission, been approved. We've seen approved, um, designs. I mean, Pete's not here, is he? Um, so those are things that perhaps— I don't know how they didn't get— you know, maybe we should have discussed this before it actually went on a budget thing, but, um, those have already been approved by our Arts Commission and should, in my opinion, should be funded first.

That's a great question for Pete.

I think that's not disagreeable. That's just clarification.

And I know there was a couple of technical issues. We're not allowed to do sidewalks currently per Department of Transportation regulations.

Chris, I just had one painted on 1st North, though, so I'm not quite sure.

Okay, so that was stuff going on.

We can figure out the crosswalk.

And I know, I know we have funding currently for utility boxes. That is set aside. So I'm not on the Arts Commission. I just know that that fund is funded and they're ready to go. So I'm sure somewhere between design and contractor, we're just looking to finalize those ones.

And if there's— we don't have enough funds, we will use our utility funds. I wanted to get—

what?

And Councilmember Miller, if I may, if we pass the ticket, If we pass the TOEFL.

Nice try sneaking that one in.

I guess I would, I would end on, I think you and I are really, really aligned, and I love what our council members and, and staff did to build a rubric for selecting. I think having a— and again, not all art fits into a rubric, and I don't want to turn art into a science, but is there a way for us to report back. What would success look like or failure look like on an artist-in-residence program or an honorarium program to say, we spent this money and we got 4 people to show up and we got a note in the foreword of a book? It's like, oh, was that worth it or not? I'm glad I'm not the one doing this and y'all are the ones doing this. But it would be interesting for us to report back how was— what was the impact, either participatory community experience of a particular project. So when we get back here, I can give y'all a lot better info to say, do we like it or not?

Or, you know.

Yeah, because comparatively, $30,000 is a lot of money compared to what these other performing groups are getting, right? So hopefully we will get a lot for that, or we can structure it to where we have a lot of touch points.

Can I? I think you might have something too. Did you want to go first?

It's short. I just was going to add my voice to what Jeff said. And I think, and having been an artist myself in college, not vocal artist, but I love the idea that we can have a masterclass, bring someone else from the outside in to give a masterclass to our people so that we can take the things that we learn and broaden and contribute in our own community and throughout the world. I don't have feelings that it needs to be an Orem-only person. I think it could be someone else that could bring their perspective and a worldview that we don't normally have. to inspire our own people.

Thank you.

And I'll just say, I think a lot of the value for our Orem residents from a program like this is having somebody from the outside come and just partner with UVU, partner with the school district, get out there and work with young people very actively, just bring new things that we just don't currently have in terms of programming. We could— it's essentially bringing a whole series of As part of the contract associated with coming that inspires and has just touchpoints all throughout the city with all kinds of organizations.

I guess I would want to understand, what do you mean by—

I mean, I don't—

I feel like we're not living under a rock here. I feel like we're pretty aware. I mean, it kind of made it sound like we need to be enlightened, but I don't know. I guess I don't know what that means then.

Just visiting schools, right? Having— if it's a visual artist, having an exhibition where you invite lots of young people to participate. If it's a writer, being able to work with young aspiring writers, people in senior English classes, to really help people understand the process and get them exposed to things that maybe they haven't had a chance to.

Professionally, like, so one of my concerns with that is we don't have really deeply to speak for UVU or the school district on how that looks. And so putting money towards something that we don't know whether or not we can actually functionally do is a little bit concerning. The CERA seems like our best bet in partnering with somebody to have that, or using Library Hall, that kind of thing. So I, I just, I still worry about putting money towards Outside artists. I still worry about that part. I think we have enough local talent. We have great local talent that until we exhaust that, we're not serving our citizens and the tax money that they—

I think we have a different perspective of that.

So how do we decide?

I mean, we can have different perspectives, but how do we— what direction do we give to Bryce? I mean, you know, what's the application going to look like?

Who's—

what's the rubric? Do we put— do we put a higher point system to local or not? I mean, that's what you want. Those are the answers, the questions you want answered, right, Bryson?

I made—

we made a first run at it in our, um, in the information we shared with, uh, you know, Brandon ahead of that. I'd be happy to share that with the group. I think it again was meant to be illustrative and to say we would love to work with these Arts Commission, Library Commission to shape that. But if that would be useful to say, hey, how do we set this up? How much programming do we do? How much of each of these things? What do we value? And we'd be able to work with our missions, or—

Yeah, so here's the question too. So when you talk programming, are we then taking money out of facilities to have— because this person is going to come to Library Hall. So is that out of that $30,000 to then rent Library Hall for them? Multiple people, you know what I mean, for that night? Do we have one night of kind of like the art night, or—

I, I think generally if they're using our facilities, they would fall, you know, the library hall would cover their rental. But I, I, I think to your point, yeah, there would be other costs associated with running a program like this, and I think that $30,000 would have to be comprehensive of the cost of the program. We don't, we don't have library funding set aside to operate this program outside of this upcoming fiscal year. We didn't put any other accounts towards it.

I might suggest that, you know, we start with a steering committee, and that, you know, the steering committee might include chair of the Arts Commission, might include Bryce, might include Pete. Um, just some of those decisions I don't think we're positioned as a city council to make.

Actually, I would like to have it be brought to the city council. I would like a proposal from Maybe Arts and Library Commissions, then come to us as far as how these funds are going to be.

I think, um, I think it makes sense to be an Orem first. I mean, that's kind of the priority is we use Orem artists, writers, etc. But depending on what the event is, um, you know, it would be— it might be fun to have somebody from outside depending on what the event is.

But if the—

in other events, it would be great to have somebody from And I, and I agree. I think, you know, we should look within our own, within our own homes and neighborhoods, and is there somebody that could do this for us? And if that works, great. If not, it's a totally different event, uh, depending on what the goal of the event is from the Arts Commission, then maybe look outside in those situations. But I don't think it has to be a one-size-fits-all depending on what the, what the event What the goal of the—

Well, I'm here.

Maybe, maybe we can go back and try to develop a proposed policy that would show essentially how will we show that we will give preference to ARM residents through an application process and/or a preference to a demonstrated ability to partner with Orem entities like Orem Sierra, Orem Schools, Orem UVU, and, and see if we can bring back a framework policy that, that you think is achievable.

And I'm sorry, I'm going to be that person. Are we doing it just with our artist and writer in residence? But what about our honorarium? Do we do have a policy for them? And do we have a policy for those who get the rent from the library hall.

Or for our CARE tax recipients.

Or for the, for the other career advancement. I think that if we do it for one, we need to do it for all.

The rent one is covered underneath that. When they apply, they have the— that's already part of that application. They have the ability to do that.

What I'm saying is, as we're talking about having a policy come back, but do we need policies that come City Council for the honorarium program and for the library hall, or how— I'm trying to understand the difference.

They already qualify for facility rental. That's what the honorary— correct me if I'm wrong. That's the—

Currently, anyone that's on this list will qualify for free library hall rental.

I guess my, my— what I was kind of thinking is kind of the knowledge that you got when you researched how other communities did it, and then putting that together with this same lens of maybe we look for Orem people and have an option in case we don't have talented Orem people to bring. I don't know, is that what you guys are—

is that something that the commission, the Arts Council can look at?

I know the CARE Commission's typically been a heavy— to pull them back in September, but—

Well, that'd be fun.

It would be fun for you not to— we only do signals on if you want more meetings. But I, I— yes, I would love the idea to Test this out and report back. I would hope every year we test it out, report back, and if we find that the value versus work and financial commitment from our residents has changed, then we tweak or cancel or fail fast and move on.

Because we could totally find, like, to your point, Quinn, there could be an outside person we pull in and they just hit it out of the park, you know. So I'm not opposed to any of that, but I would like to hear what other cities have done, maybe have I like your idea of the Care Commission being the ones who finalize, or not finalize, but draft that type of application.

It might actually make more sense just because the Care Commission is seasonal to have the Arts and the Library Commission work on it.

But they only do go one time. They only, I mean, I think it'd be great to pull them back in because they're the ones that are gonna be awarding these dollars. So let's give them, let's pull them in in September again, like you said.

I could prepare those options, I think, for y'all as a council. And I would also, So, I guess one other thing I could prepare, if it'd be helpful for y'all, is unintended consequences on the other groups. If we did an OREM-only or OREM-preferred, I don't know if that would be helpful to be like, oh, well, then these 8, like, I don't want to call it one group, but like, oh, maybe they're actually based in London, but they practice or perform here. It's like, oh, I would want y'all to see if, you know, as we make a policy for Is one program if it would have accidental ripple effects elsewhere. So I can prepare some of that and return to y'all.

But can I just— can I just say to that, it's always been that way, and I feel like the Care Commission has always handled that really well. And I trust the Care Commission to, you know, the— just went through. That's why maybe some get more money and some don't get as much money. I mean, that is very carefully part of the process. Of that. So I'm completely comfortable with that as it is.

Great.

For me.

They do consider those things carefully.

I think maybe coming back to the council could be, you know, a return in report via, you know, email memo in my meetings with you all. I use the term policy lightly. Maybe it's looking at the rubric and the application process that our Care Commission did and trying to make sure that our Arts and Library Commission take those things into account.

Can I say one more thing? One more.

I want to talk about the application thing, but the— I would like— actually, I'm not quite sure where— when we strayed from this. last year, but it used to be that the council would award and discuss the major grants. And when you got— when you're dealing with $1 million, I feel like that should be council versus the CARE Commission. I really appreciate the CARE Commission with the mids and—

The CARE Commission did nothing with the major grants.

Okay, well then it was Quinn and Jen.

And staff, yeah.

And staff, yeah. Maybe if we could have that, I think that might be a little more transparent too, a little more discussion-oriented, and maybe even more of a rah-rah for the Sierra wherever we can really see what they are offering our community.

Is that—

just to do that, right?

Quite a while since we've done anything with grants as far as them presentation.

So we have—

it was when the hail left.

Well, yeah, there were— even before the ALF, they didn't present anything. They were considered together as a group.

Because I know when I was on the Care Commission, when Jeff and I were, we used to—

they would come in and they would—

No, they didn't used to.

That was going back.

And then they took it away from our Care Commission and said this is for City Council. So I don't even know where—

You notice that Adam came to the work session so we could maybe more Distinctly, you know, recognize and have a, you know, a Q&A or a back and forth in future care deliberations specifically for, especially for our major grants. And but then also note, at the request of Adam, we have him come and do a presentation in a council meeting in the fall after—

The shell.

So that he has some recent data and impact to share, as well as visuals to go along with it so that it's not a—

So not a presentation, but just part of the budgeting.

Well, so I think next year I'll be sure to meet with Adam and make sure that he comes to a work session to have You know, just a back and forth, you know, ask questions. He can, he can maybe highlight the application material that he puts in. And then, and then beyond that, he would come to regular council meeting in the fall after the Shell does their report of events.

Okay, should I say this last thing real quick? Because I know we're over time, but So yeah, the only thing that I heard feedback from was on your, on the form is they wanted to, you'd have the one part where you say, how many do you have? Like, how many in the population do you serve? Also, how many residents are involved in your group? That was something that she had said. And then, um, okay, there's, there are some groups that are on our care. that are historical community-founded, community-beloved groups.

They've been there since day one.

Yes.

And I just wonder, I felt like there could be a— somewhere in the rubric, we need to have a way to show that that's Who those groups are and why we support them.

I apologize, I was taking notes.

Oh, sorry.

So there's a couple groups that are historical groups, legacy groups, yeah, that probably don't score very high on some of these rubric questions, but due to their—

Maybe they could—

Touchpoints, their historical roots given the point.

Historical, yeah, that was the only other thing that I—

Certainly the Chantinette.

That's the exact—

Yeah, so one thing that the commission talked a lot about, again, this is my first year, so I was learning a lot from our commission. But one thing that they were concerned with trying to assess as they heard presentations was They see this money as kind of startup money to help people get started, but they don't want groups to be dependent on it year after year without seeking additional funding. So they often asked presenters as they came, what additional funding are you seeking and how are you trying to become self-sufficient? And that was one of the criteria that they talked about. Sometimes that was a little bit in tension with this particular designation, which is we have some groups that are more active in seeking outside funding than others.

Yeah, and I— because our policy is— I don't know if it's a policy, but, you know, the CARE does kind of talk about that. So there has to— but just a consideration there. I don't know how to do it, but—

That's a good point.

At least I'm looking at Trevor. It'd be pretty easy to add into the rubrics something that speaks to Historical experience impact.

One of the questions on there is like overall value to the community, and I think that would be the opportunity to either add some subcategories or something that would— the legacy components that group could get, or allow the commission to vote.

If we go back in time, it was these legacy groups and the CIRA that actually passed the CARE tax that got us the Well, and some of these groups like the Chantinets, they serve—

I don't know how many on here really service our senior population like the Chantinets do. And so who are they serving? How many, how many of these groups are we— are they— is their focus on a certain subset of the population? And so seeing the subset of the population that their focus is on might be helpful too.

I think that is why we have interviews. They're supposed to sell that, not us.

Yeah.

So, as I argue that they should be the ones trying to sell the commission, and keep in mind, this is just the commission's proposal. You have every right to change whatever element you want as the awarding entity.

This is called deliberations for a lesson.

We certainly— and almost every one of the— and that was one of the things on the rubric we already had talked about adding, as far as having a specific item on there, as far as the, um, the number of people that are on in their group that are Orem residents, if you will. We asked every one of them. We will definitely put it.

And she did say that. She said we had to ask. She said, but if you could add that, tell them to maybe add that. You know, that was— yeah, she's very appreciative of all your work on this. Said she liked it so much better.

And we realize it's a work in progress.

So hopefully you do too. We're constantly trying to refine it.

Oh, good.

Good.

Thanks for the effort.

Anything else?

So, so what would happen is— so also keep in mind that arts and writer, now that we kind of know that maybe you want to have some sort of, call it, third-party awarding. I don't know how either to say that, but, you know, that 30— that those monies wouldn't necessarily just be spent. You know, without some sort of prior approval, whatever that prior approval ended up looking like. And so if, if for whatever reason no agreement could be made on that, it's not like those monies just disappear. They, they stay within the CARE Fund, and you can move those around wherever it is, you know, as a council you felt like they needed to go.

If that didn't work out.

So keep that in mind as well.

Yeah, because can I just— I mean, I think $30,000 is a lot. I mean, we're only giving the ballet $25,000, and we've been doing that for 20 years or 15 years we've been doing this. But, um, so I'm, I'm willing to go with that because I'm not familiar with what it is, and I'd like to help do some seed money there. But to the point of every year it being that much, I really—

I don't know.

But, you know, I guess you're saying— anyway, right, that's what you're saying is we'll see if we spend the money.

So, yeah, so we would come forward in our, uh, May 12th council meeting with the resolution, or I think it's an ordinance, the ordinance with this exhibit. And then, um, is that a fair statement of where we would be going?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This has been a good discussion. That's one of the things I, I really like about OREM is that we're, we're doing things that haven't been done before. Not that we're off doing something kind of half-cocked or whatever, but we're doing this. And so we don't have a lot of— well, this is our first rodeo. And so if it were our 2nd or 3rd or 4th rodeo, it would be— the discussion would be a bit different. But I'm grateful to have these discussions with our first rodeo. And now we're going to go to the one that's the agenda item that's the most fun to say, Fleet and Streets. I have a budget, and Thayne Carter, our Fleet Manager, Chris Shirkey, your Public Works Director, and Bill, are you here for moral support?

Underneath presentation.

Okay.

He's here for the muscle.

He's for the streets. So we got the fleets and the streets.

Thank you.

Uh, being respectful of time, how much time do I have?

Do you want the long version, short version?

Okay, it says here 30 minutes, but we're, um, we're 10 minutes over, whatever it means. But I want to respect— I want you to be able to say what you need to say and that you sat over 3 hours to come and say. So, thank you.

Give a short version in terms of what you present. And Chris, council, please feel free to ask questions and then know that this presentation and supporting documentation—

Yeah, I've looked through the chat. I want— I've been in your shoes in other presentations when the council's— I want you to feel like you've got to say what you came to say.

We'll race through it pretty quick, and if there's questions, feel free to ask. Theresa shared with all of you, I hope, that the 3 spreadsheets— the first spreadsheet is general fund leasing, the second spreadsheet is general fund purchasing, and then the final one is enterprise. And there are different types of purchases there, basically leasing, different types of leasing, purchasing, and then sinking funds. We'll dive right into it, and I won't So much to go for all the description of the vehicles, but kind of the amounts here, you'll see that we're going to extend the lease 1 year on 4 vehicles for $15,000. And then we're going to trade in 12 vehicles and lease new vehicles for 12, for these for $164,500. And then we have an annual lease payment on multiple vehicles, um, that are still year 2 of 3 and, uh, uh, year 3 of 3 for $105,500 for 10 of those vehicles. Uh, the fire department, we're, we're funding a pumper for a 7-year lease, I believe. Um, not a lease, we're gonna finance it, uh, for $160,000 a year.

This is the one that you're waiting for the documents Okay, so this is the purchase set?

It's our lease purchase, yes.

We're intended— we're flying back on the 19th for final inspection.

Okay, so I've been waiting for the email.

It'll be soon.

And then one of the internal leased vehicles will be selling and recouping $35,000 estimate from there. So The subtotal here for by departments, $410,000 for all of them, and then you'll see the breakdown there. And now we move into purchasing. Uh, there's 3 vehicles that we propose, uh, purchasing for the Parks Department that we currently leasing. Uh, the lease is getting expensive, so makes more sense to purchase, uh, an excavator, a small loader, and a, a trailer to transport them for $76,000. Community Development may look a little low for $9,000 for 2 vehicles, but those have been repurposed from enterprise funds, and those are going to help do a little bit of fitting. Parks and Recreation, $207,500. There's a large gang mower in there and some UTVs and a couple small mowers, riding mowers. And then traffic, $80,000 for a van, full-size van to transport the— that folds around and work on signs. Then we come to purchasing for the general fund, $663,000. You'll see animal control, patrol, K-9s, some sport utility vehicles. Some of those are hybrid. And then some undercover vehicles there. So the request for the general fund is just over $1 million. There's a quick breakdown there. Move into— hold on, that was for purchasing.

Right.

And then the total request is just under $1.5 million.

If I can just highlight here, perhaps especially for those that are newer on the council, you'll notice a kind of a multi-pronged approach, and we base this approach off of trying to balance cash flow versus what's the best deal versus what we can manage, or, you know, where the warranties are at, and look at all of that. On a vehicle-per-vehicle basis to then—

Yeah, I can see that.

I did read the spreadsheet, just so you know. I did go through all of it.

Brent, reading between the lines there, are you saying that because sometimes it makes more sense to lease and sometimes it makes more sense to buy? And that question is later. It's a case-by-case kind of thing, and that's why we have some leases and some purchases.

Exactly.

And I'll add to that as well that he mentioned, uh, he mentioned that enterprise funds will oftentimes purchase newer vehicles, new vehicles, and then after, uh, being lightly used, we will then shift them down to other, including general fund departments. So, was it 2 trucks or so?

It's one of those situations. Our new truck is their used truck.

Yeah, it's like a little brother, big brother, cozy coop or something.

That's what my kids feel about it.

Kristen's also given me a couple of sweaters.

Thank you.

Uh, should we go into enterprise funds real quick?

Yes, even quicker. Um, is there—

it's pretty consistent year to year, uh, with stormwater. We have sinking funds where we're saving, uh, our vehicles, uh, Buyback programs will be purchased and we've done 3 years, so you'll see.

4-year, 3-year, 4-year estimations of the sinking fund. Are you— is that you're meeting that dollar amount and that's an adequate timeframe?

Yes, like that jetrotter, we've been saving for 2 years already and this is the 3rd year.

And the 3rd year pays for it and you're still on track with what you needed and most all is good.

Most often that's the case. We do have a generator at the very end of this presentation where we had to bump it one more year, and the pricing was a bit more anticipated.

But anyway, I'd say Thayne's crystal ball is pretty darn good.

I've usually ended up being just about on the final year, but yes, there are exceptions to that.

Yeah, it's always nice to have the bank already, you know, already sinking funds with a big chunk of that ready to go. So here's the breakdown for streets. Here's water reclamation. A couple big ones is a jet rotter, and the bottom one there, a camera van, inspection van for the sewers. And then water department, A little bit bigger request than the other funds. Total for enterprise funds is just under $2 million. Here's a 10-year history. If you're— this is all on the spreadsheet too, on sheets 4 and 5. So, and that's the end of the presentation. $3.4 million request for replacement this year.

Council, any questions?

How's that working out maintenance-wise? Are we still— are we saving money then because we're replacing? We're not having any— I mean, I keep hearing all these new vehicles now have so much tech that they break down sooner, they have issues sooner. Is that— do we need to worry about that, or are we doing fine? Um, accelerate the purchase sooner?

Well, some of the vehicles we do, like the yellow iron, our backhoes, we've purchased, but then we flip in 3 years. Maintenance is in that program. The leased vehicles also kind of helps take care of that. But there's more and more vehicles. Yeah, they're getting a little bit scarier as they come. We have a few hybrids, and if we have an issue with those, they'll probably just go into the dealer. But so far, they've held up pretty good.

We take a look at the warranties that are offered on them too, and that we try to stay within warranty, and something maybe comes up higher on the list to replace if warranties on bigger aspects of it are coming at the end of the term.

I mean, how's the— if you want to talk about the Porter Bank, has that timing improved at all?

Yeah, it has improved a lot. COVID threw some curveballs, and it was hard to get vehicles. I had to kind of do things a little differently, but now things are steady. The order bank's been open for months. Most of them are closed now, but they'll reopen soon. It's a lot less stressful that way. Build times, we've seen some of the 1-ton Fords come in in about 2, 2 and a half months, which is incredible. Uh, during the COVID days, we were waiting sometimes around a year.

Yeah, and the only reason I bring that up, Quinn, you mentioned about capital projects and when almost all of that money does get spent in that fiscal year. There are a few that maybe right near the end of the fiscal year, and so we might not get them done in the fiscal year. It may happen right at the beginning of the next fiscal year, but usually does not go much beyond that. I say that obviously there's a large amount of that $3.4 million, as you saw, that were sinking fund-related bigger vehicles. So it's not that entire $3 million.

Like fire engines and jet rotors and stuff.

Maybe the ones we truly intend to purchase, those things that— those ones do happen.

Thank you. Thank you.

Track of all of that.

Welcome.

Thanks, everybody, for your help.

It's been a— that was a really involved process.

He's done a phenomenal job over the last several years on this. Every year it gets better and better. So he pays a lot of attention to detail. He has a great staff.

Bobby—

Bobby is here right now, and Sean.

And Sean.

Sorry.

Any—

was there anyone else?

Thank you.

Question, and maybe you already answered this while I was up, how many vehicles are in our fleet? Is that a fair question?

Yeah, there's more than a lot.

I actually ran a report today, and of all the vehicles and equipment, including small equipment, we have 1,361. But most people are more interested in, um, like Vehicles we drive, we have about 350 vehicles that we drive. We have about another 250 vehicles when you look at riding mowers, trailers, backhoes, and different things like that.

So about 550, 600 bigger type vehicles, and then a lot of small stuff.

That's a fleet.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for your patience waiting for us.

You bet.

We could ask you what you think about occupancy. He bases it on seatbelts. Seatbelts in each. Excuse you for a second. All right, now we go to the streets portion. Joe, thank you for your patience. And what are your thoughts on our streets?

There we go.

Oh, the tough—

I don't want to pass the tough utility fee. Can you tell us about that tonight?

Yeah, I'll be able to. Um, does anyone need a break? 6:10, but Uh, how much time do I have, Brian? 5 minutes?

Uh, definitely introduce it and share maybe kind of the major milestones from here to go through this full process.

I'll start with, uh, so, um, what are we calling it down there at Sarah now? The, the project with the arts and all of that?

Heart of Downtown.

Sorry. So, so the Heart of Orem, part of that component Could be funded in part by a tough revenue source, which is 720 South Street, which might cost around $100,000 to do an overlay, or about, uh, you know, significantly more to do a reconstruct. So part of the vision for that, I think, is that team— Bill and I team. So first of all, this is, this is Bill Street.

Sorry, Bill Peterson.

Straight, that's not Bill Street.

He's not. Great Mary Street.

So anyway, Bill and I started probably about this, you know, within like a month or 2 of each other. Been a minute.

Yeah, 1994.

Yeah, we have 2, we have 2 division managers that have announced retirement. So out of the hundreds of years of expertise we have there, 2 of them are now officially leaving. Uh, one is our stormwater, and that is, uh, Rick Saby. And then GIS, not to get off track here, but, and then also Cody Stegel is our GIS, first GIS division manager in the history of ORM. And so we have 2 vacancies there. And also I have Tyler that was stolen by, um, Bryce. We got some things to do. In any case, tough, this tough fee. We, I introduced it to you a couple of weeks ago. Um, I have Bill here to help out with questions.

Thank you.

That was mine, I thought.

Okay, we're good.

Thank you.

Um, I'm gonna zip through some of these at the very beginning, and Bill can answer some detailed questions that you might have. Today we have how many millions, tens of millions of square feet of Asphalt, do you think we have in the city?

A lot.

50 million. If we were to construct them all today, reconstruct everything today, it's $8 a square foot.

What is that?

It's a lot.

$400 million, I think, if I'm doing the math right. And then for— so, and 75% of our asphalt that we own right now today is local streets, and that's where we're showing that we have significant aging and concerns. We focused on commercials, our connectors, and arterials. This map here shows anything— that's about 60% or 50% of our roads, local roads, are over 50 to 60 years old today. And we stretched the life as long as we could. We mentioned to you last time about the condition index and so forth. Condition indexes from 90 to 100 are low as All 29 to 0. Our roads primarily right now for our locals are in this category of fair. Every year they degrade about 3%, so they're going to be approaching the poor category, at which point we might need to reconstruct. So our plan right now is, with the help of this, this TUF fee, is that we'll be able to extend the life beyond what we see here if we don't do any maintenance. So you've found beyond it here. Um, the loads, when they reach a certain condition though, um, degraded, then we need to repair— not just repair them, we need to perhaps overlay them or replace them altogether and reconstruct them. This shows a condition index. Uh, red is meaning they've failed. Green, bright green means that they're perfect. We don't have any bright greens, but we do have some reds that are popping up. Everything in between is somewhere around 60 or so, 50. On our OCI, we're getting to a critical point right now in our street system. So what's— what are the different OCI conditions look like? This is an OCI 90 to 100. That's 89 to 70. Looking at this one here, it's 50 to 69, 30 to 49. This is starting to get to the point where we might need to reconstruct. And I'm going to show you some reconstruction examples on here. On 17th South, we're doing a project down there today. Yeah, reconstructing this after we put in a new water line and sewer line in this street from 800 East over to State Street. This is another one that's on our list if we have the funding available to do to reconstruct this on 4th West from 1580 South to 1800 South. This street is basically glued together. This is a lot of Gorilla Glue that we're going to use in here. Actually, this is a cracked ceiling. This is what This is amazing, though. This is a cheap dollar amount to extend the life of the road. It doesn't look pretty. It's lipstick, but it does extend the life quite dramatically.

I am the beholder, Chris.

This is art.

This is art.

You're our artist in residence.

Riding a skateboard, you would hurt yourself on this.

Caretaks for asphalt.

Oh, now that's creative. This is a failed road here on 600 North. You can see on this one, we already have a curb gutter sidewalk on both sides.

We look—

we're looking to do that. This is, this is really rough. Um, this one is a really interesting example that Bill prepared. This picture on the left is a great example of what slurry seal will hide. Okay, over here. That is the same street. Like a year later, it looks like this. That's a skin patch. That's all we've done there. It looks nice, but it's going to look like this in a short amount of time. Bill, how many years will it take? 1 or 2 years to look like this again?

Oh, a couple.

Yeah, a couple of years. So we're just, we're just kind of stretching it along the best we can. So these are all examples of roads that we're planning on reconstructing that are Reaching that level below probably 40 or so. 70% of our streets are local. That's 35 million square feet. If we were to reconstruct all of those, that's $8 a square foot versus $2 a square foot of an overlay. So we're looking at targeting these roads to be overlaid altogether. You might ask, what is our plan? This is our 5-year plan right now. We have a plan for the next 25 years for every single road. In the city, every single road segment. This is an example. I'm going to blow up a little bit here. If we had $4 million for asphalt, this is what we would do for overlays over the next 5 years. I mentioned this already, but 35 million square feet of asphalt is local streets, and another 15 or 14 million is arterials and collectors that we have a really good handle on right now. The locals is where we need to focus.

Can I just ask one quick question? I'm just curious, Chris, do the— who are the employees that do all this patch stuff, the slurry? And then who makes all the squiggly lines? Are they Orem City employees or is that contracted out?

Contracted out.

Bill manages all of that.

Okay.

We do, we do a lot of asphalt work in the city.

We—

how many tons of asphalt did we put down last year?

Uh, right around 4,000.

4,000 tons. And then how many cubic yards or Concrete, right around 800. 800. And so they have a fantastic crew that hits that. They're on the ready to handle issues, not to reconstruct a new road per se, but to make sure that the road is safe to traverse at any time.

And if we have soft spots and things like that, we need to take care of it.

Yeah, they'll go through all these roads prior year before a slurry and level them, remove any areas that are bad. If they need a crown, they might run the paver, crossfoot a crown before it hits a slurry as well. But we are doing the lettering beforehand.

So we do more targeted, smaller scope of work.

Yes.

Yeah, and, and we're quick to react and make it so it's acceptable level of service until we can get perhaps the reconstruction of the curb. This is what we're targeting right now for concrete. When you're looking at a road, it's not just asphalt. We have to look at the curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA ramp Handicap ramps and so forth. All of our high-hazard-rated sidewalks, we got about 3,100 feet of that. And then for our missing ramps, that where we have existing sidewalks but we don't have ADA ramps, that's about 400 of those. And so that breakdown comes to about almost $4 million is what we're looking at, and we're proposing to spend about 10% of that a year. So that'd be about $400,000 just on concrete alone. We have a plan right now. This is year 1 that goes out 27, 26 different road segments in the city. The first 4 or 5 are about $8 a square foot. Everything else is about $2 a square foot. Those are all being escalated, uh, for $5 or 5% a year over the next—

whatever year—

for the next 5 years. This is what we'll be doing if we received TUF revenues for $4 million. We would be spending about $336,000— $300,000— about $400,000 on concrete, $400,000 for admin, and about $3.2 million on asphalt. Similarly, in Phase 2, or the next year, we have another 26 projects or so, all identified on our maps. This is Phase 3. Everything's identified. We have 48 projects on this year. We have 47 projects on this year. You can't read this. I'm just saying and demonstrating to you— BJ can probably— but we have a plan. This plan is in place. We're at the ready. As soon as the funding is available, we will start executing this plan. Any questions?

So we could do that within the fiscal year?

If the funds were available.

Yes.

Yeah, it's probably— it'll probably take us to handle all of these local streets about 20 years on this projected timeframe. The longer we delay—

Go back and do it again.

Well, yes, yes, exactly. Rinse and repeat. Every year it degrades about 3%, so our score is dropping about 3% a year. So after 20 years, it'll go from like If it's a score of 100 today, it'll drop down to about 40 by the time we get to it in 20 years.

Yeah, with no surface—

With no maintenance, no surface treatments, and so forth. But we do do that. We stretch the life as best we can. Crack sealing, slurry seals, and so forth.

We started the slurry rotation. Our slurry seal rotation is every 8 years.

It started back in 2003.

And the recommendations in the state of the street was after 3 slurry seals, the road needs a mill and overlay. And we are currently starting our 4th rotation.

Wow.

I'm just curious, the cost, the inflationary cost from year to year by not doing it.

I mean, it's cost obviously goes up for us, compounding 5%, probably on average.

Year, right?

We feel like this is not too aggressive, but it's responsible, um, and it's something that we cannot, uh, not address.

We need to be progressive and take care of it.

Bill, have asphalt prices jumped?

They have. They, uh, I believe they jumped last year by about $20. They were— we were paying $50 and it jumped to $72. Depends on what mix you're getting. We're small enough that we can't actually— unless we're doing a big job, we have to take what they're, they're making it. Geneva, average of right around $72.

Do you want to give the, the timeline of approval process from here?

Mind the council of the Right, so we need to adopt a resolution and ordinance that adopts the Transportation Utility Fund in the City of Orem. We're working with legal on, on preparing that right now. We feel like we have a pretty robust plan in place to address asphalt and concrete, so I think that's in place. We've checked the majority of the checkboxes with the exception of the resolution and knowing the targeted amount to do. And, and then we're also waiting on finishing the UVU traffic study that started about 10 days ago. It might be done, so it's right on the cusp of getting that finalized so we can tweak the rates locally.

All right, Council, do you have any questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Really great.

Thank you.

All right, so thank you all. Just a reminder that tomorrow we do have a birthday party over in the park at 6, uh, opening the farmers market and 107th birthday.

107th?

And our neighborhood kids are going to be there giving out coupons. So, um, Steve, do we need a motion to adjourn?

Yes.

Okay, we need a motion to adjourn.

Okay.

We have a motion. Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Adjourned. See you tomorrow.

That was—