City Council · 2026-08-11

Brandon, probably Jodi Thannell, and potentially others in further refining the list of candidates. We want to make sure and get—

it's a high-profile position, it's an important one regardless.

So we want to get it right and go through a proper in-depth process.

There's going to be time.

Jinxing us.

I don't need a lot of time.

Anything?

All right, thank you. Right, the next item on the agenda is a discussion led by Jared Hall, our planning director, on detached accessory dwelling units. So, got 60 minutes, and if you— if we end at 45 minutes, you've got to sing for 15, or—

I have some ideas.

About an hour.

30 if you want.

Through.

So, after our last meeting, uh, took the comments that we heard, uh, the council talk about, especially dealing with the setbacks— that was a big issue— and what they would look like. And, uh, the idea of how would it look if we had setbacks that cut the expectation that people have now Of the setbacks. For instance, you have to have a 30-foot setback or a 25-foot setback in the backyard. How would that work? And so we took those comments and we've got some graphics that show what this would be like. And as a reminder, in this discussion, the goal— We haven't had the goal to try and make every lot be able to have an accessory. Or a detached accessory dwelling unit. Sometimes, depending on how the property is built or constructed, for instance, they take up their whole buildable envelope on the property. It might make it difficult for someone to have a— what do we call them now? What are we—

Attached.

No, I thought we were calling them—

We're not calling them DADUs. Doing that.

So, Jared would prefer you call them daddos.

I will openly bully anyone that refers to them.

I heard that discussion in Planning Commission. That is not how it happens.

Fair enough.

And so, the larger you get in a lot, the easier it may be, but the smaller lots, admittedly, they're difficult because someone may have maxed out already what they can build on and do. And so, uh, Jared will walk us through these graphics that we have.

Okay, um, thank you, Gary. So this is a— this is just a generic— I don't want to use the term fake. It's a generic slide showing kind of a typical or a prototypical 11,000-square-foot lot. They're usually just a little bit longer than they are wide. Sometimes they're a little wider than they are long, but you got to be, you know, in the typical zones that would, that would generate 11,000 square foot lots. You'll have an 85-foot frontage requirement. 100-foot frontage is not, not out of the norm. But again, you know, every lot is shaped differently. So this is just for purposes of discussion about what the setbacks might be, or what different approaches to setbacks might result in for us to start talking about this. What this is showing is in different parts of separation from the primary residence at 6 feet. That's kind of the building code separation from accessories to main buildings. That's the first one to be aware of. This is showing 25 feet for the rear, for the setback to the ADU from the rear property line. That is a typical R-8 rear lot setback is 25 feet. Some— it's important to remember that this is not tied on that state code. This is not tied to zoning. It's tied to lot size. But so it might be— there might be an 11,000 square foot lot in the R-8 zone, which would be a 25-foot rear. There might be an 11,000 square foot lot in the R-8 and in the R-6 zone that would only be a 20-foot rear lot setback. But we're going with— so it would be tied to that zoning or 25 feet or whatever that Case might be. So it's showing that setback. And then we talked about in that meeting, um, in the last meeting, uh, looking at separation from not just the property lines, but from the buildable areas of the adjacent lots. So that if somebody has a small house, we can look at this better in other graphics too. Somebody has a smaller house and they're only required, say, an 8-foot side yard like this and this one here. Um, if you're, if you're 10 feet, Like we're seeing on interior sides, you have to be at least 10 feet for your ADU, but you need to be 30 feet from anybody else's buildable area. So, if they add on to their house, you're not closer than you would have been otherwise. That's the thinking behind that kind of a setback. And then again, just a minimum, no matter how far, of 10 feet from interior property lines. Border sides, again, that would be facing a street. So that would show you 25 feet from any street, just like a front yard setback. So this, this fictional house here, 50 by 30, is a pretty typical Orem 2-story house and plunked down here at 25 feet, which is the front setback that the R-8 zone would require, and well inside of its 8-foot side yards that would be required as well. So that kind of shows you this, this area right in here, about 13 by 56 in this prototype diagram, would be available for someone to put an ADU. A detached ADU. Does that all make sense? So what we did is take this configuration, these types of setback applications, and apply them to some of the real-world lots that we'd randomly selected for the last time we talked. And laying those over those, so you can see kind of what Gary was talking about there. It won't— it wouldn't make it possible for every single lot to be used. But again, just looking for Some of the kind of the goals was to have setbacks that might preclude something like this happening, where it's, it's further from the house here, but it's right on top of the neighbor's house that happens to be real close to a property line there. Uh, bigger unit, and it's pretty far from this adjacent home here, pretty far from the existing house here. It's right on top of these folks. So trying to keep that from happening as a goal, you want something more into that. Again, right here, right in back, that back corner, it's in there, but it's right on top of this other folks' house. So, we applying it to the real world, you see these kind of situations. This is a cul-de-sac lot. Right here, this greened out area, you can see the house footprint right here, but the buildable portion of that lot is all of that. They could add on to all of those lines. So that's that 30-foot setback from their buildable area. Um, that would show if we have that kind of a setback, then it would limit that ADU location. 30 feet away from the buildable, 25 foot for the rear yard, and then 6 feet from the house. So you have this area in here where you could fit a small ADU, perhaps. This is a lot kind of like the one we were just looking at, but it's a little shallower. So you end up with that 25-foot rear setback showing here, 6 feet from the house, 30 feet again from that buildable area. You see the house right here, they could add on coming to this area. So that setback of 30 shows from the buildable area. Instead of from the home itself, and then 25 feet to the street out here on the corner. They have a kind of a narrow area, but again, there are some units that could fit in there. This is a, this is a good situation. Gary mentioned people and the way they site their homes. Whoever did this was thinking about an ADU in the future that they couldn't possibly have known about. I traveled back and they got— this is the best area of all of them that we kind of randomly Sampled in, given these kinds of setbacks, 30 feet from the buildables, and they're built right to their line. Feet from the buildables, they're built really close. 20 feet off still leaves you a nice big area in this, this, in this middle of that lot, 11,296 square feet. So it's not a huge lot. It's right there, just inside of where we would allow them under that state code. Here's a cul-de-sac lot. It's a big lot, 13,500 square feet, but it's a bigger footprint home and taking up a bigger portion of that lot. A lot of that lot is in this area here. Um, some of that square footage is just kind of lost 30 feet off that buildable setback, 25 feet from the rear. You end up with a kind of an odd-shaped area that you could use. It might be hard to site one. This one looks like it would be easy to do. It's a little tougher. 30 feet from the buildables gives you this area and that 25-foot rear setback. They don't have a whole lot of space they could build it. Again, some lots just will not quite— with this nook in their house, they could have maybe gotten something in here, but with that 30-foot off, Keeping them off of the south here, it's a little tougher. These again are just samples. We can't show you all 5,800 square or 5,800 lots in the city and how they would work. But yeah.

And Jared, this is specific, specifically as it relates to detached.

Yeah.

So some of these, if it doesn't work for detached, they could do like a basement ADU.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

They come into compliance with all of those specific regulations. Yeah.

Jack, let me go back up to the— Sometimes the wrong word. When somebody realizes what the right word I'm looking for here is, say it and they'll remember. This house has not been built to its setbacks. So let's say they couldn't get an ADU, a detached ADU, um, like Bryn was saying, in the area that they want here. They just can't find them. They want to fit, they want to go bigger or something. Our internal ADUs or attached ADUs— this is a—

I like internal.

Internal is a different term. Um, they could add on. They have space. They get under their setback, so they could add on instead and do a nice ADU, or they could—

maybe they've got enough space in their basement right now.

That dashed line in the schematic there is their buildable line for the house on that lot. So they may not be able to get the detached ADU that they want, but they certainly could add on to the house to that crosshatch area, which they can do now and put an ADU there.

Correct.

Internal.

Internal.

Yeah, thank you.

That's a good— that's a good point. So, all of the— and all of these lots, most of the zones would allow internal ADUs. That's a good fallback. This discussion is limited to attached ADUs. Um, let's see, we made it to that one. Uh, here's another one that kind of works out better for the folks that have this lot. It's straight. It's an exactly 11,000 square foot lot. There's a nice area in here where you could build a detached ADU. Or again, you could add on if you wanted to do an internal. So those are kind of our examples for the spacing for setbacks to talk about. And that's what we're— again, the setbacks we're using in these diagrams, these examples are those maintaining a 25-foot rear and then going 30 feet from the buildable areas on the adjacent lots and 6 feet from the wall.

That looks very fair.

I like your work there. That looks like you've addressed concerns on all sides.

It's, it's, uh, it would preclude some of these kinds of things, but allow other situations maybe to work. So, um, any discussions about that before we talk about Pike stuff?

Um, can you maybe, and maybe you said this already, I missed it, but can you tell me of, of the 11,000 square foot lots that would qualify for this, how many of those Would that— would these setbacks restrict?

I don't know. Have to— you could survey all of the eligible 11,000 square foot lots and see and run this kind of diagram on all of them.

But we could potentially be eliminating 50% or 60%, or we have no idea. Okay.

We'll tell you that. We have to run that.

Next question is, how do these setbacks compare to other cities?

That's a good question.

Other places.

That's a good question. They are. There are several cities that run programs that have the— this, you maintain 20 or 25 feet from rear. A lot of them have 10-foot sides. That's where I came up with the 10-foot interiors in the first place. The cities that are— this is maybe a good point to get to. Quinn had asked about— are you there?

Yes, I'm here.

Awesome. So, Quinn, you had asked about other cities and getting some information from them. And Jen's question kind of goes to that. So I'm going to take a second and go through some numbers, if that's okay.

That would be really great.

Thank you.

We haven't heard back from everybody we reached out to. It turns out that planners are notoriously bad at returning phone calls. I don't know if you knew this.

Oh, I know.

I had no idea.

I'll return mine.

Terrible.

Waiting for a couple of cities to contact us back with some numbers, but just for a, for a, I'm going to start with the one to talk about, um, the setbacks. Um, so in Murray, for example, uh, 10-foot rear setbacks, 10-foot side setbacks, 20-foot corner side setbacks. Uh, Salt Lake, and, but, and they have with those setbacks, they've got a total of 9 units right now. Um, detached units.

How long have they had that?

It has been more difficult until recently, until 2019. That's as of 2019. That went to those setbacks. Um, the South Salt Lake City, this is just permit data from 2025 and 2026. They have run 73 units, and they permitted 73 detached accessory dwelling units. Most of those are between 400 and 600 square feet, and almost all of them. Yeah, that's the note. Almost all are for garage conversions. Salt Lake City is allowing garage conversions for attached accessory dwelling units right up to property lines. So that's a little different. That probably— and that I'm assuming that accounts for the greater numbers. It's just easier to do those setbacks. And when you're putting them, not just garage conversions, but they're allowing them over garages as well. So that's, that's one thing. West Jordan allows them at 15-foot rear property line setbacks and 8-foot internals, 20 feet from corner sides. Um, they've got 12 units. Bountiful started doing this in 2008. The code now allows for 8-foot setbacks at the rear and side property lines. Um, they have 27 units. And Salt Lake County, uh, same as Salt Lake City, they've got 20 total units in unincorporated counties. So places like Magna and Kearns and, um, Immigration Canyon, I suppose. I could keep listing them because I am a city planner, but I'm going to stop there. And unincorporated Solano County, 20 units. They allow them at 5 feet from property lines, and 1 foot from property lines is a garage conversion. They don't have a lot, but, you know, it's unincorporated. So those are the numbers we've been able to get so far. So they're kind of all over the place on setbacks, and where you have them at— where you have them at lower setbacks, you do see greater numbers of units, and that kind of makes sense.

So I think my concern is I did some research into that too, and that way you came up with generally tracks. Murray was 10 feet from rear and side. Salt Lake was 10 feet rear. Salt Lake City was 3 feet from side and rear. Colorado Springs was 5 feet rear, side, and front. And Portland varied by location. But I think my point is, I feel like this is kind of an outlier. 25 feet is kind of an outlier for me. So I think I would feel more comfortable looking at that again and seeing if we can maybe You know, release some of those, because I think my ultimate concern is the— what does the law say? It says that they need to be reasonably—

what is it?

It can't be unreasonably difficult to locate them.

It can't be unreasonably difficult to locate them. So I think we're trying to balance 2 things. We're trying to balance the privacy of the neighbors with the ability of people to do with their properties what they want in a way that's not unreasonable. So I would argue that 25 feet is probably a little extreme. And the other thing I'm concerned about is the property, the The 30-foot distance between properties, because that brings up equity issues for me. You know, you don't actually have anything there. You could potentially put something there, but you might never, you might not if you build first. Like, there's just all kinds of issues there. I would rather have us say, look, it needs to be 10 foot from a fence line, and then either way you're going to be 20 feet between.

Yeah, no matter what, you'd always say about 20. Some cases you might be—

That feels more fair to me.

Would be—

that would be the result of that.

So, yeah.

That's a conversation we need to have.

So those are my concerns.

Will you remind me again what the Planning Commission recommended?

The current recommendation is 20— is 10 feet from interior property lines. That would include rears. Let me go back to the diagram and just do it this way. So the current recommendation would be 10 feet from all property lines that are interior. So the rear and the sides, your ADU would have to be 10 feet from those, and at least 20 feet from anybody else's dwelling on their lot. So, if they happen to be a side yard up against your rear lot area where you want to put your ADU, you gotta have 10 feet on your side. You have to be 20 feet from theirs. Well, if they happen to be only 5 feet from their property, on your side, stay 20 feet off their building. That's the current proposed.

Thank you.

And you need to remember that those standards came in. We put that in the staff report because state law doesn't require a setback. State law would, would allow you to go right to the property line. However, internally as staff, we thought, don't do that. Absolutely do not go below 10 on any of these. Doesn't mean you, you shouldn't go higher or couldn't go higher depending on balancing those equities, but we felt it important to make sure that the Planning Commission and Council knew we just don't think you should go below 10 at all.

Thank you.

Well, and when I attended the Planning Commission meeting where they went over this ordinance, there were some discussions that were being had, and it was interesting when I mentioned about impact on surrounding properties. Several of them were like, oh, we didn't think of that. So that would, you know, what they, what they designed was property-specific without looking that impact on the surrounding neighbors. And when that was pointed out, I felt like in that meeting that there was some indication of— we missed that.

I have 2 other thoughts on this. One, you and I had talked about setbacks that might be different in the rear setback for properties that abut a non-residential—

Yeah, for commercial.

Commercial, or like there's a school behind you, or there's a park behind you, or there's a Murdock Canal Trail behind you. I mean, like, that's— I think having the— I mean, all the way up to the property line, for me, like, that's not going to impact anybody. And I think that those property owners deserve to do that.

So that's a good— that's a good point. Non-residential properties or unused open space properties, park space, that kind of thing.

But it does impact the neighbor next door. There may not be someone behind, but if I have a neighbor who has filled their backyard with That impacts me and my quality of life.

Well, and that's how the side setbacks would impact that. So the rear setback, I think, could be different, where the side setbacks could be the same.

I think if you're filling your backyard with a dwelling, that's a— I'm talking about kind of a little different impact there.

Well, certainly it would still be limited by size, a number of other factors as well. I don't think that they— that would give them license to build the whole fence line in some giant building. I think it would just mean you could be closer to that than maybe someone else who has a neighbor behind them.

But it's still— if I'm in my house, I mean, I have that right now with the homes being built behind me, right? I'm in my house. I have this setback. I can see over here because my neighbor has the same setback. If my neighbor fills their backyard with 20-foot-tall building, That is then impinging on my expectation of the zoning that was in place when I moved in and built my house. We're now increasing— we're now decreasing my sightlines, increasing— and this isn't even you can't build behind me, you know, NIMBY stuff. This is just normal expectation from an R-8 housing development. That's kind of the way I'm looking at it, I guess, is There's not just the rear, but there's side impacts too that can affect the quality of life of the people living on either side of someone who fills their backyard with an attached ADU. In other words, another dwelling, really.

So I just want to make sure I understand. So what you're saying is, is the rear, the rear setback impacts the side neighbors. Even if the, if the side setbacks remain the same, they have a— it's the rear impact. Okay, make sure I understood.

Thank you.

My other point was, and I don't know how to reconcile this in my head, but you have this house can be 8-foot setbacks. So we're saying, well, your ADU can't be, I mean, 10 or 20 or whatever, 30 feet from the other property line, but I could extend my house and I could go 8 feet for forever. And yeah, there's just this sort of inconsistency between them. I could build a giant house and it could be 2 stories. It could be as tall as I want and only 8 feet, but the ADU can only be, you know, there's just a little bit of—

I don't understand.

So, like, yeah, the house can be 8 feet off, but the ADU can't. You have to be— that's your dwelling. It has to be further from my house. Your actual dwelling has to be.

Sure. And I, you know, maybe that's something we just sort of live with, but I think I would like to see a little bit more consistency.

I think that's because the ADU is subordinate to the home. And I'm just going to use my neighborhood as an example. Very modest neighborhood. We all built our homes 35, 40 years ago, right? I have had several neighbors that have now expanded their footprint, their homes, because they can afford— they want a little more room now. So I think the fact that the reason the footprint for the home seems— I don't know what the right word is. Dominant, superior, whatever is for whoever moves into that home, whoever builds that home, they will always have opportunity for that footprint, and it will never be impinged upon by a dwelling built next door. So it's kind of preserving their— any landowner's future opportunity. That's the kind of the way I've— I feel like you're presenting it, and that's, I think, a key thing to—

Well, and I just wonder if we're incentivizing something we don't intend to. Are we incentivizing people to build more more and closer to the fence line by keeping that rule rather than saying, okay, you can have a little bit more flexibility, but the impact isn't going to be quite as big if you build attached units. That's—

I mean, say that one more time.

Well, so I wonder if we're— by keeping the setback rules more strict, I wonder if we're incentivizing people to build more onto their houses and build bigger.

Because I would just build an attached.

So you could go up higher and farther, and the impact to the neighbor is going to be greater than if we just let them build a smaller 80 by 40, but it would still be protected.

Their expectation of the zoning in place when they— and like my next-door neighbor, I know he's never going to go bigger than that footprint because he has the same setbacks from the property line. Those are preserved, and whoever moves in, whoever does it, that's an expectation that is always, you know, I can always have confidence in. So you want to add? and put an ADU in there instead of adding a family room on the back of your house, that's your choice. As long as you stay in that same footprint, I really can't say anything about it. I mean, I can be upset or whatever, you know, but it's really not my call because you've still preserved the integrity of the zoning that was in place when those homes— That's kind of my— I guess. I mean, I see what you're saying, but I think, um, I guess I'm looking more long-term for whoever ends up living in the home and the next-door neighbor who lives next to the home, that it's just gonna stay equal and fair into the decades forward, you know, because everyone can rely on that.

I think there's also the expectation that if I bought my home in a single-family home neighborhood, I expect it to be that. And so that detached unit should be as unobtrusive as possible for that single-family home.

That's part of it for me.

I think you answered all the questions.

I have a question that's a little bit down the road. So that's really nice to be able to have that template to put over a lot. So if someone wants to consider doing this, They come to you, or will you have something online that they will— that they can say, okay, if I wanted to do this, this is— these are my parameters.

And it would be cool if we could make it a tool so they could use it on their lot. I'm not sure we could do that because I don't know the technology well enough, but we could certainly do it and help them see if it would work or not. So, for example, neat if there was a way for them to, to use what we use to do it, produce these. That would be cool.

Whatever the council ends up deciding, I would envision we would have something like that that graphically reflects how the ordinance works on our website so somebody could look at it and get a rough idea. And again, every lot's a little different. Sometimes the house isn't as 30 feet deep. Sometimes it's 35 feet deep. Sometimes they're at 25 feet. Sometimes they're at 30. So, it moves around a little bit.

Like an info sheet, we would definitely have put online and things like that. Yeah. And we take those kind of calls a lot already, not about detached ADUs, because right now we're just saying you have to wait and see, but we get that a lot with accessory, like sheds and garages. Things have— where can I put it?

The other thing that comes up is this conversation. Oh, go ahead.

No, please.

I appreciate the graphic.

That's Emma. Thank you, Emma, if you're watching.

Watching, you know, because it helps me better. It helps me visualize this. I appreciate Appreciate Councilmember Millett, what you're saying, and your suggestion and the suggestions that have come to create this has helped me better understand. I, I have, I have some concerns about the size of these setbacks. Uh, one of the reasons is I don't want— as the state has mandated that we allow ADUs on 11,000-square-foot lots, I don't want to be construed as somebody trying to make it unreasonably difficult to locate to where, where we would be used as an example of being unreasonably difficult to locate. That one looked like a— looked like one of those little cat tunnels.

Oh, yeah.

Just to whatever, but not— but I also recognize that we don't have to allow a reasonable— we don't— every 11,000+ square foot lot doesn't have to fit this either.

That's it. It's inevitable. So, whatever we wrote, it would—

I need to think about particularly the ones that I understand, the rear yard. I'm just thinking that 30 feet from the buildable area on each side. And I get that because some of those examples you used are alarming, and I would not want that, but This is a good discussion to try and figure out a balance.

I listened to ULCT's DADU discussion, or they had a little webinar about that. I really think that was great. And I don't think that that setback would be construed as unreasonable by their definitions. So if you haven't watched that, I would encourage you to go watch that because they really do break down what they feel like would be construed as reasonable and unreasonable in those situations. And my interpretation of that is that this would not be construed as unreasonable. And again, just because you have an 11,000 square foot lot does not mean that you are— therefore have the right to have—

entitled to it.

Yeah, there's not some right that's inherent in having that size of lot that you could then have this. There are limitations on what that looks like, and we are—

Mm-hmm.

Trust with the responsibility of determining what that looks like to make sure that we're not infringing on other people's property rights and the neighborhood feel and all of that. And a lot of what they talked about in that was that to maintain the character of a single-family home neighborhood is okay. That's part of what they're doing.

This shouldn't—

the ADUs should not change that for people.

So—

I'll go back. I had to step away from it. Partway through, so I'll go back and watch the whole thing again. So, thank you.

Any other questions about the VACs or kind of how that might work?

I would almost just say, like, you gave us these unit numbers. I mean, they really don't help me unless I know what percentage they are of homes. Yeah, Salt Lake City, 73, but they have so many more houses, right?

So.

And I'm just— to me, when I look at these numbers that you gave us, Salt Lake County is huge in geographic area. It actually just makes me think this is a great tool for some people, but this is probably not the most desirable. We probably have more interior ADU opportunities.

Probably have more interior ADUs than mobile homes.

Yeah, so, you know, I just feel like we're The people who are going to want to do it are going to do it because they can, and they're otherwise—

they're going to be—

They're going to be more— they're always in every city. In most cases, there's going to be more opportunity for people to do interior ADUs. I think that's verifiable. It just— it's more cost effective sometimes. I guess there are times when it wouldn't be, but it's generally been— it's been more cost effective. It's a lot. You don't have to rerun the utilities. You don't have to run more. It's expensive to transfer utility lines. So the costs skyrocket pretty quick on On detached ones. But some things about that are changing, I think. But I think those numbers actually kind of bear that out. Salt Lake City is a big place. They've been doing it for a lot longer, and 73 seems like a big number until you take it in that context.

It's still—

the other thing that happens is if you have a really narrow lot, a small lot, you're trying to make things fit. We have these setbacks, and this is true of everything, not just detached accessory dwelling units, but you're putting up a shed, you're putting up a garage, and you want to put it further toward your property line. This doesn't even take into account the easements that are probably there. There's probably a 7 or an 8 or a 10-foot easement that you may have to get. If we're allowing it, even if we allow you to go in there, you have to get it vacated or get a waiver from all the utility companies. If one of those utility companies won't vacate or won't waive, you don't build in that area, regardless of what our setbacks do or don't require. So that's out there too, and that might kill some projects otherwise that people are— well, I'm gonna add on to my garage. It's back here. It's only a foot off. Well, that garage is nonconforming because it's built in easement. Won't let us give a new permit to put the— that's going to happen to anybody. Easements are— unless you're an engineer, you like them.

Necessary.

So you say.

Jared, how—

how—

any quality assurance worth— take the total amount of possible products, we'd say we'll take a random sample of a square root of that. And then that was a representative sample that would help you figure out what was the likely outcome if applied to everything. So maybe we could take a bigger random sample. So if, if there's a total of 5,000, 11,000+ square foot single-family lots in the city. Take the square root of that number, a random amount of them, apply these setbacks, and then see if it is— does that mean a majority of those wouldn't be able to do a detached, or a minority? No, it would be restricted.

And it would—

So I don't know that I need you to do that. To me, this— that data is great, right? But to give you the charge to go do that, I don't know that that's the key determinant. Maybe other council members feel differently, but I kind of hate offloading that to you guys. I don't see that as relevant data to the extent that I can use it.

I would have to teach the platters what a square root is first.

I mean, data is great, but how do you apply it, right? How does it affect— it's important, but it's one of several things that we're looking at, decision points.

It's also something that we could do if— not that I'm obsessed with deadlines, my whole life is deadlines. So it's also something that we could do if something is passed and then we're concerned that it was overly restrictive or not restrictive enough, or if it made it too available, you know what I mean? And it, yeah, but it's something we could do. I could do a T-square on this right now.

I think that's another great point. We have to come up with something by August or October 1st. That's what we're charged with by the state. It doesn't mean that we can't revisit this and, change things later. Loosening things up is a lot easier than reeling them back in. So I think that there is some prudence in starting with maybe a tighter ordinance to begin with. And then as we see the practical implications of it, we can decide what, what changes would need to happen. We have that ability.

And as an example of that, Recently, we worked and redefined the building envelope. Uh, that you can build height. You know, when we had a situation where people have built the envelope was their home, and that didn't seem to be good. So we came up with a new way of looking at the envelope. And I can tell you, it was our best estimate and best guess. We didn't go through every single property and try and look at it, what they could do. But what we're doing as people come in, and if an issue comes up, we work through it, or if we run into something that, okay, we didn't anticipate this, what we would do is come back to the council and say, okay, this is the ordinance we passed. It was our best estimate of what happened. We now run into this situation. And property owners In this, uh, trying to build this, did we mean to capture and stop this from happening? And if we did, great, we leave the ordinance alone. And if we didn't, then we can tweak the ordinance. And there's some simple tweaks that we could do with that. But an ordinance like this, if you're asking me and Jared, is this going to be the best ordinance ever written on this and it will never need to be amended? Well, yeah, well, no, it won't. Because it never is. And as we get experience applying it in the real world, we may run across some things like, yeah, we're capturing things that nobody really thought that was a problem. Or it may be, yeah, that's exactly what we wanted to stop from happening. This would be a big impact. So all of our ordinances, as we Have real-life experience with them, we'll come back to you and update you on it. And like the building height or the building envelope one, and this one, as we go on, you know, we could just schedule out 6 months, 9 months from enactment. We would come back and give you an update on how this ordinance is actually working. So you actually know. What the effect is that it's having on the community.

Thank you. Council members, any other questions? I know, I say you've still got 20 minutes, 25 minutes.

Got 2 other categories to go through.

All right.

Because we did talk about as well in that, in that previous meeting, we talked about this. And again, we were, we kind of, um, In the interest of making the deadlines work, we spitballed a lot of these suggestions. So, looking at heights, we had originally said— oh my gosh, I can't, as I'm sitting here, remember what we had allowed before, and I can't remember. I apologize.

This is just—

this was a diagram that Emma did for us to show really simply and relatively what 14 feet would look like next to a typical home. This is a 30-foot-tall home that we would allow, and a home on an adjacent lot. This is showing that 25-foot rear yard. Setback, et cetera. So this is where it would live, an ADU, in the kind of setbacks that we're talking about here. And with respect to— this actually doesn't show the 25 feet on the property. Sorry, it's different. This was from before, but this is the kind of mass you'd be looking at. This is a flat roof at 12 feet. Um, we're looking at the kinds of things at a graded height allowance. So, The minimum setbacks that we require, say something like, and these are again just kind of spitballed numbers, a flat roof could have 12 feet of allowable height at the setback that's required, the minimum, and then give it a 1-for-1 increase as it gets further into the property itself, up to 16 feet for the flat roof. And then pitched roofs, 14 feet at the minimum and up to 18 feet to get more on the interior of the lot. We've been, um, A little higher than that on the previous. The current proposal is greater than that. I wish I'd left the slide that showed that, and I took it out last minute. I'm thinking so. You want to know what it would be shorter?

Yeah, we have.

You want to know what the current one is? 20 feet for pitched and 14 for flat. Okay, that's your current.

There you go.

And no increases, right? That's just Straight.

That's straight.

This would, this would be, and these are again, just numbers. Um, some of it is related to just ceiling heights that people like to use. 12-foot would accommodate for flat roofs. Let me just show you a picture. 12 feet would easily accommodate a flat roof. This is a converted annex unit. It would accommodate these. They're, they're technically flat roofs under our definition of 312. So, And this one is— you can see the interior of this unit pretty well. It's nice.

You can—

it's nice high ceiling. This is a unit specifically designed for exhibitionists. There's no shades on it.

And what Jared's talking about is one of the big pushes for Patch or Conexx. They're shipping containers, shipping modules, and you bring them in and you You can buy some on Amazon now.

I think that's the same structure.

It's—

I'm looking at it. It looks like it's the same structure.

The daytime version.

Yeah.

Oh, Hassan shares it. It looks taller in the dark, doesn't it? Just how it is. Dark is magical. So, but it would accommodate those kinds of units.

And then—

Can I ask you something? Well, So, and maybe I don't know if Chief, if you know this, I— someone today told me that those structures are very questionably their safety.

Oh.

Questionable in their safety for fire codes and things like that.

Do we—

that might be something in our list 6 months from now or a year from now to look at, is I, I, I would like to get some feedback. I don't, I don't necessarily want to do that now because of the deadline. But I think that would be something we might want to look into.

They would have to meet all the International Residential Code, International Fire Code, that they couldn't not be safe.

Oh, really?

Yeah, they wouldn't be allowed if they have— they would have to fire code to be habitable.

Are there different levels of fire code?

No.

This person made it sound like I would never stay a night in one of those.

Code for your house would be what would be required for this. Same code.

And we, and we, that's written in the ordinance too. It has to be those codes.

So it might just be quality of materials.

Sure.

So the, the 18-foot for pitched roofs, that would accommodate something like the— that would let you build a tall enough wall, like a 12-foot wall inside, so you could have a loft that was usable. Because there are rules about how you have to be able to stand up and stuff like that. You'd need a pitched roof to do— for flat roofs to go and allow any kind of loft space would be really difficult. Even 16 would be the bare minimum, and that might not work either.

So.

How do these heights compare to what other cities are doing?

I don't have a lot of data on the heights for cities. Most of them are like, they're, they're related to their accessory structure code. So they're going to be 18 or 20, and a couple of them have like 12-foot heights. Again, they're kind of around— most of them are 18 to 20.

Why would the flat roof minimum be different than the—

Because of the massing with the flat roof, I guess. I don't know. That's a good question. It may not be relevant with respect to these structures. That may not be relevant. I worry about the flat roofs, or we're worried about the height of flat roofs with the building envelope ordinance that we were just talking about. That may not be as relevant here. There's flat roofs on the brain.

I'm just a little concerned because I also did research on what other cities are doing, and I went out and looked and measured, brought my tape measure out and said, how tall is this? You know, and I— 12 is like the very lowest of low you could maybe get away with. And I think it's just almost too low. Even another couple of feet just to give, you know, a little bit of latitude. Because by the time you get the roof insulation and all the things, like, it's—

Yeah, you need, you need— so the wall, you don't want the walls to be— typical walls now are going to be at least 8 feet in a house, and they're maybe going to be new construction. They're going to be maybe— so another foot and a half of structure would get you that flat roof at 12.

Yes, and I think that would be an outlier for most of the ordinances I saw. They were significantly higher, like 20, or— and I'm not advocating for 20. I got you.

I think most of them are based on— they've just looked at their accessory Their accessory structures in general, like garages and sheds, and said we allow up to 18 feet or 20 feet. Just use that code.

So it doesn't stand out on the property.

Right. You're trying to— again, it's got to be— it ought to be left. And the other thing is, yeah, not taller than the primary dwelling.

I wanted mine to look like one of those fire training towers.

Eat a lot.

We do.

We cook good.

We do too.

12-foot, didn't you say then you could have like 9-foot ceilings and still have plenty, another 3-foot for insulation? You only need a foot and a half insulation.

So do 10-foot.

You could do it. I think one of the other reasons that I Looked at it this way and said, you know, lower for the flat roof than for the pitched roof is because we're not allowing in this code. I didn't leave it written in here, but the ADU code isn't allowing— that we've proposed is not allowing for 2nd stories, only lofts. So I was trying to get with 16 feet, at least a loft or a small loft for a flat roof, and 18 to allow a small loft in a pitched roof situation like this. But yeah, you might— that's what I'm thinking is. There's no 2nd story, so I'm not sure why a flat roof needs to be 18 feet or something in that. You know, I'm not sure why a flat roof structure needs to have ceilings or whatever.

Right.

Since we don't allow the 2nd stories, but it could allow better lofts to that point. I'm not sure that it matters really. Something you guys have to decide. I know why it mattered for us is the envelope height. I just kind of transferred that thinking to this, but it may not be relevant for these.

I don't know.

That's a good question.

So I have a question on for the flat roof when there is the small pitch to it. Do we have that the pitch of that has to be towards the main residence house?

That's not written in at all, no.

I worry about the runoff.

Yeah, well, what's that so far off the property line anyway that I wouldn't—

Yeah, potentially.

I mean, it depends on around that. It's all paved, or, you know, have they paved up the fence line? Have they any of those things?

Yeah, we didn't really— we didn't talk about orientation of the roof.

So, to her point, the hardscape could be a concern. If they have hardscape in the 8-foot setback, then that's totally— and you do the, the grade.

Yeah.

Well, I guess we need to think about that because that could flood the neighbor.

And we do this with— we would probably review that as— I can look at what we've written in our accessory structure code. I don't think we have anything about that, but with building permits, We always look at drainage. You have to maintain your drainage on your own property, regardless of whatever we wrote here. We have to deal with that. And there's lots of cases where people have to install kind of a waterway at the edge of their property because they paved right up to the sides. We would look at that kind of thing.

And I guess that would be the fix, right? It's to put the curb.

Yeah.

And so it dissipates the water.

Yeah. And with residential lots, so this is a good— this is a good point. And we could talk for an hour about this. We won't, but we could.

You got 10 minutes, and I'll be—

I'll be—

And we're going to eat our dinner.

I'm not making a promise. With residential lots, the thinking is always— so drainage is really complicated on commercial lots where a lot of the lot is pavement or rooftop or whatever. On residential lots, the thinking is always that everything just— it's a lot of lawn, and then the driveways all slope to the street. So everything in the building code is saying water has to go away from the house and then down toward the street. The more things that take up that pervious surface, then make it impervious in the backyard or the rear, the front yard, what have you, then the more that drainage is not like typical old, old style thinking. We start to worry about it. So we don't have in our code a coverage requirement for impervious surface for residential properties. We could, we probably should, as lots get smaller and homes get bigger. Some of these homes are gigantic. And that as that box fills up, the more of that box on new properties, how that box gets filled up, that's just more runoff and less lawn absorbing that water. And then you have less likelihood that all that drains out to the front. All of that is just to say that when you look at a property, let's just take this house, for example, in this picture, because randomly here it is. There's plenty of lawn absorbing water, and this driveway is sloping down to that street. Everything is supposed to do that. They put an ADU in the backyard because they paved— they put a foundation here because it meets our requirements, whatever. Part of its process will be to look at that and say, that's got to drain out toward the front too, or it's got to drain into the lawn so that it can percolate. Draining onto hard surface, that should all be sloping theoretically up toward the front and out to the street. And probably there are no violations of that anywhere in the city. I'm sure it's all working perfectly.

Well, we're all genshai, right? From that, from that storm 2 years ago, I had 2, 3 houses flooded. They flooded 3 feet, you know, the walls.

So it's something we should look at.

And a lot of communities have impervious surface lot coverage limit that you can't go above a certain percentage. And so you have to have spaces for that type of thing, but ORM does not have such a rule.

But don't we— isn't our landscaping minimum landscaping requirement kind of indirectly But is that only in the front yard?

Does the back—

That's it for the front yard. Then that's for the rear yard. You know, one of the things that we haven't talked about yet, and I don't know what to do with it, is people taking up the backyard and putting in concrete for parking. Because now I can drive into the back or something like that. Yeah, our sport courts and pickleball. And lots of things.

Yeah, it's, it's, it's something that has— it's on our radar, but I think we can in the immediate now. I think we can deal with the drainage through the building permits, and we would. We'd like more tools in the future, though, as it goes on.

Jared, can you, when you're addressing these heights, can you help us know what process we come to to determine whether a height is good, adequate, sufficient? Because, I mean, I arbitrarily could be like, yeah, 10 feet sounds great, but like, what does that actually mean? Has a builder weighed in on this? Are there standards that weigh in on this? Like, what Tells us if that's reasonable or not reasonable.

Just talking to builders about what works and looking at home plans and things. That's all I've done.

We have builders that have said 12-foot minimum is reasonable.

I have builders that have said that to me personally. Online builders have told me. Internet builders have said—

Who are these online builders you're talking about?

I know a lot of online people.

And our experience with building inspection and plan checking. as residential homes come in and looking at them, what are the trends for heights of walls? You know, and it's anywhere from 8 feet to 10 feet now, the wall, so that you can have a vaulted ceiling or 10 feet if it's not vaulted. Most homes you go into now, you know, you're looking at 10-foot ceilings. That's kind of the style. Which ironically, from 100 years ago is actually smaller than they were 100 years ago.

There aren't some pretty tall walls anymore on the interior. So we're looking at— 10 is kind of the baseline.

What's the 3rd thing?

We're stopping you again.

Yeah, I'm sorry. The 3rd thing is overall size. We, um, and it's not a— it's not a— I don't have any data for you here other than as we look at the numbers from— so we had proposed 850 or 6, you know, 650 to 850 to 1,000. And those, those footprints looked bigger in real life on those plot plans that we laid out than we had kind of envisioned them. Um, talking about this with the Planning Commission last week as well, just, you know, letting them know kind of where we were in the process. And then looking at some of the units that are out there, there are a lot of smaller units and they seem to be pretty popular. The most popular of these connexes is 450 square feet. is the 400 model. That's 400 square feet. That's pretty popular. It's affordable. Even that one's $108,000 without ground work and stuff. Um, so they get expensive as they get bigger, especially stick building them. Um, just as a— as an example, uh, in West Jordan there are 12 total units, and 10 of those 12 total units right now are under 1,000 square feet. 4 of them are 800s, and then they go 700s down to 400s. I don't know that we need to go as high as that 1,000 square feet. If people feel more comfortable about getting the ordinance done, I don't think we'd be hurting anybody by reducing the sizes that we proposed.

What size do you think? Um, recommendation?

It's hard to say. There are plenty of 300 square foot units. There are lots of 400 square foot units. There's probably not— as I look at, if these are the kinds of setbacks that we're going to be looking at, Most of these would not need to accommodate more than 300 and 400 square feet. 650 square feet might start to feel big for an ADU. 800 is certainly plenty big. I don't think there's any need to go into the thousands. Yeah.

If I could share an example, my first home in Orem was 800 square feet on the main floor, had 2 bedrooms, a bathroom, a front room, and a narrow kitchen. So, 800 feet is pretty good size.

I mean, it works.

Yeah.

So we could, we could significantly reduce, and I'm not seeing a whole bunch of ADUs that are larger in just the sort of limited, spotty looking at it we've done. I don't know that we'd be hurting anything if we reduce that size. How does everybody feel about that? Is that a—

I don't know that they're designed to be really big. I think it was for a mother-in-law or for, you know, a young married couple.

Yeah, we're not trying to house me and my 6 kids. I think my first house was like, um, yeah, so I'll probably start looking at bringing those sizes down. And, uh, we'll, we'll do that.

So we've got, looking at one of our agenda items coming this evening, and we've got 2 more city council meetings before this ordinance needs to be adopted. Council, just so you know, we have meetings, 2 meetings in September, the 8th and the 22nd. So are we— now we're working— is this going to be another on the work session on the 25th as well?

It's up to you. Um, I can bring back—

I need to, um, we need to corral you in on the setbacks a little.

Setbacks feel like we're— I think we're probably going to be okay on heights as a, as a group.

I'm not— I'm struggling with the size of those setbacks a bit. Not a great reduction, but a reduction from that. So I understand and respect where others are coming from.

Okay.

Just so you know.

But specificity, the 25-foot for the rear or the 30-foot?

The 30-foot.

The 30 is bothering you from the sides, and I'm feeling like the 25 to the rear is bothering you.

The 30 is bothering me and the 25.

Okay. All right.

Council members, other feedback?

Yeah, where's the rest of you?

So I'm— the 30 from the side, uh, I would be concerned with. I, I like the 8 feet or 10 feet in, the 10 feet in the sides.

If this rear lot setback that we're proposing If we kept the 10s on the interiors, and if we drop the 30 from the sides, but kept the 20— so sorry, it's going to sound complicated. I'll be—

Oh.

If we dropped the 30 feet from the buildable area, but kept at least 20 feet from anybody else's home, existing home or whatever, and then gave an exception to people that— let's say I own this home, somebody builds their ADU right here, and now when I put my addition on that I want to build by right, I can't, because I'm going to be closer to their ADU than I'm supposed to be. If we wrote in an exception, so they weren't penalized by that proximity, would that be—

then you're creating legal nonconformity. I don't think that's good planning.

Specifically, we'd be trying to avoid creating legal nonconformity by doing that.

I think, well, because you're—

then you have an ADU that's too close to a house. If they go and they build on—

you want the house was there first.

Well, except that the exception, it wouldn't technically be legal nonconformity because the exception would make it allowable. So it wasn't—

well, but yeah, we're giving them an exception.

Right, right. That's what I'm saying is, if it— to protect the rights of a person to build to their line without impinging, and in most cases it won't matter. Most cases, the 20-foot separation and 10 feet on the interior keep them outside of where that buildable line is, but there are cases where it wouldn't. So that's got to be— I'll think about— I'll keep thinking about that.

And then that's why I like the simplicity of that, is if you get 10 feet on both sides, then feet. It keeps it simple.

In is when you have not side-by-side houses. The cul-de-sacs, the rear is on that side. So you may have 10 on one, but then you're up to the rear of another person. So when that person had an expectation of the house behind them being 25 feet, they now have something 10 feet.

It's also when you have the corner house and one's oriented facing this way, and then the next house is oriented facing this way, and one's a side yard and one's a— I don't know, it gets complicated.

Could you do, could you do protections for that?

Let me try. I'll come up with something.

Look at that.

So if we can, I'll keep the 20-foot separation and see if we can work some way of making sure that there'll always be At least 20 feet between somebody's house and an ADU on another lot. That we can do without. That's what we're looking at. We can do this rear setback. If the 25 is too much, um, we can— I just need to know if we should reduce that all the way to 10, like we have it, or if we need to increase it a little bit. There are some 20s out there. Uh, Jen, you've looked at, um, some others. There's some 20s and 15s, and if there is a difference in interiors, it's usually for the rear. Like the interiors will be 10 all around and the rear will be 15 or something like that. Or they'll just be the same.

Yeah, the 30 was a little bit much on the rear. I don't think a lot of change, but possibly a 20 because of the buildable, and then you'd still be a long ways away from anybody else. In the case of this one, a lot of them have, have on a current home, already that has some kind of an awning for a little patio or something. They already have that 10 feet basically anyway, so that doesn't bother me.

If this were 25, for example, if this 25 were a 20-foot setback, it would open that area up a lot more. 5 feet can make a big difference.

That's all I'm—

that's my thoughts.

Are you guys more comfortable with 20 then?

I would be more comfortable with 15.

We can, we can completely against that.

And then, Quinn, do you have thoughts on this setbacks?

I do. I think this is a productive discussion. Thanks, Jared, for showing those visuals as well. When you showed the visuals, I did have concerns that we were really constraining space for the sample of lots that you had. So I do think that what you showed us was the setbacks were too, too large. I'm also very sympathetic to Lene's desire to protect the neighbors, and I think it's just a balance. I just, I think if we aim for 20 feet between buildings, maybe 15 to 20 feet in terms of the rear setback, I would be comfortable.

So we're going back to the 20 from a dwelling instead of using property lines.

Instead of 20 from a dwelling, the property lines are still there, 20 from a dwelling instead of going 30 feet off of the buildable, the build-to line. I will point out this just to make everybody feel better, as we're not— if we're not reducing a long way from 25, if we're going to 20 or to 15, this was not a lot that we had done originally. It's not a sample that we pulled originally. It didn't take a lot to find this one, and you can see the ones around it would be similar in their allowances. So there are— There are You know, the ones that we had pulled randomly before, yeah, they looked a little more restricted. But I had Emma pull 2 more that were— it wasn't hard to find 2 lots that made it pretty simple to do. So, there's, there's, there are going to be lots out there. It'll stay fairly open, I think, at 20 or 15 feet for setback. Not a big deal. But, you know, again, it's got to be— it's got to be something that can be acceptable to everybody.

So, unintended consequences, basically all you're doing is you're increasing density without having it go through the city council.

It's— yeah, but ADUs do increase the density. That's really the—

this ordinance, you're right, then that this ordinance would be ever increasing the density.

Yeah.

So if you do something like that, how big of a— limiting the ADUs then to 850 max.

Could we even limit them lower than that? If the goal is to— if the goal is to keep them unobtrusive, then maybe that's the better way.

For me, there's 2 things here. For me, it's the unobtrusive and the— because I saw there's some municipalities they're talking about, once they get this passed, then they get a lot that they can subdivide, and then you have a house behind a house.

So you—

the unintended consequence is I could have double the density on both sides of me, my neighbors, without my having any control or any ability to do that. That, and then also the protections of the expectation of where, you know, unobtrusive, and then my expectation of the setbacks in my neighborhood being consistent and fair to everyone, every house on the block.

And I can see reducing the size, you know, saying, look, 850 max, because I don't think the goal is to put more people there. It's just giving more flexibility where to put it.

Okay, let's definitely reduce the size allowance and pull that back far enough that the setbacks feel more comfortable.

Yeah, once again, the big thing is the impact on the neighbor. Yeah, you know, and this is the thing I've said. This is kind of what's in my craw, right? And you guys all know this, but, you know, I don't want it close to my house. I'm going to put it in the farthest corner possible. Then my neighbor feels the impact and not me. To me, that's just not fair to do that. You know, and if we're facilitating that by creating this setback from a dwelling instead of from a property line, if we're not, you know, referencing and maintaining the property rights of the property lines, we're setting up an opportunity impinging upon other people's property rights.

So, privacy, it's a good point, and that's still the goal is to make this Not violate state code requirements, but also the, uh, rights of those existing people around and keep the character of the neighborhood very residential. So, looking at the height as a, as a smaller allowance at the bare setback, and then getting bigger as you go, incentivize people to go further in. And then if we have greater setback for the rear, that'll help. And if we keep that 20-foot separation from anybody else's home. We'll take a stab at it for the next meeting.

I just don't agree with the 20-foot separation from a home. I think we should be using property lines for our metric. I don't know why we're using the property.

We'll do both.

Someone else's—

the next door neighbor's, or whatever is greater.

Can we do that? It's the greater of the 2. The 20 feet from anybody else's home is a failsafe in case the 10 feet on an interior or the 15 feet on a rear does not get you 20, in case somebody has an existing condition that's different than normal. The normal situation, like Chris was saying, would be 20 feet no matter what. There are those cases where less, and the 20-foot building-to-building separation instead of just property lines is a failsafe. That's all it is.

I don't think I would want the rear setback to be any less than 20.

Let me get some graphics done at 20 and 15. See what that looks like.

So nobody wants 25. Nobody wants to keep this, the setbacks that we have in place right now in our zoning.

I want to keep the 25.

I preferred that, but I'm good with 20.

Maybe I'd like to see 20 from the property line.

And I just think of my kids playing in the backyard, and there's now a house right there in the neighbor's yard.

That's—

that just doesn't feel great. I wouldn't like that as a parent, so I would rather it be closer to The house of the property that it's on, then—

I agree with that completely.

I'm just saying that I feel like 20-foot property line is a—

that's a—

it may be a good distance. I mean, trying to look at both sides of the pancake here. But I agree completely that we want to keep it As close to the home.

The setback should be on the home on which the property resides, not on the surrounding homes. And the more we move that setback, the more we're pushing that on the neighbors. And if that were me living there now, I now have people living in that property, in that, you know, DADU behind my house. That feels a lot more obtrusive to me. And my kids playing in the backyard, right? So that's the thing that I don't want to see happen.

Could you do a combination of 20-25 setback coordinated with how close it is to the home?

Coordinated with how close?

Yeah, so you can— you You have to be within 10 feet of your house if you— if your rear setback. So, in other words, I'm trying to say, can we get them to have the impact be next to their house? Scooch them up closer instead of next—

write it in reverse.

The neighbors, keep it close to you for—

yeah, yeah. Most of the internal, because that kind of helps me with this impact on the neighbors issue.

I mean, I, I look at my backyard and I think I'm probably— my backdoor neighbor is probably 20 feet.

And, you know, it's—

I think you're 25.

The code is 24. 24.

I've honestly never thought about it, but, you know, as I think of myself coming out and saying, hey neighbor, you know, it's It's not that far, but it's far enough. I don't feel— and I'm sure that she would say something completely different. She'd say those Lambsons are so—

100 feet away.

And I get that.

All right, do you have the direction you feel comfortable with?

Enough to get to the next meeting.

Okay, you want to talk about this again?

No problem. Thank you. No, thank you all very much. I appreciate it. It's very helpful.

All right, um, dinner's ready. I've asked Council Member Lambson if he would A blessing on the people.

Our Father in Heaven, we humbly bow our heads in humility and gratitude before thee this evening. We're so grateful, Heavenly Father, for the many blessings that we enjoy each and every day because of thy greatness and thy glory. We're especially grateful, Heavenly Father, to live in this community, and we're grateful to be able to serve in the various capacities That we do, and pray that thou would bless those in our community who are hurting at this time, or who are going through personal struggles. We pray that that would bless them and comfort them and help us to know as neighbors how we can lift and share their burdens. We are grateful this evening, Heavenly Father, for this meal and pray that thou would bless it. We pray that we would use it to strengthen nourishment, to do good, and Again, we just want to express our gratitude to thee for all of the blessings that we share. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen.

I mean, nobody—

Our choice.

And before we go to Mr. McGinn in his presentation, I'm going to turn the time over to Mr. Carlisle here for just a couple of minutes.

I know this is unusual, and some of you have seen me here, but I want to give some gratitude. On May 1st, I had 5 bypass open heart surgery and changed my whole life. Okay, I was in the hospital for about 8 days. I came home for 3 days. I started losing consciousness, getting really sick. My wife and daughter are saying, call the paramedics. What should we do? Long story short, 2 minutes later, paramedics were at my door. I lived between Mountain View High School and Lakehurst Junior High. All I remember, they came downstairs. Mr. Carlisle, Mr. Carlisle, them in the paramedics vehicle. Next day I was in ICU. Evidently they got me here so fast down the Utah Valley, Orem City paramedics. And after about half hour, doctors say he's not going to make it.

Because they got me quickly, they worked on me, I did make it.

A lot of this big time is because Orem City paramedics. I don't want to hear My thing about how we shouldn't— there's a lot of that going on. So I thank you very, very much for that and some blessings and prayers. Quick thing, I'm home about 2 weeks later. Remember we had rain? We had rain in May. We had rain in May, and in front of my house, the sewer drops about this far, you know, the manhole cover. I called Danny at Orem City. Say, hey, we got a problem here. Kids are walking around here, they're going to fall. In about 3 days, Danny's out, looks at it. Within about 4 or 5 days, a big city crew— I mean, it's this big— they come, they raise it up, it's beautiful. Then maybe in another 4 or 5 days, become an asphalt. So I love Orange City.

Appreciate you guys.

You guys, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm glad it all I'm alive. Glad to have you here back at our council meetings.

Thank you for the time.

Appreciate it, Mayor.

All right, our next item on the agenda is a presentation on the Community Development Code update. 10 minutes, Mr.

Uh, hopefully it won't be anywhere near 10 minutes. As, as you know, Community Development is the department that we have here. However, our code calls the Community Development Department Development Services. We did a little rebranding from Development Services and renamed the department Community Development. And I think the reason for that was to send the message that we're focusing on the community, the residents who live here, but also developers and businesses. You know, it's developing the community. It's not development services, and it makes it almost sound like we're, we're there for developers and the residents aren't involved. So, because of that rebrand, we do technically in the code say a lot of things like, uh, the development services department shall do something, and we just need to change all of that to be Community Development. So it's, it's a massive change. There's well over 400 individual changes, and we'll have to take some of these to the Planning Commission because they're in the zoning code. So it'll go there, and we'll just be renaming Development Services and correcting it to what the name of the department is, which is Community.

Mm-hmm.

So don't be surprised here in the future when we come back and you go, oh my gosh, what is this 400-page document? That's really what it is. And so feel free to read it. But hope—

but you're going to do red lines, right?

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I'll ask.

We'll do red lines.

I can tell. She's going to do it.

And I have hidden in there somewhere a secret code. And if you call me with that code, you get ice cream.

Yeah, it will be.

And no using AI. So just be aware that this is on the horizon to come to you. Just wanted to give you a heads up. We haven't taken it anywhere to Planning Commission or anybody yet, just to make sure you're aware and feel comfortable. With that change, we've— if you're not, we need to redo some signage because you come here and it says community development, and that's what we're doing.

That makes sense.

Yeah. I think it's a great rebrand for us to really send the message we're trying to build the community, not just provide services for developers.

All right, thank you. Our next item is a city council report from Council Member Gale, so I'll turn the time over to you.

Fabulous. Okay, um, I'm just going to update you on all of my commissions, and there are a few. Um, America 250 is kind of wrapping up, and we are celebrating with lunch with all of our volunteers on that commission next weekend. That's been fun. And the Care Commission also has wrapped up for most of their things, but we did get some lovely thank you notes from some organizations that participated. And we're looking towards next year to maybe just further solidify how we make decisions rather than feeling a little bit arbitrary with some of them. IHC outreach, we toured along with Crystal and Mayor. We toured the new hospital addition at Farm Community Hospital. They added a new MRI machine, a new fancy MRI machine, and that was really cool. So it's great to have them as a part of our community, and they really give back a lot. And it's a great offering. So if you need an MRI, wait times are shorter, and the time it takes to get in is shorter. So go to Orem Community. The Natural Resources Advisory Commission is doing all kinds of fun things. They're having some community events and education. They're doing an event in October that looks at Utah Lake restoration and maybe education and Orem's role in it and how there's this Utah Lake Advisory Commission and educating our residents about that. Um, then October 12th, we're going to have a leaf-themed greenhouse event in our new greenhouse with arts and crafts with leaves. And then we're having a library seed swap in February to do their garden, so that'll be fun. Um, the tree init— the tree planting initiative is called Rooted in Orem. That's the name that they decided on. And, uh, the goal is 1,000 trees over 5 years. Um, and we're doing, uh, the initial distribution or sale of about 50 trees is in early September. So they've ordered them and they're going to be distributing at a deep discount to residents who want them. Be fun. And other things, we're looking at doing a recycling tour of the facility and then helping with the farmers market bike valet. Um, so they're active and busy doing great and fun things. And Brad and Caitlyn have been So they're doing a great job. Utopia passed a budget just recently that will allow the cities to get even more money. So I think we're about $95,000 more next fiscal year, because they also were able to hire several employees to help keep service offering. And they are currently— we just got a check from them from about The number— what's the number? It was in June. It was $1,098,950. Does that sound right?

I'll drag and say $1.1 million.

Yes.

Oh, $1.1 million.

Okay.

And they are adding about 640 new subscribers every month. So that's good for us and helps the whole of us be successful.

So that's good.

And then the Utah Valley University slash Orem Business Resource Center, we had a great meeting with Ryan and Garrett, our new person. We met with Steve— let's see, Josh Barlow, who is the new director of the Orem Business Resource Center, and Seth Jensen, who is the director of entrepreneurship at Utah Valley University, and he's now responsible for that center. I mean, who is— who's the other? Do you remember the lady? Was she responsible for curriculum at UVU in the business program?

Oh, she's Seth's number 2.

Yeah, we met with her too. Anyway, it was a great meeting. We talked about the direction it's going. I feel like there's a lot of new energy there. I feel like Seth, especially with him being responsible for entrepreneurship at UVU, has a really vested interest in making this successful. And our staff is currently working on a new agreement with them. So we'll see as that takes shape over the next little while what that looks like.

Summary.

All right, thank you.

Any questions for Jen? Appreciate you representing us.

I don't have—

Right, next item is just quickly reviewing our agenda for today. We have a presentation from the Public Works Advisory Commission, and the presenters are going to be Chris Shirky, and then Mike Wimpy, who's on the Advisory Commission.

He's the chair.

Yep, he's— oh, is he the chair? Okay, great. Then we have a presentation by Chief Sanderson, uh, citizen life-saving, and then we will have some time for personal appearances, and then we have a consent item on, um, our City Council meeting schedule, and it's adding Excuse me, a work session only on August 25th. So that will be our next meeting, will be the 25th. It'll be work session only. And then on Thursday, August 27th, I, uh, where we'll be having our Truth in Taxation hearing on that date. And then our scheduled item Is a resolution appointing to the appointments to the Justice Court Nominating Commission. Excuse me. And talked a little bit about that in the, in the session earlier in the work session. Financial items, and then city manager items, and we adjourn. It looks like we do not have a closed-door meeting this evening. Any questions? Anything you want to discuss in here before Anything with the agenda or the work session?

We have one question. We've seen a few times, I think, lately that we've had people sign people up to speak during the public comment. And I mean, multiple people, and those people aren't present. I know in the past we've always had kind of the, you need to be here, you need to sign up for yourself. I mean, you know, maybe they signed in for her husband or something because I feel like, you know, what we've seen happen, not sure if we should make that clear that that's really not the way we want. What do you think?

Yeah, that's—

may I also, to address that, would it help to possibly have a member of the city staff verify who you are as you sign up?

Is that—

would that help, or would you—

Yeah, well, and I don't want to be too You know, I don't want to be too anal about it, but I just felt like we had, what, 4 people, 3 people? I can't remember that you called up and they weren't here and they weren't here, and then they rushed in. Oh, you missed me. And I'm like, baby, you can find her anywhere, you know? And the other thing would be— I mean, I'd like to discuss that, but then the next thing would be is maybe in a way to make it go a little smoother is we could do what you do, have the name, say the names of who's next, but have them come sit on the front row. So we're not waiting for people to pop up again.

I think next meeting, the 27th, we're going to have a lot of comments.

So maybe if we have like seats where people can, you know, come and—

That's what—

closer to the mic.

So regarding the 27th, in fact, today I talked to Brent about this, is that I would like to have our protocol for that public comment outlined and ready probably before, just soon.

Yeah.

And just because, if you're not aware, it's a meeting where we're required by law not just to have the comments of people present in the room, but we are required to allow online comments. So someone can attend virtually, which is fine. It's just that we don't have any protocol for that. One thing, as I've, as I've asked Brenda to look at it, is my, my intention is not to give everybody 3 minutes. So we're trying to work out what is the time that's appropriate where someone can feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, but yet also recognizing that there are going to be many people— I anticipate many people wanting to give comments. So that's what I've tasked Bryn to do, is to come up with some ideas for that. But like you said, sitting up front or whatever it is.

And It's—

and also, if I— like I said, I'm uncomfortable going less than 3 minutes, and I don't know unless any of you are really wanting to go have 3 minutes per person. I don't know. I guess I don't know what number we'll land on. And then discussing at what point do we give out the information about how the public hearing will be run? I would appreciate having that information available so we can give it to the public days before, even before they even show up at the meeting, so they understand when they come to the meeting, this is how it's going to be run. So there's a level of expectation.

Would you anticipate something like you'll have 5 in person followed by 5 online followed by something, some, just whatever?

That's what—

some nature where—

so, Bren, Bren's getting online. Yeah, some, some way of doing that. So I don't want to have everybody waiting online and everybody waiting here. It's— Friend gets to do that.

We'll come up with some suggestions on how to organize it, organize it, the intent to have it be as efficient. Still, you know, make sure we're well within the law and make sure we hear from our residents.

Yeah.

And regarding the— during the meeting, yeah, I would— I can reiterate at the beginning, or whether or not, you know, just reiterate again that they have to be present, must be present to win. Or whatever, must be present.

Sign their own paper.

You sign your own paperwork because we are getting particular on, on some certain topics that we're getting people, like someone coming and signing up a bunch of people and then they're not here or show up later.

Is there a—

Pete, do you know if—

do we say anything like that on the paper?

Yeah, I think you do, don't you?

That's on there.

They're not supposed to— they're not gonna sign up for other people.

But no one's guarding it, so—

Well, but then you as mayor and council, knowing that, know that that, that gives you a little bit more standing to say, as it says on the sign-up sheet, present sign-up.

You know, I think to your point of, I In my prior life, before I was on the city council, I did have issues in my neighborhood, and I did come and speak before the city council. It's— and it's quite nerve-wracking. And I spent the whole day preparing what I was going to say and timing it. And so I can empathize with people who have a 3-minute speech planned, and then they're told they need to cut it to 2. That just adds more stress. And so defining that before, I think, is a real good idea, because then I think it will just create a better environment and atmosphere too.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, that's right. That's what I hope to do is let them know that we are interested in hearing what they have to say, what people have to say, and be respectful of that. And I think giving them— setting the expectations as early as possible, that's an important way to do that. Thank you. There isn't anything else. I might entertain a motion to adjourn.

Right, to adjourn.

Second.

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

And we'll reconvene at 6, right?

No, I mean, I heard a friend of mine, fairly progressive, who was like a student in this class.

Yeah, yeah.

This school, wait, in Prudential, like one that I grew up—

huh?

You went into that thing but not one of anything.

I've never been near, near bodies of water. I've never been like They, they have—

well, they could—

they're, they're teaching—

they can teach those. There's like a lot of them.

Students.

What?

I have to get the feel. Sorry, show us. Yeah, forget things later. Started an extramarital affair with the DA.

Oh, okay.

To avoid losing his job, he stepped down. He switched wards. He knew that he would be in a different— Like, like The Scarlet Letter. They hit you with a little red dot.

That's not—

no, I mean, the whole school body, they're like, you haven't heard?

No, I haven't heard.

It is, it is pretty gross.

It's always—

I think the power dynamic is always broken, and then especially when it's a church school, that power dynamic is accentuated.

Yeah. Feeling the craziest allergies.

No, I don't know.

I'd say more.

I would say more.

I think I would too.

What is it?

Homogeneous.

Homogeneous.

You'll see it.

Yeah, I think there's something like, like, maybe they should step off because I've seen guys, so like BYU. And they're really full of themselves. And then they go to like either a public university or they leave university. So much harder to date out here. And I'm like, yeah, because you're interesting. But in this dating pool, you're interesting just by virtue of being a decently attractive guy who's in the church who has a pulse.

Yeah.

But now, like, you go and you have a personality. I'm sorry, bro. If you're not all your life, I'm saying you don't have a personality, but I'm saying the likelihood of it being less developed. You would develop checkpoints. You would develop like police checkpoints.

You gotta find a person.

You learn, you learn which type of assertiveness is good, and then you develop a sense of it.

It's like, super attractive to this guy. Oh, different. It's like, no, I realize this person is attractive in a way that is interesting.

Not like they're dry.

What is it?

And they have a more interesting—

like Benedict Cumberbatch.

Adrian Brody's ugly hot. That's correct.

I think it's like—

I sure—

yeah, Adrian Brody.

Yeah, I'm bad at recognizing celebrities.

Oh yeah, he's got like a little weasel man face, but also he's fashionable.

He had very high cheekbones.

Okay, yeah, yeah, that's, that's But it's like with the interesting—

But I always see funny— like, there's a certain amount of people in the city. Test, test, test.

Last time I went to one of these, it was like, I'm hyped, basically.

Not really, but he was like, he was just so like overwhelmed.

I was like, it's okay.

Yeah, love it.

Test 1, 2, test, test.

That's it right there.

And then the flag's right there.

The best. Pretty simple. So just right here in the front, and then as soon as we finish. I think she said first.

Oh, I missed it. Yes.

Councilmember Meekham, are you— do we have you online?

Yes, indeed, I am here.

All right.

Good evening.

I'd like to welcome you to the August 11th, 2026 Orem City Council meeting, and I'll call the meeting to order. Our invocation and inspiration or inspirational thought will be given by Amy Walker, and the Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Gray Walker.

Dear Heavenly Father, we are so thankful for this time of year and season that we can enjoy all of the many luxuries and bounty of our city and our nation. We are thankful to be gathered together to unite our opinions and hearts. We pray for For patience and kindness to be present in our communication and in our thoughts as we strive to find unity in seeing the point of view of others. We are thankful for this great nation that we live in, grateful for the community and the camaraderie that we share with our neighbors and, um, the great families that we enjoy here. We are so thankful for our blessings and grateful for the safety of our community. We pray that Thou will be with those who are enduring the wildfires and the tragedies that are happening in Utah. We pray that Thou will be with the firefighters and their families and The people who have suffered. We pray that they'll continually watch over our nation and help us to find peace and safety and continue to strive for greatness and to choose to step forward with our best selves and to brave the humanity and the kindness that we can offer this great nation. We are grateful to thee and pray for these things. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you for the prayer and for leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Right, next item on the agenda is 7.1. It's a presentation by the Public Works Advisory Commission, so I'm going to turn the time over to our Public Works Director, Chris Shirkey. And our Public Works Advisory Commission Chair, Mike Wimpey. Do you want me— if he's not here, do you want me to go on to the next item? Okay, why don't we do that? Because I think the next item we've got people here. I see them all over in the back. All right, what we'll do is then we're going to wait on that and go to our next item. which is a presentation of Citizen Life Saving, and our presenter is our Fire Chief Mark Sanderson. Let me welcome the— your colleagues here this evening as well.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I just want to first start off publicly thanking Chief Swenson and the members of our A Platoon for joining us tonight. A lot of the things I'm going to discuss tonight are closely related, if not very specific names of individuals in this room who have received recognition and provided life-saving Um, care to multiple citizens throughout all 3 communities we serve. Um, I would challenge you to, over the next couple of weeks— A shift, most recently yesterday, have had a rash of very traumatic calls. Um, I don't want to share the details. However, I will share that Based off of the level of expertise, not only in our critical care program and our critical care paramedics, but from our captain, our battalion chiefs, down to our very brand new EMTs, the level of service that they've provided yesterday to 2 specific patients definitely made a difference and provided an opportunity for the very best outcome for their circumstances. And so you'd have to reach out to these guys the next time you see them. We definitely have photographs because they're used for training. They're appropriate. Doesn't disclose any personal or private information, but it would give you a better taste of what these guys and gals do on a regular basis. And so I'm very appreciative for the things that they've done over the course of the week. If we could just go to the next slide. I've shared with you this packet. I'm going to cover—

oh.

I got a clicker.

There's the clicker.

Maybe. Thank you. I have people that turn my clickers on for me. I wanted to just start out. Many of you have had the opportunity to attend our quarterly recognition. And several of you have got other obligations. I just know that the crews appreciate your involvement, your attendance, and your continued support. So I'm just going to highlight— I'm not going to read them all, but you can see. But for the people in the back, I would really— when you see your name up here, I would like you to stand up. I'm going to go through this really quickly so you won't have to stand up very long, but I want you to at At least have the ability to recognize those in the room that have made a difference on most of these calls. But this first category of operational excellence and medical calls, multiple cardiac arrest patients, and we even heard it in our work session today, that wasn't a cardiac arrest, but easily could have led to that. And based on the care of our people, that our people provide, we see really positive outcomes. Even as recently as last year, we've received recognition through Timpanogos Hospital of achieving national records with our spontaneous return of circulation across the, across the country. And it's because how quickly we respond. It's because of the level of service that our people provide, the certifications and the additional training. that we have within our organization that make us truly amazing to citizens that need us. Along with these things, it's this recognition. I think it's so important that we identify the multiple citizens that actually call 911, start CPR, get help coming, because in a lot of these circumstances, if somebody outside of the fire department hadn't initiated something, Then we wouldn't see the positive outcomes that we do. And so the shout out goes to our community and the citizens who will step up when the time needs to help start life-saving efforts that we can then take over on. But you can see, I mean, most significantly, an 8-year-old cardiac arrest. We have Captain Belknap and his crew in the back with our CCPs. We were fortunate enough—

Yeah, please.

We were fortunate enough with this circumstance to have a bystander start CPR, which then Captain Belknap and his crew were able to step in, transport this kid to Primary Children's, who walked out of their ICUs with no deficits. Just amazing results. That was Bailey Byrd, who we've noticed with an award for that citizen heroism. Um, also Captain Hickman and his crew. You can see there was an MVA extrication down on Geneva Road that was significant and horrific injuries to a patient that, because of their expertise, their quick response, their abilities to cut the car open and extricate that patient and get him to the Level 2 Trauma Center Utah Valley, is alive and doing much better than Most. And so I just want to thank them for that. Very impressive. I actually included this additional recognition, um, but I want to point out that our people don't do this for recognition. You guys know that when you attend. Um, I beg them every meeting to please provide the things that we don't see from the office. We don't hear the calls. That's not why they do it. They do it because they love the community they serve, they love the job that they do, and they really do care and make a difference. And so highlighting these additional recognitions, um, they're significant when we identify 20 years as an Orem City employee with Assistant Chief Hurston, Chief Boehner, all the way down to our 10 and 5, similar to what the city does on this month at our city recognition. A couple of the other categories that I think are impressive: training, instruction, and professional development. You can see, I mean, just quickly looking up there, we have, I know, Lieutenant Metcalf in the back that completed a heavy rescue school, part of our SRT countywide team. It was a 6-week program where he comes off of shift and Is working a 40-hour week Monday through Friday, which is not your normal firefighter schedule, disrupts your family life and that whole schedule. But based off of completion of that heavy rescue school, it brings a whole new level of experience to our own organization that will continue to grow based off of their leadership. And then Utah Fire Officer Designation Award. This is something that UFRA awards based off of a, like, a 60-page packet of requirements. And we have several employees who've earned that, most recently Scott Slater, one of our critical care paramedics. And then one other thing we just highlighted in trying to encompass all of these recognitions over the past 2 quarters is this leadership and mentorship and tactical support. The thing that I do appreciate and love is that it doesn't always— these are recognitions for working with our own crews, working with a new employee. It's also citywide training. Grant Mollquist, he's in the back. He provides all of our city department specialized CPR training for our employees. It wasn't an assignment that he, I think, was signed up for originally, but based off of his abilities to connect and his his teaching and connections he makes with our employees, he keeps getting calls and he keeps doing those classes. So it's very important that he recognize the value that he brings to not only our fire department, but the city as a whole. And I— this is also because the crews here, Captain Hickman, firefighter Cole Hayden Rosequist, we had an incident really quickly, a UHP officer, they've been chasing a motorcyclist. All day long, multiple 1080s. They turn their lights on, takes off on the motorcycle. Well, it just so happened the highway patrolman happened to see the kid stopped at a light, parked his car, tackled the kid before he was able to leave the light as our tiller was driving by. Those 3 crews saw the officer fighting with the kid, didn't look like he was winning, and bailed out of the fire engine and helped subdue the—

Kid.

The evader. And so, you just don't know the impact that has with any of our officers. They'd do it if it was an armed officer, they'd do it if it was a citizen, and you just don't know. If the guy gets the officer's gun, our guys don't intervene, you have a totally different outcome. And so, our fire department employees just don't do fire and EMS. I mean, they're amazing humans, amazing abilities, and They really do care about everybody within the cities. And then the, then the last one that I just wanted to highlight from their recognition is this compassion and external recognition. I kind of touched base on that, things that Grant's done with other departments. Um, just looking really quickly to see. But when you read through these, I mean, we had the incident in Lyndon, everybody's aware of the family that lost a 3-year- old daughter. As horrific as that type of call is, the benefit and the value and the compassion that our people bring to even worst-case scenarios, um, make a huge difference. And so I want to leave you with that. I want to thank them again for all that they do in supporting our city and say thank you. Mayor, if you don't mind, I'd just like to give them the opportunity to be excused unless you guys had questions or comments.

Oh, no, they have to sit through the whole thing. No, go ahead.

So they do, right?

Yes. No, you're welcome. To be excused. You're welcome to stay, whatever, whatever you would like to do. Now, council members, that doesn't apply to you. So, or myself. So, thank you. All right, next item on the agenda, we'll go back to the presentation on the Public Works Advisory Commission. And we have our Public Works Director, Chris Shirkey, and Mike Wimby, who is our Public Works Advisory Commission chair. So, welcome.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. Next year, I vow to not follow police or fire, okay? Because that is a hard act to follow. Every year I seem to be in this position between BJ and Mark. So anyway, we, uh, we love police and fire and all the outstanding services they provide for our community. I'd like to introduce Mr. Mike Wimpey, who is our chairman of our Public Works Advisory Commission. We've been asked to provide our FY26 annual report, and I'll turn the time over to Mike.

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. I've enjoyed my opportunity that I've had to serve on the Public Works Advisory Commission. I think it's been 3 years now. I just received an email from April Nielsen saying that I needed to reapply to have some So much fun. So I gladly did. So, uh, thanks, Chris. Uh, it's great to work with the Public Works group. I think the, the thing that, uh, is just— it's a pleasure to work with such professional people that care so much about the public and care about doing their jobs and doing a great job. And so we get an opportunity to meet with the, um, Public Works supervisors and departments every month. I know, uh, Councilwoman Millett has participated in that in the past, and now Councilwoman Muelstein and I think it's just very evident how much city staff care about their jobs and do a great job to keep us in great shape. So, um, like Chris said, my name's Mike Wimpey. I've had the opportunity to serve on the Public Works Advisory Commission, going now into a second term. And, um, my work outside of volunteering with the city is as assistant general manager at Central Utah Water Conservancy District. And so I'm lucky to have opportunity to work with city staff, both in a volunteer capacity as well as in my professional capacity on a regular basis. Other council or other members of the commission include Gary Morley. He's a retired doctor. Jim Michaelis, who I think was the prior chair, and he's a retired UVU, was responsible for a lot of their facilities and buildings. And did a great job leading the commission. Joseph Gordon, linguistic project manager at Utah Translation Analysis Center. Rob Moore, and you'll note that Rob is also from Central Utah Water Conservancy District. That didn't happen. He worked at the county, in the county attorney's office, and we were so impressed with him that we were lucky enough to convince him to come work with us at Central Utah Water. Uh, but that he was, he was appointed to the commission while he was still an attorney at the county. And then Brent Tobler, uh, he works at West Tech Engineering. We had a member of the commission, uh, Todd Hadley, that just after 9 years, uh, it was, was no, you know, probably willing, but no longer, uh, able to serve on the commission. So, and then once, once again, like I mentioned, uh, Councilwoman Muelstein is the liaison to to the commission. And I'm going to turn it back over to you, Chris.

So, all right.

Thank you, Mike. There's a, there's a brief history I'll just share with you. We did last time, but, um, in 2014 is when we created this commission. The city council created this commission. Um, we had, uh, I think, uh, Jim Michaelis was on the original commission, then he left for a period of time. He served a mission and then came back and we had a vacancy and he was able to come back again. So we had originally 7 members on the commission and then it was expanded in 2017 to accommodate the need to evaluate broadband and Utopia and UIA and provide additional analyses. We had 2 experts that came and joined us since we had 9 members on our advisory Commission at that time, and we adjusted it back in 2021 to, uh, to back to 7 members. So that's where we stand today. We do have one vacancy, as Mike mentioned, and we're looking for a replacement soon on that. Basically, the duties of and responsibilities of the commissioners are to, uh, to get more acquainted with our infrastructure, our facilities, the services we provide, uh, help us to determine the level of service that we should provide to the community with regards to water, sewer, stormwater, traffic, street lighting, street conditions, and so forth. And then they, they review studies that are made by professionals externally, professional engineers and financial consultants. And after much review and sometimes debate and analysis and so forth, we go back and forth and then we bring recommendations to the council. In this last fiscal year, in FY26, last year at this time, we Our meeting was to help prepare for this actual presentation, the one from FY25. We only met 6 times in the last 10 months or so. October 25th, we had a tour of the Orem City Hall since this was pretty new and, and nobody had been here previously to that. We also had our major project review that took place, and we're going to update you on those projects here shortly. In January of this year, we had our annual public commission training, much like what others do on commissions and boards and districts and, and council members. They have those trainings that are required by the state regarding public meetings and, and so forth. In March of '26, we then also had a review of our transportation utility fund, and the state of our streets and condition of our streets were evaluated and presented at that time. In April of '26, we tour of the, uh, the new Orem Water Reuse Facility, which the council toured, I believe, in, in March or February of this year. So our completed projects in the last fiscal year include, number one, our water reuse facility; number two, our 10 million gallon water tank. It's not online right now, but it's, it's, um, it's pending, and it's in tandem with the booster station and a new well that was drilled Recently. Those, we hope to have both of those completed next year. Number 3, I would say substantially, meaning 99% plus, the abandonment of the Provo Bench and North Union Canal companies. The Metropolitan Water District of Orem is a member of both of those companies, and those companies, for a variety of reasons, have chosen to be abandoned. And And to dissolve. In number 4, we have our Northeast Stormwater Improvements. I think Sister— or sorry about that, Councilwoman Lenee Millett mentioned in our work session that we had substantial stormwater damages that occurred 2 years ago. After that, we met with the neighborhood and the community members in that area. We developed plans with our engineering staff and public works team and other engineers to develop improvements, and we put in nearly $1 million worth of work to help prevent that from happening in the future. This one item here I wanted to bring to your attention very specifically. Jen Gale, Councilwoman Gale, has been heavily involved with mountain biking and with, with the youth and mountain biking efforts. She's a coach, I believe. As well. And we have been working with her and others in our Public Works Advisory Commission and the Recreation Commission on the development of our bike skills park. We have 3 phases of that that are now completed. This one in particular is very challenging. I've not done it myself. I know I'd probably get hurt. I know for sure I would. Maybe when I was a teenager, I would go off some of these jumps and so forth. We have worked with Mike Wimpey and Kirk Beecher of Central Utah Water Conservancy in a very professional and team-oriented, solutions-oriented process to help us to accommodate that new bike skills facility, or Phase 3 is what we call it, that was formerly on Central Utah Water's property on the hillside. They felt like they probably didn't need that per se to have the title to that. And we worked out an arrangement where they needed some access through our park to build a sedimentation basin below their 10 million gallon water tank just adjacent to our Mount Bonogus Park. And so we were very— I appreciate Mike and Kirk and Beecher and the effort that they put forward and the motivation that they had. I think this is a prime example of how public public servants in different agencies can work together to solve mutual problems for the greater good of the community. I'm just really thrilled with that, that project and the effort that went forward. We had others from our legal staff that were involved, and then including Aaron McKnight and Steve and our city manager and also Bren Bybee and Ryan, our assistant city manager, as well as Bryce, our recreation and library director. They were involved heavily, and Tyler Paye, I should mention him as well. So it was, it was a, it was a full-court press on this effort to get this done in a relatively short amount of time. It couldn't have happened without the cooperation of Central Utah, so thank you for that. We were also able to complete in the last year the North Southridge Park playground and pickleball and tennis courts, as well as the Windsor Park— at Windsor Park, the new Jazz multi-sport court, which is now underway for a new, um, a new 4-pickleball court facility at the recommendation of Councilwoman Millett from a couple of years ago in a council meeting. That was added, and that is now underway. Ongoing projects we have, um, I'll skip number 1 right now. We're going to come right back to that. I'll, I'm going to go over these other ones quickly. Well, number 10 is located at 4 South and 4th West. That's the well that I mentioned that is being— has been drilled and developed. We now, we need to put a well house on top with a new pump and a new, a new motor and so forth, and then get that operational. That'll take place over the next 12 months. The booster station right next to it, you noticed that there was a massive hole in the ground over there. That's been filled in, and that's all in preparation to take that water out of the new water tank, which is a 10 million gallon water tank, put it into our system. We're diversifying the location of our water sources in the event we do have emergencies. For example, on the hillside over here, we have the Wasatch Fault. So that'll help to remedy any concerns that might arise as a result of a major seismic event. We've been also updating the commission regarding the UDOT Geneva Road widening and Lakeview Parkway project. Most of that, if not all of that, is done in Provo, and then a good portion of it is underway right now. We've also been working with the Parks and Recreation Department on developing entryway and city park monument signs. I don't know, Mike, if you would like to take a minute to address that first one, the Central Utah Water reuse feasibility study.

Sure.

Central Utah Water about 20 years ago had the opportunity to acquire all of the former Geneva Steel water rights and water-related infrastructure. And when we acquired that water, we didn't have a customer for the water. And as we went out to the various cities and gauged interest and demand for that water, it was a little bit slow. 2008, the crash occurred, and we were wondering if we would ever sell all that water. Well, that water is long gone. Everybody is scrambling and coming in asking, where is there more water that we can purchase to supply to our communities? And we approached Chris and Reed, and as we became more aware of the reuse— many of you know that reuse in the state of Utah, throughout the country, reuse is occurring and being leaned on heavily to augment existing supplies. In Utah, you know, 10, 15 years ago, it was seen that any drop of water that makes it to the Great Salt Lake is wasted. And that mentality has shifted. did over the last several years is we've recognized the importance of the ecological importance of the Great Salt Lake and health importance for the community. And so reuse is no longer permitted within the state without a makeup or replacement water going to the Great Salt Lake. Fortunately, leaders here at the city, 20— over 20 years ago, 2003, I believe, Submitted an application to be able to have the right to reuse the water from Orem's wastewater reclamation facility. And so, as you all have toured that facility, you're aware that Orem is applying that, that water to city, uh, city parks and golf course. However, there's, there's more supply down there than, than I understand is, is needed for the city.

Facilities.

And so, essentially, Tallwater approached Chris and Reed and asked about the, uh, what the plans were for that water and how we might best— like Chris said, I think the biggest thing that the relationship we've had has been able to look at what is in the best interest of the public. And so we've been working closely together with city staff, looking at different options to potentially take that water and put it to to the best use of our community. So, um, and we're right in the middle of that, probably don't have much to report yet, but we're, we're, we had a meeting today and we're looking at really good options, uh, to, to be able to utilize that water.

We're excited about what the potential is for that. It could be a variety of things. For example, it could be land applied for, for water reuse. It could be used to augment the water supply. It could be used to actually develop and put it back into our drinking water system. I know that doesn't sound very appetizing, but there are many communities in the Phoenix area that go direct potable water from the end of the wastewater treatment plant. That water has a higher degree of water quality than the drinking water that we currently consume today. So it's one of many opportunities or options that will be out there in the future. We couldn't do something like this without the partnership of someone like Central Utah Water. So we're grateful for that. We have some upcoming projects, big projects that are coming on right now. We're in the middle of working with our engineer firm, Hansen and Luce, to develop the new well number 1. It's actually— this well number 1 was drilled in 1957, '58 and developed. That's our first well in the city. However, we are abandoning that. And And we're going to be drilling a new well at the Hillcrest Park, and that is going to be starting in this coming fall. Uh, number 2 is our City Center, 200 East City Center— excuse me, 200 East Center Street over here. It's our City Center well. We call it well number 5. That's been in place since the late, uh, or the mid-'60s. That is in need of some major overhaul and replacement. That'll be taking place this coming year. 4th West, 16th North, we've talked about this for some time, but we're finally at this point where after we do some bonding coming up in this, this fall, we'll be able to start that and start drilling that well number 11 at 4th West, 16th North. In conjunction with that, there will be a Pioneer Children's Memorial at that location. And in conjunction with that, on number 4, we're looking at also The Family and Children Memorial Garden at the Orms City Cemetery. So, um, thank you. We, uh, we appreciate your support, and, uh, we're excited about the work we do, and what we do providing for the community is, uh, is extremely important to us. And we have great professionals in this, in these areas of need and service that we're grateful and that we lean on quite heavily. And we thank you for your support and supporting these needs too. Are there any questions?

Say thank you. I know that you said it's hard to follow the fire department, but you are— I would argue that, that your department and what you do is very, very important as well for our health and safety of our community, just in a different way. And appreciate that.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions or comments? Councilmember Gale.

Well, first I want to say thank you. And second, I want to just say how struck I am by the quality and professionalism of your staff, your commission. I mean, you have some really tip-top people in there with lots of experience, and I'm super impressed by that and really grateful that they are behind these things that are so important to our infrastructure and, you know, our day-to-day life. So thank you for the work you do.

Thank you.

Right.

Anyone else? All right. Thank you so much. And I love hearing about the cooperation and the partnership. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, the next item on the agenda is time set aside for public appearances. Time's been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak are encouraged to show respect for those who serve the city Comments should focus on issues concerning the city, and those who will be invited to speak have already— I have the sign-up sheet— will have signed in, and you'll have the opportunity to have up to 3 minutes to, to share your thoughts. So we'll go ahead and we will start. Let's see, looks like we do have a note here that says please only sign up for yourself in order to be fair for those that want. So is everybody— well, you wouldn't know the answer. Everyone's— never mind. I was going to ask a question, but it doesn't make sense. All right, Milo Ott. Is Milo here?

Yes.

All right, I don't see him. I guess I could have asked that question, but never mind. All right, he's— is it Teo? Teo, uh, Buckingham. And then And then after Mr. Buckingham, it's Kathy Ambrose. Welcome.

Thank you, Councilperson. Good evening, Orem City Council. My name is Teo Buckingham. I've lived in Orem for 6 years. My son has lived here his whole life. He loves our neighbors like I love our neighbors, many of whom are fathers like me. It is for this reason that I am making a request of this council to issue an executive order or formal resolution barring ICE agents and those working in cooperation with them from using city-owned property for immigration enforcement activities. This includes parks, schools, libraries, and public buildings and their parking lots. These places where we gather as families and neighbors and community cannot become an operations ground for masked agents who have killed multiple people this year, who have been seen to operate with impunity. My immigrant neighbors are equally entitled to and deserving of safety and protection from these racist deportation operations, regardless of documentation status. They are mothers, fathers, aunties, uncles, cousins, lovers, and friends, all of whom belong here in Family City, USA. That is all I have for public comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, Kathy Ambrose, and then after Ms. Ambrose we have Ali Acey.

Thank you, and I want to thank the council for their long days during city council meetings for serving the city. For the last 7 years, I've served as the executive director of Hope Orem. It's a self-funded, zero-solicitation suicide prevention nonprofit that serves the city. Every year we provide zero-cost mental health resources to our community. We fund higher education scholarships for graduating seniors at all 3 high schools. Over $15,000 to date have been donated. We provide free QPR crisis training to any entity that requests our service. We also entirely fund an annual mental wellness resource fair at no cost to ORM, the city, and surrounding communities. Despite our history with the city and the previously signed contract and months of preparation, um, administrative restructuring surrounding this year's ORM Fest resulted in Hope for ORM being asked not to participate. We were grouped together with commercial vendors and transactional nonprofits. That classification does not accurately reflect how Hope for Orem operates. We use zero transaction, zero onboarding model. We don't sell programs, we don't collect data, we don't pitch subscriptions or service for services. We exist solely as a public safety and community resource. And Hope for Orem belongs at Orem Fest. In previous years, Hope for Orem's footprint has been located in the municipal public safety corridor by police, fire, and public utilities. We believe that that is the most appropriate location for our suicide prevention and mental wellness resources. Placing our station directly alongside the city emergency services creates a centralized care and resource zone for residents. It keeps crisis and mental health resources logically connected with the city's first responders. It also keeps our nonprofit footprint separate from commercial traffic and related activities. I am proposing to protect our community and provide administrative clarity for city staff. We have submitted a formal proposal to the city manager. We are requesting a formal memorandum of understanding The purpose would be to officially recognize Hope for Orem's in-kind scholarship contributions to Orem students, to establish us in the permanent public safety and community resource category, and protect our booth footprint from blanket commercial rollbacks in future years. I've provided copies of our proposal and an executive summary to the city recorder, um, and I'm asking the council to direct the city manager to schedule a brief meeting with Hope for Orem during the off-season for— from Orem Fest. Our goal is to work together to finalize a clear framework that will avoid this issue in future years. I would like to personally invite each of you also to come to the Mental Wellness Resource Fair on Monday, August 31st at Orem Library Hall. It's completely free. It's entirely funded by Hope for Orem. It's open to everyone, and it features Community providers, resources, music, keynote address. I couldn't get Cosmo or Willie because they're going to be playing a game against each other, so they said no. But besides that, we would love to see this community network in action, and I will email a copy of all the documents also. Thank you.

Thank you. And just so you know, we all have— I think we all have copies.

Are there any questions for me?

So we'll go ahead and we've got your contact information and—

all right.

Thank you. All right, next we have Allie Acey, and then after Ms. Acey, we have Ethan Stauffer. It's so nice you said Acey right. Everyone else mispronounces it, so thank you. Oh, I've got one of those last names too.

Well, um, I'm up here also to talk about ICE in Orem. Um, right now ICE is held very unaccountable by the American government, and so I'm hoping to ask my city to be Better. I am asking that Orem City pass a formal policy directing local law enforcement not to honor ICE civil immigration detainers without a judicial warrant signed by a judge, not an administrative warrant signed by ICE alone. This ability for ICE to basically determine itself that they can grab someone is a strict violation of the Fourth Amendment, which declares that people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. And I know a lot of people might say, well, they're not citizens, they don't get to have the rights or whatever. First of all, we said— we say liberty and justice for all at the end of the Declaration of Independence. But also, without these laws being applied to all people, then it gives law enforcement the ability to grab people and act, say that they didn't think they were a citizen without being able to prove it. It is a very dangerous thing to allow groups, especially groups like ICE, that are famously unaccountable right now, being held unaccountable right now, to be able to do whatever they want and then say, oh, no, we didn't check. People are— I have many friends who are here legally, or they're documented, they were born here, and they're scared they're going to be snatched off the road because of the way they look. I mean, just because the Supreme Court says they can racially they can be racially profiled. ICE is allowed to do that. Doesn't mean it's right. I was recently visiting what— an old Japanese internment camp. And just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. And I think we have a place in our legal power to prevent these harmful, inhumane treatments that are happening to our neighbors, documented or not. And I think that Orem should— has the ability to be held to a higher standard and hold our—

Thank you.

federal officers to a higher standard as well. So again, pass a formal policy directing local law enforcement not to honor ICE civil immigration detainers without a judicial warrant signed by a judge, not an administrative warrant signed by ICE alone. Thank you so much.

Thank you. All right, we have Ethan Stauffer, and then after, after him we have Judy Christensen.

Hello, Mayor and City Council people. I'm sure by now my face has become a tired one to see, but I have spent the last— this is my 3rd City Council meeting now in a row that I will be talking about the flock cameras that are around the city. I've already talked about the privacy concerns I think they pose, as well as the ways that ICE can abuse them. But today I would like to talk about some real stories of real people. Now, these stories will involve political buzzwords that I'm sure you will have your own opinions about. I urge you to look past these buzzwords because they aren't the point of the story, whether you are in favor or against them, and to look at the actual story itself and what's actually happening. There's a woman from Texas who left her home state where abortion is illegal to get an abortion in the state of Illinois. She was tracked down using the FLOC system by police officers in her home state of Texas and arrested for getting this abortion despite doing it in a state where it is legal. In Utah, abortions are legal until the 18th week. She could have come here to do this. And if she did, she would have still been tracked down and arrested by her own state police officers in her city. I'm not asking whether you think that the abortion is right or if you think that she shouldn't have done that. I am asking if you think that police officers have the right to overrule city laws and track people outside of their jurisdiction jurisdictions using this system that has little to no oversight. Now, the woman was released. She did not get any criminal charges. But this is a situation that shouldn't have been able to happen in the first place. She shouldn't have been arrested to begin with. She didn't break any law, and she adhered to every law in every jurisdiction that she was in. There is another man in a similar situation. He left his state where it was illegal to have recreational marijuana and bought one in a state where it is legal to buy it. He was arrested similarly by police officers who used Flock to track him down. Again, I am not asking your opinions on the use of recreational marijuana. Whether you are in favor of that or against that is not relevant. It is whether you think that police officers should be able to use this system, this international private system with no oversight, to track down people outside of their jurisdictions and arrest them for crimes that aren't illegal where they committed them. I think that this system is highly corrupt and it is highly dangerous beyond all the other issues that I've already raised with you all. I hope that you guys are listening to my words and you guys will do what you can to terminate any Flock contracts that the city has and be able to take these cameras down, because I do not see any way that they truly benefit the people of Orem or the people around the nation who have to use this national database. Thank you.

Thank you. And our final personal appearance this evening is Judy Christensen. Welcome.

To our honorable mayor and Orem City Council, like was said, I'm Judy Christensen. I've had the privilege of calling Orem home for 35 years. I've raised all 5 of my children here, and I'm really proud to live here.

I love it.

I think it's a beautiful place. I'm grateful for all of my— all the many residents, including yourselves, who help to keep and safeguard our city. I have actually— wasn't planning to say this, but I do have firsthand experience with hope. for Orem, and I've seen a lot of good that it's done for kids who are in really hard situations, and it's helped families as well. I am here to respectfully reiterate my request that this council pass a formal resolution prohibiting the use of municipal funds, staff time, facilities, and for federal immigration enforcement, and to ensure the safety and trust of all our residents. I have friends and neighbors and close acquaintances who are here legally but are scared, and I think it's very sad. I would like to have some privacy, some transparency from our city, knowing that we— I just would like to prohibit the voluntary disclosure of of our individuals here as far as their immigration status to federal authorities and to establish a requirement that our city publicly report any interactions that they have with federal immigration authorities. I think that we can be kind and respectful to all of our residents and, and do things with, um, with taste and with compassion.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you to all of you who have come tonight to, to share your thoughts. I, I really appreciate it. All right, and the next item on the agenda is a consent item, and it's updating our City Council meeting schedule. And Council, you'll see in that proposed schedule that our next meeting, August 25th, is going to be a work session only. And then we will— on that Tuesday, we'll have that work session. And then you'll see on August 27th, that Thursday, is going to be another City Council meeting, and that's going to be only truth and taxation hearings. So there's nothing else that will be on that agenda. We won't be doing personal appearances or any other types of actions. We'll be focusing on that truth and Taxation hearing on August 27th. And so the consent item is to amend the calendar, update the calendar to August 25th being a work session only. So if you're comfortable with that, I would entertain a motion to approve the consent item.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve the consent item.

All right, the motion. Is there a second?

I second.

All right, I'm going to start off voting and I'm going to go this way. I'm going to vote aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Quinn?

Aye.

All right, motion carries. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is our scheduled item. It's a resolution to— for appointments to the Justice Court Nominating Commission. Now, uh, Mr. Earl, do you Do we have a presentation, or are we just— we're just doing the nomination?

Uh, it depends on what information you'd like. We already discussed this in the work session, and so basically the, uh, the item to be acted upon is just the appointment of, uh, 2 individuals to serve on the Justice Court Nominating Commission. And I'm happy to give more information on that, or if you're ready to move forward on a motion, that would be fine.

Okay, I'll just— for the, for those in the audience, just to say, you know, we— Orem has a justice court, and the justice court judge has given notice that he, he would like to retire at the end of the year. And since we are not somebody who's going to force somebody to stay, he's going to retire at the end of the year. And there is a process that's run through the state, the court administrator's office, on how to select a new justice court judge, and there is a nominating commission that is— the law spells out a group of different groups of people who are part of that nominating commission. And 2 of those positions on that nominating commission are ones who are approved by the city council. And that's what this item is this evening, is to approve those 2 names. A couple— 2 council members just have expressed interest in representing Orem City in that process. The commission will also have, I think, someone from the Bar Association and someone from the Pacoima by Mountainland Association of Governments. I think the County Commission.

County Commission, yes.

County Commission. And so it's a variety of individuals who will be reviewing these applications to be a Justice Court judge here in Orem, and then the decision is made by by the city manager with the ratification of the city council. So council members Millett and Kilpack have expressed interest, council, as, as though, as ones who would like to represent the city of Orem on the Justice Court nominating commission. And if you're comfortable with that, I would entertain a motion to, to appoint them, unless you have some other discussion or anything you'd like to do beforehand.

Mayor, can I make a motion? Um, I move to approve the appointment of Councilmember, uh, Lynette Millett and Councilmember Chris Kilpatrick to the Justice Court Nominating Commission.

All right, thank you. A motion. Is there a second?

I'll second that.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Muelstein. Okay, we'll go ahead and start, uh, the vote with you, Councilmember Millett.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Councilmember Meekum?

Aye.

All right, thank you. The motion carries unanimously. All right, next item on our agenda is financial items. There were no items in the packet, just, um, Teresa wanted me to just make a note of that for the meeting. And then we'll go to number 12, and we have the city manager Information items. So I'll turn the time over to our City Manager, um, Brent Bybee.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Just 2 items wanted to highlight. I don't normally mention these, but this Thursday there is a, a retirement party for Lane Gray, and so I just wanted to publicly not only invite you to come to that— it'll be at the Library Hall from 11:30 to 1:30, but also just to publicly recognize Lane. He's had a phenomenal 37-year career here at the city. And sometimes when an individual is getting close to retirement, they maybe are coming in for a landing, but that has never been the case for Lane. He is just always such an incredible doer. And 37 years of being such a hardworking individual, And dealing with very critical projects, you'd think that maybe on occasion you might come away stressed or worried or even a little bit overwhelmed. Never with Lane. He is just the consummate humble, hungry, smart employee. And he has great catchphrases like, get 'er done, and keep smiling. And I just, I love the guy and so wanted to publicly recognize him and invite you to his retirement party at the end of this week. There are several and, well, technically all of our employees who we will be recognizing at the end of next week on Thursday at our Building a Better Orem Employee Appreciation Party and would love your continued help and support in that event, and we'll be able to speak to the specific details of some incredible accomplishments that many of our employees have engaged in over the course of the last year. And that'll just be here at City Center Park as per usual at this stage. So with that, that's all I have. Thank you.

All right, thank you. I had the opportunity to sign some awards today And there's some pretty amazing things that our employees, which we knew they were all amazing, but it just, it was fun to see those in person. So, um, there's nothing else. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

I motion that we adjourn.

Second.

A motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

And we are adjourned before 7 PM.

Nice work, Mary.