[19:30] Just so you know, I don't know if you

[19:31] would like to get a snack. This this

[19:34] beautiful spread has been created by um

[19:37] Denise, Sydney, and Lori. Thank you. And

[19:41] I hope I'm not forgetting anybody. If

[19:43] you'd like to get food now, we can. Or

[19:44] we've had a break partway through. Or

[19:46] you can just when your stomach tells you

[19:49] or your head tells you to go over and

[19:51] eat, go eat.

[19:53] >> Beautiful.

[19:53] >> This looks beautiful. So, yep. So, I

[19:56] don't know what you would like to do. Do

[19:57] you want to get some snacks now before

[20:00] we start or

[20:02] >> Sure.

[20:03] >> Okay. We're going to grab our snacks and

[20:05] then we will be back to start our

[20:07] meeting.

[22:20] Hey Teresa, are we ready? All right.

[22:24] Again, welcome to our work session

[22:26] today. Uh before we get started with the

[22:30] items on the agenda, I want to turn the

[22:31] time over to Bren to introduce our new

[22:34] economic development director.

[22:37] >> Yes, mayor and council. I'm really

[22:38] excited to introduce Garrett Anderson to

[22:40] you uh today. He just he just started

[22:44] yesterday.

[22:45] >> Yeah.

[22:46] >> Um he he has, you know, family and

[22:49] history from from the county, but we we

[22:51] stole him from the good state of of

[22:54] Colorado. and and uh what's really um

[22:58] I'm really excited that he's going to

[23:00] proactively take ORM's economic

[23:02] development efforts to the next level

[23:05] and without being prompted by Bryce or

[23:08] Ryan and I he already knew and and

[23:11] suggested to to uh help us focus on

[23:15] attracting experiential retail to the

[23:18] city. Um so comes highly educated,

[23:21] highly experienced and and already kind

[23:24] of with a uh predisposition in helping

[23:27] with uh the ORM way and taking that to

[23:30] level. So

[23:32] we we've also made sure that he's

[23:34] humble, hungry, and smart and our our

[23:38] expectations are super high. So with

[23:41] that introduction, [laughter]

[23:43] what else what else to say, right? Uh

[23:45] yeah, happy to be here. We uh relocating

[23:49] from Colorado just uh just most

[23:51] recently, but originally I'm from the

[23:52] Chicago area. Uh spent most of my career

[23:54] in the Midwest in uh Illinois and

[23:56] Missouri, but um yeah, very happy to be

[23:59] here. Happy to speak into a such a a

[24:02] beautiful community that's uh just

[24:04] really focused around um experiences and

[24:07] families. And that's all all mostly what

[24:10] I've been doing in my career anyway. uh

[24:11] working with uh sports tourism downtowns

[24:15] um a lot of um you know ways that people

[24:18] engage in their communities and happy to

[24:20] be in helping with that too.

[24:22] >> I'll also uh you know invite any of you

[24:26] to to reach out to Garrett if there's

[24:29] businesses you want to reach out to or meet with or want or you want us to

[24:35] have give special attention to or follow

[24:38] on. He has a ton of experience and and

[24:41] that predisposition to be very public

[24:45] facing and business.

[24:46] >> The main thing I lack right now is a

[24:47] local network. So please uh introduce me

[24:50] to anybody you think is an important

[24:52] network.

[24:54] >> Running.

[24:58] » Thanks Karen. Good to have you on board.

[25:01] All right. 1.1 I um our first item or

[25:05] listed item on the agenda is a

[25:07] presentation on the public safety

[25:09] revenue dedicated fund.

[25:11] Turn the time over to um Brandon Nelson.

[25:16] >> Um hopefully be relatively brief. Um the

[25:20] time has come will to make decisions and

[25:24] uh especially as we start next week into

[25:26] our tenative budget. Uh, one of those

[25:30] decisions that I I need to make sure

[25:32] that um we're all okay with moving

[25:35] forward with is is this item that we

[25:38] touched on I believe uh last week um as

[25:41] well as I know Bren has um discussed

[25:43] this with if hopefully all of you but if

[25:45] not u many of you um and so that is the idea of separating our public safety

[25:51] fire and police into their out of the

[25:54] general fund and into their own special

[25:55] revenue fund. The more important element

[25:58] of that, to be honest, is the uh

[26:01] dedication of Forum City's current

[26:05] general operations property tax. Uh the

[26:08] county and the state tax commission

[26:12] need me to notify them of that decision

[26:16] to move forward. And that doesn't mean

[26:18] it is set in stone, but they would like

[26:21] to be able to start getting their things

[26:23] on their ends ready. Um, and it would be

[26:27] easier for them if they know that that's

[26:30] going to be coming. Um, so it's not

[26:34] really anything we necessarily need to I

[26:36] just need to make sure in that May 12th

[26:39] meeting there will be an item a

[26:40] resolution where you will um put that uh

[26:45] to pencil to autograph if you will. Um,

[26:49] but this is more just to make sure that

[26:51] when I'm presenting that tenative budget

[26:53] that everybody understands what they're

[26:55] going to see in that uh presentation.

[26:59] Um, and that that is part of that

[27:01] tenative budget. Um,

[27:05] are there any questions? Hopefully you,

[27:08] like I said, you all seen this. Um idea

[27:11] being to move that into uh the public

[27:14] safety into its own fund so we um it's

[27:16] better visible to citizens as to that

[27:20] fund and the operations of our public

[27:23] safety um folks then associated revenues

[27:28] that go with that and part of that

[27:31] dedicating the property tax to that

[27:33] purpose. There any questions

[27:37] >> about that? Can you just kind of in a

[27:40] nutshell talk about the genesis of this

[27:43] and if this has been used other places

[27:46] and successes maybe?

[27:48] >> Yeah. So there are three I'm aware I'm

[27:51] aware of Midvail has done it and I

[27:54] believe there are two other localities

[27:57] that have already done it. Um this went

[28:00] into as a possibility into law in 2020

[28:04] 2019 I believe it was 2019.

[28:07] Um the and uh not only is it for that

[28:12] purpose, Utah County is also

[28:15] dedicated uh a portion of their property

[28:17] tax to their health and human services

[28:19] department. Um so it's not just public

[28:22] safety. um other entities have

[28:26] is gone through that route dedicating

[28:29] portion of their property tax to

[28:33] whatever specific efforts um they want

[28:36] to tie that to. I will say in talking

[28:39] with the tax commission it it is much

[28:42] easier to move to dedicate to move it

[28:45] into the special revenue fund much more

[28:48] difficult to then go back so everybody

[28:51] understands. So, so what you're saying

[28:53] then is if we decide to do this then and

[28:58] move all of our property tax over into

[29:00] this fund that we need to be very

[29:02] committed to keeping it in that fund

[29:04] which I which I support.

[29:05] >> Correct. Just want to make sure you're

[29:07] aware that

[29:10] >> you have a I'm sorry I'm putting you on

[29:12] the spot here. uh like a a guesstimate

[29:14] the percentage of our budget that would

[29:16] be our entire budget, not just our

[29:19] property tax, but kind of so to give

[29:20] people perspective of what we're talking

[29:22] about.

[29:23] >> Uh so you can see up here our fiscal 26

[29:26] budget was 38.1 million out of

[29:29] approximately 72 million of the general

[29:32] fund

[29:34] just short of you know just a little

[29:36] over half. [clears throat and cough] And

[29:38] so the property tax or will be the 8.1

[29:41] >> property tax the all well so it's not

[29:45] all 8.1 the 8.1 was all of our property

[29:49] tax which includes the money for our

[29:52] general obligation bonds. So that

[29:54] portion will not the actual amount is

[29:58] about 6.5 million.

[30:01] So that remaining 1.6 Six is related to

[30:04] the general obligation bonds and that

[30:06] will stay within if you will in the debt

[30:08] service fund general fund.

[30:12] >> Um, you have a question.

[30:15] >> Um, Brandon, uh, I I like uh the benefit

[30:20] of being able to signal that our

[30:23] property tax is being dedicated u to the

[30:27] police and fire budgets. That seems like

[30:28] a benefit. It helps provide some

[30:31] transparency to residents about where

[30:32] this this money goes. Uh is there any

[30:35] other benefit besides that? Uh from a

[30:38] financial perspective, it sounds like

[30:41] one of the potential drawbacks is just

[30:42] we lose some flexibility in the future

[30:45] and and if I understand correctly,

[30:48] any future property tax revenue um would

[30:52] be dedicated to this as well. So you

[30:54] still you still retain the possibility

[30:57] of if you wanted to do a profit tax

[30:59] increase specifically related to the

[31:01] general fund to general city operations

[31:03] going here.

[31:04] >> You could do that through truth and

[31:05] taxation and and add that. Um they now

[31:08] become in essence two separate taxes.

[31:11] Obviously the one is going to be zero

[31:12] for the time being and the other one

[31:14] would be all all dedicated to uh public

[31:16] safety. That does not eliminate

[31:18] possibility of going through truth

[31:21] taxation and and adding money to the

[31:25] general fund if that ever needed to

[31:27] occur.

[31:28] >> But any additional property tax revenues

[31:30] that we just would normally acrue would

[31:33] automatically go into the special

[31:34] revenue

[31:35] >> right now. Yes. Under this proposal, I

[31:38] should say. Yes.

[31:39] >> And are there any additional benefits uh

[31:41] to this other than transparency of of

[31:44] about where that money goes to? That's

[31:46] really those are the really the big

[31:48] items is you get to see the total budget

[31:51] of the of the public safety fund and

[31:53] it's right there all by itself and the

[31:55] associated revenues that are linked to

[31:58] public safety. Um so yes and the so

[32:01] those are the positives that you would

[32:03] get to see and your point the dedicated

[32:06] revenue

[32:07] allowing citizens to see

[32:11] all of their property taxes being

[32:12] dedicated to source.

[32:15] I guess I would just like to hear police

[32:17] and fire a bit and see if if they have

[32:20] any concerns or if you're supportive of

[32:21] this

[32:24] supportive um they a stable revenue

[32:29] source is

[32:31] opening um and property tax is stable,

[32:36] sales tax not so much. And so to me

[32:38] that's interesting

[32:41] as I see it

[32:43] >> and I look at it as I think the city

[32:45] dumps a ton of money into all of our

[32:47] place. I think that we're employees are

[32:49] your number one asset and they should be

[32:51] and I feel like this carves out public

[32:54] safety not in full but it I think it

[32:57] provides an opportunity for all the

[32:59] other departments be made more whole um

[33:03] because of this dedicated fund. So I

[33:05] think across the board everybody wins by

[33:07] separating this less competition for

[33:09] dollars even though they're the same

[33:11] dollars. I think it could view my

[33:13] perspective as different. So I look at

[33:16] it as a huge win.

[33:19] >> If I can just emphasize I know that

[33:22] property tax is typically not a

[33:25] wellbeloved tax um by by the general

[33:28] public. At the same time, to kind of

[33:31] emphasize what Chief Robinson said, if

[33:34] there is a downturn and a devaluation of properties within the city on any

[33:42] given year, then the property tax rate

[33:45] actually automatically goes up. So the

[33:49] revenue is intended to always be the

[33:53] same from property tax and that's just

[33:56] how it's possessed in Utah. And so, uh,

[34:01] it does provide another benefit is is

[34:04] essentially that sense of of safety or

[34:08] protection or being covered, um, uh, to

[34:12] provide the wages and benefits and

[34:14] equipment for our public safety even in

[34:18] the event of a of a major downturn.

[34:21] >> And just to really clarify, right, it's

[34:23] only 20%.

[34:25] You're still going to need our general

[34:27] fund to be successful. um our economic

[34:30] development director we just met do his

[34:32] magic so we can continue to fund you at

[34:35] the level that we have excellence. So

[34:38] >> well and I think that both BJ and I

[34:40] certainly recognize that but it also

[34:42] doesn't exempt us from an in sales tax

[34:46] that we don't have to tighten our

[34:48] budgets because we have a scented fund

[34:49] and I think that would be an expectation

[34:51] that you would have across the board for

[34:53] all of our departments and so it doesn't

[34:55] isolate us. We still have

[34:56] responsibilities to be fiscally

[34:58] responsible.

[35:02] » Actually, it would be more obvious

[35:05] >> because it's its own fund and so it'd be

[35:07] much more easily available to not only

[35:11] you but the public to to see.

[35:18] » I was just saying thank you for having

[35:19] that point of view. I feel like you guys

[35:21] are both very mindful of this is

[35:23] taxpayer money that funds your

[35:24] departments and to be responsible with

[35:26] it and you are. Thank you for that and

[35:31] doing their best to support you.

[35:35] >> We definitely feel that from the mayor

[35:36] council and the rest of the exec staff.

[35:39] This is this is a different process and

[35:41] so speak for both of us when I just say

[35:44] thank you for supporting all of our

[35:46] efforts actively.

[35:49] >> Great. So what I'm [snorts] hearing and

[35:51] even though this is in the work session,

[35:53] we don't we don't make formal decisions,

[35:55] but I'm I'm sensing that uh as we go

[35:58] forward in creating the budget that we

[36:00] go ahead and that this will be part of

[36:03] the budget that be presented to us next

[36:05] week is to create this fund and then to

[36:08] move and do move the monies into it.

[36:12] Okay. So that's how you will see it

[36:14] within that tenative budget and

[36:17] obviously like I said like I said there

[36:18] will be a resolution and that resolution

[36:20] will basically spell that out and I'll

[36:22] be providing that resolution to the

[36:24] state tax commission and the county.

[36:27] >> Okay. Okay. So next week starts the

[36:29] process

[36:29] >> doesn't officially happen until we you

[36:32] know uh actually go through that process

[36:35] of certifying our tax rate. So, and

[36:37] another thing uh Bren wanted me to make

[36:39] sure we mention this

[36:42] is separate discussion from a property

[36:45] tax increase. This can this can happen

[36:48] irregardless of what we may do on that

[36:51] end of the spectrum and it doesn't

[36:54] affect this.

[36:55] >> No, it's a completely separate item.

[36:57] >> Just want to make sure we understand

[36:59] really two totally separate elements.

[37:02] >> All right. Thank you.

[37:05] All right. The next item on our agenda

[37:08] is our continued discussion on the

[37:10] short-term rental holds. And as Jake as

[37:16] he gets set up, just want to express my

[37:18] appreciation to all of you for

[37:19] conversations that we had last week, I

[37:21] feel like we're we're making progress as

[37:25] far as what we're to see in this

[37:29] ordinance. And I would encourage you in

[37:31] this this is a good this work session is

[37:33] a good opportunity to to have

[37:36] discussion. And so I would just

[37:39] encourage you to if you as you have

[37:40] thoughts and feelings to go ahead and share those as we try and give

[37:46] guidance to Jake as he's trying as he's

[37:48] working to put together an ordinance for

[37:50] our review. So right I'll turn the next

[37:53] 75 minutes over to you Jake.

[37:56] >> Thank you. Thank you mayor. and and

[37:58] hopefully this next uh section will be

[38:00] as productive. I I really do appreciate

[38:03] the the discussions, the conversations

[38:05] we had last week. Um it was very helpful

[38:07] for me to kind of see where there's

[38:09] comfort, where there's work to still be

[38:12] done and where the direction we may be

[38:15] heading. Um so I don't, you know,

[38:18] miscalculate and we end up in Colorado

[38:23] instead of on top of Tibonogus. So, I

[38:26] would hate to be that far off track. Um,

[38:29] I left off on this screen and we had

[38:32] started talking about occupancy and and

[38:35] how to potentially

[38:38] uh deal with um short-term rentals and

[38:44] how to best balance effects in

[38:46] neighborhoods, limiting potential

[38:49] uh party houses, but also providing an

[38:53] economical or an economic viable option

[38:56] for people um if they are going to

[38:58] engage in short-term rentals. So, I

[39:00] actually want to take a step

[39:03] back from that and talk about it not

[39:05] necessarily in

[39:09] practical numerical numbers, but to take

[39:11] a step back and talk about the general

[39:14] principles or policies that might govern

[39:18] the way that we would approach

[39:19] occupancy. And the way I see it is

[39:22] there's there's there's probably more

[39:25] than these four. Uh but these are four

[39:27] that are are typically used or discussed

[39:30] or are or are seen out in actual

[39:34] practice. And the first is that a a

[39:37] municipality sets a numerical cap. that

[39:41] a a municipal governing body says, "We

[39:44] are comfortable setting this as the

[39:48] numerical cap for any short-term

[39:50] rental." And they they they do that

[39:53] calculation based on their other land

[39:55] use zones, based on practice, based on

[39:58] experience with uh short-term rentals

[40:01] already that have been in operation or

[40:04] what they've seen in neighboring

[40:05] communities. Uh so for example, you you

[40:08] could set a cap and what we've discussed

[40:10] in the past is eight individuals.

[40:13] Um some of the strengths of that is it's

[40:15] really easy to enforce. Um it's easy for

[40:18] a neighborhood political team or a

[40:21] uniformed officer to go out and see how

[40:23] many people are occupying or in that

[40:26] short-term rental at any given time. Um

[40:29] it helps mitigate nuisance issues. if

[40:32] you're if you're setting a cap that's lower than what our typ what we

[40:36] would typically see for a party house

[40:38] that helps mitigate some of those

[40:40] concerns. Um, also it helps address some

[40:43] of the public safety concerns that are

[40:44] out there that again if you're having uh

[40:47] over congestion in a home. Uh it may

[40:49] lead to potential parties or fights or

[40:53] other negative effects within the

[40:54] neighborhood that you're having public

[40:56] safety come out and respond to. Now,

[41:00] there are weaknesses with that. Um, what

[41:03] we've discussed in the past is one size

[41:05] fits none. If you if you set that cap,

[41:08] um, that may not necessarily fit a

[41:10] two-bedroom apartment. Likewise, it's

[41:13] probably not going to fit a six-bedroom

[41:15] home. And so, by setting that cap, that

[41:18] is one of the weaknesses. Also, it

[41:21] provides really limited flexibility for

[41:23] dealing with multi-generational family

[41:25] travel. Um, and also it produces some

[41:29] economic inefficiencies if if you have a

[41:32] short-term rental and part of that

[41:33] short-term rental then sits vacant

[41:35] because of the occupancy they can't

[41:37] actually rent it to its full potential.

[41:41] So that that would be one potential

[41:43] route. Another potential route is you

[41:45] take an occupancy cap and you set that

[41:49] as kind of the global or the maximum cap

[41:52] and then you set an internal uh cap

[41:55] based on bedroom calculation

[41:58] and I'm going to do this the third one

[41:59] at the same time or in in lie of that

[42:02] bedroom cap you do it based on square

[42:05] footage of the home.

[42:08] Um, some of the benefits of that is it's

[42:11] scalable based on on the nature of the

[42:14] short-term rental. Um, it may provide

[42:18] better precision for, you know, what

[42:21] should occupancy be for this specific

[42:23] short-term rental. Um, it also helps

[42:27] deal deal with density. And when we talk

[42:31] about square footage, there is the

[42:33] benefit of that may limit the temptation

[42:37] for a short-term rental operator to cram

[42:40] more beds in a bedroom. Uh because

[42:43] you're going off of a a a very neutral

[42:47] square footage number that can't be

[42:49] altered or uh you know uh manipulated in

[42:52] a way that you could cram or or put more

[42:55] people in than than necessary. Uh but

[42:58] again they also have their own

[43:00] weaknesses. Um requires more

[43:02] administrative oversight at the time of

[43:04] the application. Uh also provides their

[43:09] own levels of ceiling conflict. Again

[43:11] what if you have a larger home because

[43:13] you have that maximum occupancy cap. The

[43:16] square footage cap, the internal cap may

[43:18] actually exceed what that maximum cap.

[43:20] So you're still putting a ceiling there.

[43:22] So that still creates that conflict. Um

[43:26] and then there's also some verification

[43:28] complexity again that is going to be an

[43:30] is enforcement.

[43:33] Um the fourth option is to do it solely

[43:35] based on square footage and to move away

[43:38] from an idea of a maximum occupancy cap

[43:42] and to go solely based on a square

[43:44] footage.

[43:46] um that you would determine whatever

[43:48] ratio the council feels comfortable one

[43:50] per x square ft and from there um you

[43:54] would set that that ratio sets the

[43:57] occupancy cap. Um again there are some

[44:01] benefits

[44:02] there is again it's objective it's it's

[44:05] easier to determine objectively. Um, we

[44:08] could also use county land records to

[44:10] help support corroborate what that

[44:13] square footage, but also know that

[44:15] sometimes those land records are

[44:16] inaccurate. And so there may be some

[44:19] discrepancies between what a short-term

[44:22] rental operator is reporting is the

[44:24] square footage versus what we see on the

[44:26] land record itself. Um

[44:30] however the weaknesses here is it does

[44:34] allow also for potential mega groups and

[44:37] the larger the home the larger the

[44:38] number of people. Um you know you could

[44:41] argue the slippery slope um that it does

[44:44] allow for potential larger groups which

[44:47] would likely lead to potential party

[44:50] homes

[44:51] >> or event centers.

[44:52] >> Yes.

[44:53] >> Not everything's a party. Sometimes it's

[44:55] just an event.

[44:56] >> Yep. Um, and then we would also need to

[44:58] if if the council were wanting to go

[45:00] this direction, we would absolutely need

[45:03] to review our other occupancy limits

[45:06] elsewhere within our code. Uh, we'd need

[45:08] to make sure that we are um consistent

[45:11] through our code in other land uses. So,

[45:15] what does that Oh, Steve, so the the

[45:18] options you're talking about here, I I

[45:20] assume are for the number of unrelated

[45:22] people who can occupy an SDR. Are we is

[45:24] there an underlying assumption that a

[45:26] family a group of unrelated or of

[45:29] related people um could also occupy? So

[45:32] if you had a family 15 that would be

[45:36] >> So you're kind of jumping three slides

[45:38] ahead.

[45:39] >> Sorry.

[45:41] >> Um right now what I'm just talking about

[45:43] is occupancy in general. Not even

[45:45] singling out single family or unrelated.

[45:49] I'm just talking about different ways

[45:50] you can calculate occupancy.

[45:53] So, how that would look is if we aren't

[45:56] even talking about single family, if

[45:57] we're just talking about people, what

[45:59] does this actually look like in

[46:01] practice? So, if you were to take a

[46:02] two-bedroom

[46:04] uh 800 foot condo, what does that look

[46:07] like under each of these different

[46:09] scenarios? Same goes for 4bedroom house

[46:12] that's 2400 ft² or a sixbedroom estate

[46:16] that's 6,000 square ft. So that kind of

[46:19] gives you numbers that are actual

[46:21] practical numbers to see what that would

[46:23] look like.

[46:25] Now we have also talked about single

[46:28] family being something that we could

[46:31] overlap or overlayer.

[46:34] And so if we were to adopt a single

[46:36] family um and and in in many instances

[46:42] exempt them from an occupancy limit

[46:45] uh unless we're doing an internal home

[46:49] occupancy limit.

[46:52] Um this is what it would look like if we

[46:54] did that overlap. So for example, if we

[46:57] were to say a global max of eight.

[47:00] Oh, I I'm using the wrong computer. Oh,

[47:03] there. Oh, can you go? Yeah. Can you go

[47:04] back to that one? Can we look at that

[47:06] one for just a minute? Because you

[47:07] talked about it

[47:08] >> and we've been looking forward to it.

[47:10] [laughter]

[47:12] It's

[47:13] >> lost. Yeah.

[47:15] >> How would you define global max?

[47:17] >> So, global max again would be saying we

[47:19] set a standard across the city that for

[47:22] short-term rentals, the maximum

[47:24] occupancy you could have would be X. And

[47:26] in this scenario, I've picked the number

[47:29] eight.

[47:31] [clears throat]

[47:32] Internal would be looking at the actual

[47:34] STR itself. What is the capacity of that

[47:38] short-term rental either [snorts] using

[47:40] short uh square footage or bedroom

[47:43] capacity

[47:44] and how that would interplay.

[47:47] So, if you notice, um,

[47:51] for example, on that on the third column

[47:54] over,

[47:56] if you were to choose a square footage,

[47:58] you still run into a ceiling where if

[48:01] you were to say one per 400, that really

[48:03] allows 15 people there. But if you're

[48:05] putting a a global max saying the

[48:08] maximum we're going to allow for any

[48:09] short-term rental is eight. Um that's

[48:12] what you're would you you put this

[48:14] artificial ceiling there at 8 even

[48:16] though you have that internal

[48:19] uh occupancy limit that would exceed it.

[48:22] So if you were to then overlap that

[48:25] definition of single family,

[48:28] >> this is kind of how that

[48:31] and if you have a single family that is

[48:34] a larger single family

[48:38] and kids

[48:42] you can have a larger capacity

[48:46] as opposed to

[48:48] this sense.

[48:51] This is

[48:53] >> too much less

[48:58] families. You're talking about cousins

[49:01] and family types of things or you

[49:04] talking about

[49:06] family.

[49:11] So it's already family

[49:15] as and it's up here. So total person is

[49:19] like himself a related group group of

[49:22] people who are related by blood marriage

[49:24] adoption.

[49:27] Um this also includes two um two guests

[49:30] that uh are there as a family. In that

[49:35] instance, Quinn, um you you could have

[49:38] grandparents, uncles,

[49:41] uh children, grandchildren.

[49:44] That that single family could actually

[49:46] be a quite large group.

[49:48] >> So I have seven siblings. We have his

[49:51] community in the neighborhood. We could

[49:54] all of us

[49:56] 7 of us go in a home

[50:00] and follow as a family

[50:01] >> if that home was large enough. Yes.

[50:04] A large enough parameter is what?

[50:07] >> Based on number of bedrooms or based on

[50:09] square footage. Again, depending on how

[50:11] you're deciding to move forward with

[50:13] occupancy.

[50:14] >> So, bedroom or square footage.

[50:16] >> Correct.

[50:17] >> And bedroom. You're Did you say I'm

[50:19] trying to remember if you told me this

[50:20] here um two beds or two people per room?

[50:24] Where did I see that slide?

[50:26] >> So, again, under under this two people

[50:29] per bedroom.

[50:30] >> Okay.

[50:32] And and Jake, in theory, you could also

[50:35] have a mixed rule which says three

[50:38] people per room or square footage

[50:40] requirements, whichever is higher or

[50:42] lower, right?

[50:43] >> Correct. The question then becomes how

[50:44] complex you want to make this for

[50:46] enforcement. And yeah, we could we could

[50:49] have multiple layers, but the more

[50:50] complexity you add,

[50:52] >> the harder it's going to be for both our

[50:54] licensing official to determine

[50:56] occupancy at the time we issue the

[50:58] license. I think it would be beneficial

[51:00] at the time the license is issued is to

[51:03] set that occupancy limit. So what I'd

[51:05] want to see happen is applicant comes in

[51:09] and says, "So if we've decided the

[51:11] bedroom route, my home has six bedrooms.

[51:15] We determine occupancy [clears throat]

[51:16] at that time and issue an occupancy

[51:18] limit on the license itself." Or if

[51:21] we're going under square footage that we

[51:24] have the square footage, we corroborate

[51:25] it with the uh Utah County Land Records.

[51:29] We have an agreement as to how many

[51:30] square footage qualifies and then we

[51:33] determine occupancy at that time and

[51:36] print it on the license.

[51:38] >> And then we could see how the operators

[51:42] advertise for rent space, right?

[51:45] >> Yes.

[51:47] >> Because so how do you prevent people from counting

[51:52] couches as places to sleep? Like if you

[51:55] have a home that has bedrooms, but it

[51:57] has a whole bunch of gathering areas,

[51:59] large rooms,

[52:03] what how would you recommend you then

[52:06] stop 20 people from being there?

[52:08] >> So if you were to op if you were to go

[52:11] for the option of bedroom, what we'd

[52:14] want to do is define bedroom and

[52:17] occupancy per bedroom. As other cities

[52:20] have done this, you look at about 100

[52:22] square ft. You say a room that's 100 ft

[52:24] or larger, uh, that is a bedroom, you

[52:28] could put two people in that. Anything

[52:30] between 70 and 99 ft could house one

[52:34] person in that bedroom. Anything below

[52:37] 70 square ft,

[52:39] um, I would not want us to define that

[52:41] as a bedroom because what you end up

[52:42] starting doing is having homes

[52:44] segregated into small zones to add

[52:47] occupancy. closet under the stairs.

[52:50] >> You end up with Harry Potter STRs.

[52:53] >> Well, would you ever add window? Like to

[52:55] be a bedroom, you got to have a window

[52:57] legally.

[52:58] >> Um,

[52:58] >> fire code. You do.

[53:00] >> Yeah. And a closet.

[53:02] >> So, and a closet. I mean, do we have a

[53:04] definition of bedroom? I guess maybe

[53:05] that

[53:06] >> most most um building code.

[53:08] >> You say we do.

[53:09] >> The building code. Yes. Most other

[53:10] short-term rental regulations, when

[53:13] we're talking about occupancy, they

[53:14] aren't throwing in uh an egress window.

[53:18] They're not throwing in [clears throat]

[53:19] a closet requirement. They're talking

[53:20] square footage.

[53:22] >> But if we say bedroom, then we know

[53:24] we've covered the safety issue of

[53:30] >> Oh, yeah. I mean, it would we would

[53:31] definitely have to we would want to

[53:33] address that. The problem is we don't

[53:34] police fire code in residential

[53:38] facilities. If they're getting the

[53:40] license, we could go inspect 100%.

[53:45] » Okay. Any other questions so far on

[53:48] this?

[53:50] Okay.

[53:52] Um,

[53:59] as we look at what makes up a single

[54:01] family, again, you could really end up

[54:03] with a large group as long as the as

[54:06] long as you have somebody who is related

[54:09] by a qualifying relationship under our

[54:11] code

[54:13] um that covers all of the occupants,

[54:15] that would count as a single family. So,

[54:19] if you had a great grandparent there,

[54:21] you had all of the posterity off of the

[54:23] great grand uh parent, all of that would

[54:26] qualify as a single family.

[54:30] Um, as you get to the cousin level

[54:33] though, if you only had two cousins

[54:35] coming to rent an STR, cousin, and nobody higher up that then

[54:40] relates,

[54:42] those cousins would not qualify as a

[54:43] single family. That is where our our

[54:46] code delineates and boxs out single

[54:50] family.

[54:51] But as long as you have two brothers or

[54:54] a brother and a sister and then their

[54:55] posterity, then everybody below that

[54:58] still counts as a single family. Does

[55:00] that make clear sense how that works?

[55:04] Um, so again, you still end up with

[55:06] larger groups under the single family

[55:08] definition above and beyond what we

[55:10] would count for the unrelated

[55:12] individuals.

[55:17] I want to come back and

[55:20] to this and and I would like to hear the

[55:25] council's thoughts about the different

[55:27] perspective approaches

[55:30] how to address occupancy within

[55:32] short-term rentals.

[55:35] >> Can I ask what your recommendation is

[55:38] legally? what is

[55:43] easiest to

[55:45] maintain and justify and enforce and all

[55:48] of that.

[55:49] >> So there a couple different ways to to

[55:51] address that question. I I think one is

[55:54] from the area of enforcement um as you

[55:57] have an officer responding or a

[56:00] neighborhood improvement team member

[56:02] responding, the clearer that we can make

[56:04] the ordinance, the easier it is for

[56:07] enforcement.

[56:08] the minute we get into super uh to

[56:11] multiple tiers of complexity, the harder

[56:15] it is. So, um going back to, you know,

[56:19] what I was taught early on in high

[56:20] school is keep it simple stupid. Um the

[56:23] simpler we can keep something, the

[56:25] clearer that we can have the

[56:26] expectations to the public.

[56:29] >> It's difficult for us to determine your

[56:32] relationship

[56:34] is a family.

[56:35] >> Get that app out that we What is it?

[56:39] >> Ancestry.

[56:40] >> Family tree.

[56:41] >> So think about that. You're the officer

[56:43] coming to I'm saying me and Mark cousins

[56:46] are related.

[56:47] >> Sure.

[56:47] >> Prove otherwise.

[56:49] And so that's the difficulty.

[56:51] >> So you're kind of saying eight a number.

[56:55] >> I'm just I'm I'm letting you know that

[56:58] it's difficult to enforce that. Um

[57:02] please

[57:03] >> on the license I

[57:07] I've had experience enforcing family

[57:09] occupancy in in different relationships

[57:13] quite a bit in a previous city.

[57:16] You can come up with a definition and on

[57:19] the license it can go through a process

[57:21] and be determined and that's fairly

[57:24] straightforward because we can go do an

[57:26] inspection. We can see count the number

[57:28] of bedrooms if you want to do it by

[57:30] bedroom. we can do that. If you want to

[57:32] do a a global limit, we can do that. Um,

[57:37] the simpler it is, the easier it is for

[57:39] us to do it.

[57:42] That's that's this much. The big rest of

[57:46] the iceberg is the actual enforcement. A

[57:48] call comes in in a complaint and when an

[57:51] officer goes to the door, they will have

[57:54] no idea how many people are there. They

[57:57] can ask.

[57:59] And believe it or not, people will say

[58:03] if the limit is eight, it will be eight.

[58:05] That will be the answer you'll get. And

[58:08] because they will know that's the

[58:11] difficult

[58:13] uh part of occupancy. If you're hoping

[58:15] to enforce short-term rentals based on

[58:19] occupancy, it is an extremely difficult

[58:22] if not impossible job for the police to

[58:25] do.

[58:27] Can we do you you've you've separated

[58:30] out occupancies on square footage. Can

[58:33] we do an a bedroom calculation only? Is

[58:36] that I don't see that option up there.

[58:38] Not

[58:38] >> we could do a bedroom.

[58:39] >> So just say if you've got six bedrooms,

[58:42] 12 people

[58:44] that

[58:45] >> you could take that approach as well.

[58:46] >> Just it's remove the cap and just say

[58:49] how many are in the how many bedrooms

[58:50] are there in the house and then we know

[58:52] that there are this many. But

[58:53] [clears throat] does that open us up for

[58:56] >> you could potentially end up with

[58:58] getting, you know, bedrooms more

[59:00] bedrooms built within a home to to add

[59:03] occupancy.

[59:04] >> Well, but if it's on the license, I

[59:07] mean, if that's predetermined

[59:09] and inspected, this is how many bedrooms

[59:12] and there's two per bedroom. This is

[59:14] your max.

[59:15] >> Yes.

[59:15] >> And everybody understands that owner

[59:18] citybody knows that's your max. Does

[59:22] that open us up for group homes using

[59:25] that same definition to be able to fight

[59:27] for them to have more occupancy?

[59:29] >> Yeah. So, as as I indicate here, both on

[59:32] the the bedroom side as well as the

[59:34] square footage, the minute we start

[59:37] increasing occupancy above what we've

[59:39] allowed for other uses within our code,

[59:43] that opens us up to are we treating

[59:45] vacationers

[59:47] better than we would be treating other

[59:50] members of the public that have a right

[59:52] to residents in our residential zones.

[59:55] That could be group homes, that could be

[59:57] sober living facilities, uh that could

[59:59] be just generally our unrelated

[1:00:01] individuals that we limit to three. Um

[1:00:05] there's a whole spectrum there that

[1:00:06] we're going to have to consider.

[1:00:08] >> So this would impact on a long-term

[1:00:10] rental

[1:00:12] as well.

[1:00:13] >> Possibly.

[1:00:13] >> It could. We would have to decide if we

[1:00:16] say well you know what it's I'm not a

[1:00:18] lawyer but we we we discussed this

[1:00:19] yesterday Jake and I did saying that we

[1:00:23] the argument that well I'm only renting

[1:00:25] out 10 days a month or 15 days a month

[1:00:28] so the impact is less than if the

[1:00:31] long-term rental they're way it's that's

[1:00:34] what we get to decide as a council is

[1:00:37] what what level of risk do we take and

[1:00:41] can I can I just can I just add

[1:00:44] something that we talked about yesterday

[1:00:45] too. Uh yesterday I met with uh two

[1:00:48] different fam u several different people

[1:00:50] about about short-term rentals and one

[1:00:53] of the discussions we had was about

[1:00:54] occupancy and I you're probably going to

[1:00:56] go back to the option three at some

[1:00:59] point which which is the occupancy

[1:01:02] solely um square footage

[1:01:05] u but but we would I think something if that's something that that we're

[1:01:10] interested in doing in order to avoid

[1:01:14] the concern that the legal

[1:01:16] staff has as far as

[1:01:19] sober living and short-term rentals. We

[1:01:22] as a council, if that if that's an

[1:01:24] option we want to look at, for example,

[1:01:25] the option three, one person per 800

[1:01:27] square ft for specific estates, we have

[1:01:30] to be comfortable

[1:01:33] with that applying to other uses as

[1:01:36] well. So if somebody were to have a

[1:01:40] sober a 6,000 square foot sober living

[1:01:42] facility, we would and we said our our

[1:01:45] standard was one per 800 square f feet.

[1:01:47] It would be we would have to apply that

[1:01:49] same we could apply whether they would

[1:01:52] do it or not. That would be up to them

[1:01:54] as far as what their state requirements

[1:01:55] are and what best practices are for

[1:01:58] their for the treatment and things like

[1:02:00] that. But as we discussed, the really

[1:02:04] the only way to do option three, I think

[1:02:06] to do safely if if that's something we

[1:02:08] want to do is we're going to need to go

[1:02:10] in with the understanding that we can't

[1:02:12] single out short-term rentals. We am I explaining that correctly?

[1:02:18] >> Yeah. So, what I would how I would boil

[1:02:21] that down is if you are you are

[1:02:23] interested in allowing vacationers to

[1:02:25] occupy residential homes at a higher

[1:02:28] occupancy rate, as a council, you've got

[1:02:32] to be willing to review and consider

[1:02:36] increasing your occupancy rate for other

[1:02:38] uses in residential zones.

[1:02:41] >> I I think there's one caveat to that may be that we probably would

[1:02:44] enforce STRs differently. They're

[1:02:46] subject to regular inspections. are say

[1:02:48] subject to specific, you know, parking

[1:02:51] and other requirements that maybe the

[1:02:52] long-term rentals aren't, which may make

[1:02:53] them an exception.

[1:02:55] >> No, that Well, that's not true because

[1:02:56] we we uh sober living homes are subject

[1:02:59] to inspection regularly. I mean, that's

[1:03:02] the concern. And it's not long-term

[1:03:03] rentals that we're

[1:03:05] >> necessarily the restrictions that we

[1:03:06] would place on the use as far as um you

[1:03:11] know inspections or occupy

[1:03:15] comes down to are you allowing an

[1:03:17] occupancy rate that is different than

[1:03:19] another occupancy rate and does that

[1:03:22] create any sort of facial challenge to

[1:03:26] our ordinance? Does that create any

[1:03:29] other sort of um discriminatory

[1:03:32] treatment to any group of individuals?

[1:03:34] >> I thought it was if if we classified

[1:03:36] these as transient facilities versus

[1:03:40] residential or long-term occupancy,

[1:03:42] which an a group home or any other

[1:03:44] category might be that I feel like those

[1:03:45] are different rules. Is that not the

[1:03:46] case?

[1:03:47] >> Again, under the FHA and the ADA,

[1:03:50] they're not going to look at it that

[1:03:51] way. They

[1:03:52] >> will look at it as transient home.

[1:03:58] But

[1:04:00] uh this is going back to the question

[1:04:01] that you posed to us and I really

[1:04:03] appreciate the way that you have

[1:04:06] outlined a variety of options here and I

[1:04:09] appreciate the feedback as well.

[1:04:13] Uh, I I would like to avoid a

[1:04:15] one-sizefits-all policy, right? Because

[1:04:18] I think that our potential properties

[1:04:21] that that do this vary widely in terms

[1:04:24] of base and bedrooms and all those

[1:04:27] things, and I I'd like to recognize uh

[1:04:31] that they're quite different from each

[1:04:33] other. Um, I'm also very hesitant to

[1:04:36] have special carveouts for for people

[1:04:39] who are related just because of the uh

[1:04:42] enforcement issues. I just I can see

[1:04:44] from Gary and that that's just a a

[1:04:47] nightmare

[1:04:50] and it's just I don't know how how you

[1:04:53] would necessarily enforce that. So, um I

[1:04:56] guess I would be interested in exploring

[1:04:58] either a two people per bedroom or a

[1:05:01] square foot model. Um when you had those

[1:05:06] two different models up there, uh maybe

[1:05:09] Yeah, right there. So, if it feels weird

[1:05:13] to me uh on the far right one that we

[1:05:17] would have a two-bedroom condo of 800 ft

[1:05:20] that can only have two people, right? If

[1:05:23] it's a couple, maybe that other bedroom

[1:05:25] is vacant. That that that seems off uh

[1:05:27] to me. Um

[1:05:32] but I also recognize, right, that

[1:05:36] u you might have a six sixbedroom very

[1:05:39] large property. When they're eight, it

[1:05:41] just doesn't make sense. And so in that case either uh the multiple

[1:05:47] bedrooms or the square footage I think

[1:05:48] is a much better way of measuring um

[1:05:53] density uh of occupancy of that

[1:05:56] property. And

[1:05:58] I I know that that adds some potential

[1:06:01] complications

[1:06:02] to our lives

[1:06:06] um because of the way that we define

[1:06:08] occupancy in other types of venues. Um,

[1:06:11] but being able to have something that

[1:06:15] feels equitable in terms of the space

[1:06:16] that's available and the density of

[1:06:19] occupancy of that space makes sense to

[1:06:22] me.

[1:06:22] >> So, are you saying no eight person cap?

[1:06:25] >> Yes.

[1:06:25] >> So, you're not concerned about the sober

[1:06:27] living? Um I believe that if

[1:06:32] uh a space is large enough right that

[1:06:35] people can occupy it um

[1:06:40] in a in an appropriate space. I'm not

[1:06:42] worried about who's in there.

[1:06:43] >> Tell you what just happened to our

[1:06:44] neighborhood.

[1:06:46] >> Um you have a sober living home. Um it

[1:06:50] used to be men, now it's women. Had four

[1:06:53] of them come to a church with us.

[1:06:56] Introduced to them there. Um, and that's

[1:06:59] [clears throat] how we knew it was

[1:06:59] women, not men anymore.

[1:07:01] >> And there was a concern by one of them

[1:07:03] reached out to um someone in our

[1:07:08] um that said owner has delivered four

[1:07:12] more mattresses and he's finishing the

[1:07:14] basement right now. We have eight people

[1:07:18] and he's talking about adding four more

[1:07:22] people. There is one kitchen. There are

[1:07:26] two bathrooms and they're very small. It

[1:07:28] was an older home. These, you know, that

[1:07:31] is that you help us with that. So, we

[1:07:35] have another one just [snorts] up the

[1:07:37] street a little ways that is autism,

[1:07:39] children with autism. Um, I would hate

[1:07:42] to see this similar thing happen there

[1:07:45] because at that situ in that situation,

[1:07:48] if we have them where they finish the

[1:07:50] basement, they add more bedrooms, we

[1:07:51] don't we don't have the eight person

[1:07:52] cap, that results in a lower standard of

[1:07:56] care for that type of home, for the for

[1:07:59] the tenants, a potential for a lower

[1:08:01] standard of care for the tenants in that

[1:08:05] one type of home. So, if they had 12

[1:08:07] children

[1:08:09] with um autism

[1:08:12] and it and they're able to do that

[1:08:14] because of what we do here with an

[1:08:16] intent, the good intent to help someone

[1:08:18] who's trying to short-term rental

[1:08:21] >> more.

[1:08:23] We're putting other people at risk

[1:08:26] >> unintentionally, I believe.

[1:08:28] >> So, that's why I'm I'm I kind of tend to

[1:08:31] lead with our recommendation from our

[1:08:33] legal staff. the eight person have so we

[1:08:38] don't go down that road which will

[1:08:40] potentially be very harmful to these

[1:08:42] ladies

[1:08:44] what's happened to them we had to stop

[1:08:45] it or to this other home now I don't

[1:08:48] know of all the homes but I do know of

[1:08:50] those two

[1:08:54] foreseeable outcome the one was actually

[1:08:57] going to happen

[1:09:00] so he would have been out of maybe that

[1:09:02] would have been caught if they were

[1:09:04] putting 12 where they can only have

[1:09:05] eight. Um but maybe not. And then of

[1:09:09] course if then we allow this it would

[1:09:12] have been okay thing for them to do

[1:09:14] according to

[1:09:15] >> you think the space in that facility is

[1:09:17] large enough that

[1:09:19] >> just putting it on bedrooms they're

[1:09:22] qualifying that as a bedroom. I mean I

[1:09:23] know my house a 1980s level house the

[1:09:26] bedrooms are very very small. has a

[1:09:29] window, has a closet, and I can barely

[1:09:32] fit a bed, a bedroom, much less a

[1:09:35] dresser and everything. So,

[1:09:36] >> so I'm I'm hearing maybe square foot is

[1:09:38] better. I I don't think we I am not

[1:09:41] comfortable with going beyond

[1:09:45] the occupancy because the the walls that

[1:09:47] it opens up for our long-term rentals,

[1:09:50] for sober living, for

[1:09:52] any of these home type situations,

[1:09:56] we are putting that burden on

[1:09:58] neighborhoods to bear that burden for a

[1:10:01] business. It's a hard burden to bear and

[1:10:05] it's it's not a great You're right. It

[1:10:07] is a one-size missall problem. But

[1:10:10] that's the problem we have when we're

[1:10:11] putting business in a residential zone.

[1:10:14] It's not going to fit. That's why they

[1:10:17] there's different zoning.

[1:10:20] And there was a large home in my I just

[1:10:22] thought of another one. In my brother's

[1:10:23] neighborhood that used to live in MPG, a

[1:10:25] large home was purchased and everyone

[1:10:28] was excited for a new family and it

[1:10:29] became a sober living home. And same

[1:10:32] thing, they ended up finding, they were

[1:10:34] only supposed to have eight, but they

[1:10:35] had 12 and sometimes 14 people in the

[1:10:37] house. And every time the neighbors had

[1:10:40] to say, "Well, that's a new face." or

[1:10:43] you know they had to

[1:10:46] at least that you know

[1:10:49] I just don't think that's fair to

[1:10:54] have to put in that situation because

[1:10:56] we're trying to help a business owner

[1:10:59] able enterprise in a residential

[1:11:01] neighborhood succeed.

[1:11:03] >> I I do have some sorry I do have some

[1:11:06] additional thoughts just in terms of

[1:11:08] what we're trying to accomplish with

[1:11:09] this. Um, but I'm willing to save them,

[1:11:12] Jake. Uh, if you want to still focus on occupancy limits specifically for

[1:11:17] now. Is are you on this topic, Jeff?

[1:11:20] >> Yes.

[1:11:22] So, question. So,

[1:11:26] I think a bigger concern than short-term

[1:11:29] rentals

[1:11:31] is

[1:11:34] um long-term rentals

[1:11:37] where we have, uh multiple people living

[1:11:42] in the same house, right? And I hear

[1:11:44] this from people constantly.

[1:11:48] you know, we have this house that's it's

[1:11:50] a long-term rental and we don't know how

[1:11:53] many people are there, but there are

[1:11:54] cars coming and going constantly

[1:11:57] and I know that's a a major problem for

[1:12:02] the NIT folks

[1:12:05] um and impossible to keep up with.

[1:12:08] That's aside from short-term rentals.

[1:12:14] Um, so are you saying that if we change

[1:12:17] the occupancy

[1:12:21] or this then those long-term rentals

[1:12:24] that actually opens up well more people

[1:12:28] could cram into a home?

[1:12:30] >> It depends.

[1:12:31] Um, how I would answer that question is

[1:12:34] if we were to adopt a scaling

[1:12:37] version for short-term rentals

[1:12:39] and we have a flat numerical cap for

[1:12:42] long-term rentals.

[1:12:44] It does open up some legal arguments to

[1:12:48] be had as to the validity of our cap on

[1:12:51] our long-term rentals.

[1:12:55] That's how I'd answer that question,

[1:12:57] Jeff. Mhm.

[1:12:57] >> So, I know I know that that's that's

[1:12:59] always a concern is we have five

[1:13:04] couples living in this house

[1:13:07] and there are 10 cars in the driveway

[1:13:10] and on the street. I mean, there's just

[1:13:12] there's no parking to the street because

[1:13:13] of that. That's a continual concern.

[1:13:15] Nothing to do with short-term rentals.

[1:13:17] These are people that live there.

[1:13:18] They're students. They're families.

[1:13:20] They're uh multiple families.

[1:13:24] And so, that Thank you for that.

[1:13:28] um point, but I I yeah, I would have a

[1:13:31] concern if we're opening that to

[1:13:37] is a separate issue, right? Parking is a

[1:13:39] completely separate issue.

[1:13:40] >> So, even with a larger property, if if

[1:13:43] we allowed them to host more people, we

[1:13:45] could still put all kinds of parking

[1:13:48] requirements to keep everybody off the

[1:13:49] street. That would be the case in your

[1:13:50] case, too.

[1:13:52] >> Yeah. Yeah, I think

[1:13:52] >> I I'm just if I can just go back to I'm

[1:13:55] just saying I'm not comfortable with

[1:13:56] saying, okay, right now we have this

[1:14:00] many people in this home, single family

[1:14:02] home,

[1:14:04] but now we're we're going to we're going

[1:14:06] to add a few more layers on top of that.

[1:14:10] So that I I I'm not saying one way or

[1:14:13] the other. I'm just saying that's that's

[1:14:15] a bit of a red flag to me.

[1:14:16] >> Were you saying we go to the three or

[1:14:18] then three unrelated like we have in a

[1:14:20] long-term rentals? No. Um I'm just

[1:14:23] saying to me that's a bigger problem.

[1:14:25] That's a bigger fish to fry than

[1:14:27] short-term rentals because I hear about

[1:14:29] that continually.

[1:14:31] >> And I know again that the neighborhood

[1:14:33] team, it's just something that's

[1:14:35] impossible for them to keep up with

[1:14:38] and and so it's just kind of always out

[1:14:40] there bubbling and brewing that we have

[1:14:43] these long-term renters and we don't

[1:14:45] really know kind of the same concerns.

[1:14:48] We don't know how many there are. We

[1:14:49] don't know how they're related, if

[1:14:51] they're related,

[1:14:53] and and so I just would hate to

[1:14:56] add to that. I

[1:14:57] >> think that's one of my biggest worries

[1:14:59] is that as we are trying to make

[1:15:02] something short-term rentals, we are

[1:15:04] going to be messing with what is allowed

[1:15:06] for long-term rentals. We all know that

[1:15:09] that's a big

[1:15:11] issue in the city right now. and the

[1:15:15] enforcement I BJ like shaking his head

[1:15:18] you [laughter] know he's got thoughts on

[1:15:19] this because the enforcement arm that's

[1:15:22] the most difficult part of this we can

[1:15:24] make all the rules that we want and it's

[1:15:26] not going to matter because people are

[1:15:27] still going to do what people do which

[1:15:29] is walk right past those rules and then

[1:15:31] we put it on our amazing officers to try

[1:15:34] and figure out how to enforce that. The

[1:15:37] other side of that coin though to me is

[1:15:40] it seems to me that the short-term

[1:15:43] rentals play by the rules better than

[1:15:45] the long-term rentals as far as the

[1:15:50] >> occupied. They're there. They're on top

[1:15:52] of it where short-term rentals I mean we

[1:15:56] have a a home in our neighborhood.

[1:16:00] >> I mean a long-term rental guy lives in

[1:16:02] Vegas

[1:16:03] >> and he doesn't know what happens there.

[1:16:06] we have a better idea of what's

[1:16:07] happening there than he does.

[1:16:09] >> Yeah. And that's like

[1:16:10] >> so I feel I feel like the I feel like

[1:16:14] because of the requirements of Airbnb

[1:16:16] and VRBO

[1:16:18] and the fact that you have to if you're

[1:16:22] going to if you're going to have

[1:16:23] success, you have to hit a c certain

[1:16:26] level of professionalism

[1:16:29] in that in those rentals that I feel

[1:16:32] like it's it's a little bit of a

[1:16:34] different animal than a long-term rental

[1:16:36] where, you know, they're there And

[1:16:39] >> I don't even think we should be talking

[1:16:40] about them.

[1:16:41] >> I know and I

[1:16:42] >> different here.

[1:16:43] >> They're they're to two totally different

[1:16:44] things

[1:16:45] >> that we would even consider a occupancy

[1:16:49] right in regard. So I feel like we're

[1:16:52] getting into the weeds here because the

[1:16:53] eight the whole topic I think that

[1:16:55] Jake's trying to say is that 8 count can

[1:17:00] be problem if we exceed the 8 count that

[1:17:03] can be problematic from a federal uh

[1:17:06] litigation standard.

[1:17:08] And and my and and yes, we did go into

[1:17:10] the we for a minute, but my point was

[1:17:14] that was my question is where does this

[1:17:17] take?

[1:17:17] >> No, I understand what your what your

[1:17:18] question is going to impact the other

[1:17:20] things. We're not we're not talking

[1:17:21] about long-term rental.

[1:17:24] How what's the relationship of the

[1:17:25] impact? I know Jen Jen had a comment.

[1:17:27] Then I have a question. Well, I guess

[1:17:30] just to tag along what Jeff and Quinn

[1:17:32] were talking about, um, just the way

[1:17:33] that we regulate STRs is a lot different

[1:17:35] than how we would regulate a long-term

[1:17:37] rental. So, you know, you with an STR,

[1:17:39] you'd have inspections and parking

[1:17:41] minimums and work maximums and permits

[1:17:43] and so local contact and all of those

[1:17:46] things. And we could suspend the

[1:17:47] license, you know, where we couldn't

[1:17:48] really do that with long-term. So, like

[1:17:49] I think Len was saying also, they're

[1:17:50] just different animals that maybe don't

[1:17:52] bear comparing. Um, but to that point, I

[1:17:54] also agree with Quinn. think that the

[1:17:56] onesize misfits-all. I I I think that's

[1:17:58] a great fit either. I think that based

[1:18:00] on occupancy, you know, like in your

[1:18:01] example here, a 24 square foot 100 foot

[1:18:04] home have the same occupancy, a 6,000

[1:18:06] foot home essentially, you know, like I

[1:18:09] don't love that. So I I would tend to

[1:18:10] side with let's go with a simple easy

[1:18:12] two perb move on see like just my input.

[1:18:16] >> So is all of this as I think back on

[1:18:18] your first side, this is about non-owner

[1:18:20] occupied, right? Or can this be applied

[1:18:22] to owner occupied?

[1:18:22] >> It could also be applied to owner

[1:18:24] occupied. Okay, thank you.

[1:18:26] >> So,

[1:18:29] whatever we apply to short-term rentals

[1:18:31] though have to realize that it will be

[1:18:33] applied to longterm,

[1:18:36] >> not necessarily long term,

[1:18:38] >> but other legally it could be challenged

[1:18:41] in that way

[1:18:42] >> does open up some arguments there.

[1:18:44] Whether those arguments are going to be

[1:18:45] valid or not,

[1:18:47] >> I don't know. Um,

[1:18:49] >> that makes me uncomfortable.

[1:18:50] >> It does open potential lines for

[1:18:52] argument. Sometimes you get up your six

[1:18:54] 7,000 foot homes and you don't

[1:18:57] necessarily have more bedrooms,

[1:19:02] » right?

[1:19:03] >> Your homes with your really nicer

[1:19:05] amenities.

[1:19:08] So, so your square foot, what I'm trying

[1:19:10] to say there is I don't think square

[1:19:11] footage is a good measure. I think that

[1:19:13] misfits all. I think you've got to look

[1:19:15] at bedrooms. Then we we are considering

[1:19:18] the safety that that we're chief was

[1:19:21] talking about.

[1:19:22] Um,

[1:19:25] so here's the balance. Bedrooms for me,

[1:19:28] bedrooms and and the eight max. I'm very

[1:19:31] concerned about the sober living issue

[1:19:33] because I've seen it in my area and I

[1:19:36] guess maybe I live different place than

[1:19:37] you guys do, but it's in my area and

[1:19:40] I've seen it. So I think we need to be

[1:19:43] respectful of people who live in those

[1:19:44] kinds of areas and recognize that it's

[1:19:48] be difficult to maintain a certain

[1:19:50] standard of a neighborhood if we get to

[1:19:52] that that um

[1:19:57] » Chris if I could impose and maybe ask

[1:19:59] what your thoughts are. Yeah,

[1:20:01] [clears throat]

[1:20:02] I think probably the bedroom

[1:20:05] uh would be more of my

[1:20:09] limited per bedroom, whatever.

[1:20:11] >> Say more than eight,

[1:20:12] >> whatever that limit is. I I'm that would

[1:20:14] be my my enforcement would be bedroom.

[1:20:17] I'm going to have to find out about

[1:20:18] whatever's larger than

[1:20:22] also there. I would also think that

[1:20:24] there would need to be some maximum

[1:20:28] whatever that is [clears throat]

[1:20:30] >> some maximum occupancy limit. Is that

[1:20:32] what I'm understanding?

[1:20:33] >> Maximum occupant limit but also number

[1:20:36] of bedrooms how up to whatever the

[1:20:38] maximum would be. Um that's where I'm

[1:20:41] leaning.

[1:20:43] >> I the concerns that I have is

[1:20:46] um there's two sides to it. You have a

[1:20:48] family of 30 that's coming in for a

[1:20:50] family reunion. They're all related.

[1:20:52] that's a grandma and all of her all

[1:20:54] their grandkids and um

[1:20:59] the issue with like group homes or sober

[1:21:02] living they're living there for longer

[1:21:03] than 3 to 5 days. So can you set uh you

[1:21:07] can be there for up to 30 people for

[1:21:10] that are all family related up to three

[1:21:12] days more than that the maximum is

[1:21:16] whatever that so that's just my thinking

[1:21:19] outside the box but just saying I I have

[1:21:22] empathy towards the family wanting to go

[1:21:24] do a family reunion I also have empathy

[1:21:26] for u because I have that same group

[1:21:29] home experience um the maximum was eight

[1:21:32] and I went to the city council meeting

[1:21:36] 15 years ago when we had that issue.

[1:21:42] » Um, again, if I could just maybe just so

[1:21:44] I I have a clear understanding where

[1:21:46] everybody is. If I could have everybody

[1:21:47] just again reate

[1:21:50] what their thoughts and where they may

[1:21:52] feel comfortable with it. If I could

[1:21:54] start with you.

[1:21:54] >> So, I'm I right now I feel comfortable

[1:21:56] with the two per room.

[1:22:00] >> Um, with any any limitation or no

[1:22:03] limitation? limitation and I and I

[1:22:09] don't have

[1:22:12] I guess so a larger home that has four

[1:22:16] bedrooms and I appreciate Len what Len

[1:22:18] saying because some some of those homes

[1:22:19] have a theater room and they have a you

[1:22:21] know they have lots of other amenities

[1:22:23] and things but um I like I think I feel

[1:22:27] comfortable with

[1:22:28] two and then a a maximum

[1:22:34] Quint,

[1:22:37] >> the choices we've looked at today, I

[1:22:38] think uh the square footage one

[1:22:41] resonates most with me. I think that's

[1:22:42] the most customizable to the property.

[1:22:45] Um I might also be open to uh two per

[1:22:48] bedroom. Um not comfortable with a limit

[1:22:52] of a because I I I just think that that

[1:22:57] uh doesn't fit a lot of our larger

[1:22:59] properties. I ask a question about I

[1:23:01] mean that and I'm not I'm just this is a

[1:23:05] legitimate question. How many groups of

[1:23:07] eight people more than eight people

[1:23:09] together to stay together

[1:23:13] um in a facility?

[1:23:17] I don't know. I don't know the answer to

[1:23:18] that and I don't know that there is an

[1:23:20] answer to that. But I did I think it's a

[1:23:22] >> I've been part of family reunions where

[1:23:24] we've rented an air

[1:23:25] >> but family reunions are different,

[1:23:27] right?

[1:23:28] I I'm not a fan of discriminating

[1:23:30] between family and non-family

[1:23:33] the enforcement issue.

[1:23:35] >> So I I think that's just really hard to

[1:23:37] do. So I

[1:23:38] >> Well, that's a good point.

[1:23:39] >> I I I I've stayed in a I mean the best

[1:23:41] family reunions I've ever been to were

[1:23:43] in an Airbnb that hosted 30 people. I

[1:23:46] mean it was it was magical. So

[1:23:49] >> all right. Was that for a family?

[1:23:52] >> Was that Was that a family reunion?

[1:23:54] Family gathering?

[1:23:54] >> Family reunion. And that is again why

[1:23:56] we've we've we have talked about the

[1:23:58] overlapping of of having the single

[1:24:00] family as an option which would increase

[1:24:03] that occupancy or a single family

[1:24:06] provision. But yes, does it create

[1:24:07] enforcement issues? It does.

[1:24:10] Um and then when you said something of

[1:24:12] the options you've looked at today, is

[1:24:13] there something else that's out there

[1:24:14] that you're thinking that might be a

[1:24:16] better solution

[1:24:18] u specifically on occupancy or picture?

[1:24:21] Well, I I think if if I was to design

[1:24:25] one right now, I would say um

[1:24:29] uh

[1:24:31] that two people per bedroom, right? Um

[1:24:36] up to four up to four bedrooms or

[1:24:38] something like that. And then uh if the

[1:24:41] property is is a much larger property,

[1:24:43] then you could have a square footage

[1:24:44] thing that kicks in or additional

[1:24:46] bedroom thing that kicks in. I would be

[1:24:49] comfortable with that.

[1:24:52] Um,

[1:24:53] one thing to to understand again is and

[1:24:56] I um I'll let everybody speak and then I I want to clarify something. Janet,

[1:25:01] >> um, I would support either the options

[1:25:03] Quinn suggested. I would also support

[1:25:04] two per bedroom. And I think an

[1:25:05] important thing to point out here too is

[1:25:06] it would be limited by parking capacity.

[1:25:09] So you have, you know, two per bedroom

[1:25:11] and then whatever the max parking

[1:25:12] capacity is, which will be a limiting

[1:25:13] factor.

[1:25:16] >> Great. And that's my parking would be

[1:25:20] definitely have to be the back.

[1:25:23] >> We might not have enough parking to have

[1:25:24] two per bedroom.

[1:25:25] >> Yes, that's right.

[1:25:26] >> And I have the roads, but you don't have

[1:25:27] the park.

[1:25:28] >> But then you're not going to have like

[1:25:29] 30 people when you only have two spots.

[1:25:31] So I think that's just an

[1:25:32] >> a bus. I'm not comfortable with any

[1:25:34] ordinance that spills parking into the

[1:25:36] street.

[1:25:36] >> That's a question right there. Chris

[1:25:38] just said unless they're bringing a bus

[1:25:40] and we saw a bus at the BYU I have a

[1:25:42] picture on my phone of the bus at the

[1:25:44] BYU house of the volleyball team.

[1:25:46] >> Well, I say that's just not a a oneoff

[1:25:49] event either. We've seen that in other

[1:25:50] properties.

[1:25:51] >> One at the Aspen house, too. There's

[1:25:53] house. Yeah. The goat house

[1:25:57] names for them.

[1:25:59] >> Len, is there anything um that you want

[1:26:01] to add beyond your bedrooms? The

[1:26:03] bedrooms in a max eight. Um,

[1:26:10] yeah. So, documented bedrooms, legal

[1:26:15] safety bedrooms, you know, um, square

[1:26:17] footage. I like that idea where we are

[1:26:20] defining what a bedroom is, that it has

[1:26:22] a window.

[1:26:23] um

[1:26:26] >> that yeah I just can't get past the

[1:26:28] eight because I've seen that and that

[1:26:30] just you know we do it and we have zero

[1:26:34] control then are subject to federal

[1:26:36] standards I hope everybody understands

[1:26:38] that then are subject to federal

[1:26:40] standards that happened in my brother's

[1:26:42] neighborhood I mean you know it's going

[1:26:43] to be um and I mean I know when we've

[1:26:48] had the one home

[1:26:51] my second year on the council Jeff I

[1:26:53] here there where they had the autism

[1:26:54] home over on Center Street, Center

[1:26:58] Street, and it was totally legal.

[1:27:00] Everything was great and no more than

[1:27:02] eight and the emails we got and the push

[1:27:05] back we got and had zero control over

[1:27:08] that as a federal standards. Um, but the

[1:27:12] neighbors were very concerned have um a

[1:27:17] neighbor

[1:27:18] have a commercial enterprise in their

[1:27:20] neighborhood. So I I I would love to be

[1:27:23] compassionate here. I would love to be,

[1:27:26] you know, I would love to have provide

[1:27:30] um family union spots for families in

[1:27:33] Oram, but I have to really go with

[1:27:36] protecting our neighborhoods, protecting

[1:27:38] our residents who bought homes in areas,

[1:27:41] anticipating residential use, and um

[1:27:46] I don't know, this is a new thing,

[1:27:47] right? When I grew up, we rented a hotel

[1:27:50] room and we slept in sleeping bags on

[1:27:52] the floor. Seven kids,

[1:27:55] >> not rich. We were very poor family. So,

[1:27:58] we made it work, you know, and it was

[1:28:00] fun. And when I traveled with friends

[1:28:02] before we had kids, we would each get a

[1:28:05] hotel room. We would go in somebody's

[1:28:06] room and play cards. And then when it

[1:28:08] was time to go to sleep, we would go to

[1:28:10] our hotel rooms. It worked great. You

[1:28:12] know, when I went on family reunions,

[1:28:14] that's

[1:28:15] >> stay with with family members. um their

[1:28:18] homes or stay in hotels, you know, it's

[1:28:21] worked for years and years and years.

[1:28:22] This is a new thing. I I just feel like

[1:28:26] I just have such while I really

[1:28:27] appreciate that experience and that

[1:28:30] opportunity, I don't see a need to

[1:28:32] impose upon neighborhoods and the

[1:28:36] privacy and sanctity of people who

[1:28:38] that's their biggest investment in their

[1:28:41] life is their home and the connections

[1:28:44] that [clears throat] they are making

[1:28:46] with their neighbors are very very

[1:28:48] important. So that's kind of where I am.

[1:28:50] I I'm a bad person here and I'm sounding

[1:28:53] like I am because I know I got these

[1:28:54] people sitting behind me, right? And I

[1:28:56] get it. But I just have to say this is

[1:28:59] what I'm I'm I'm struggling with, but I

[1:29:02] have to come down on principle and

[1:29:04] safety and neighborhood protections and

[1:29:06] residents and, you know, legal legal

[1:29:09] exposure, all of that.

[1:29:12] >> Crystal,

[1:29:13] >> I'm more on the numerical cap. unless

[1:29:17] the courts

[1:29:19] change incidents

[1:29:22] on the fair housing type things that

[1:29:26] that's a can of warns I that I'm not

[1:29:27] willing to open up in our city.

[1:29:30] >> Um mayor

[1:29:33] >> oh you just let I'm here making notes.

[1:29:37] Uh, I have a couple questions before I

[1:29:40] and you might not know the answer before

[1:29:42] I I say what I'm at right now. Where did

[1:29:45] the number eight come from?

[1:29:48] >> So number eight, and I don't have all of

[1:29:50] the the history here. Steve um probably

[1:29:53] worked on that original sober living

[1:29:54] facility ordinance um long before I

[1:29:57] graduated from law school. Um but

[1:30:00] >> not to put you on the spot.

[1:30:05] » Do you know what? You know what's

[1:30:06] horrible is I was at Ten [laughter]

[1:30:07] Council at the time and I'm like, Steve,

[1:30:10] why did we

[1:30:12] >> But I I believe and again, correct me

[1:30:14] where I'm wrong, Steve. I believe I can

[1:30:16] remember that long.

[1:30:19] >> I can't I just admitted I can't remember

[1:30:22] that long ago.

[1:30:23] where I believe is there was there was

[1:30:25] conversations, there were studies, there

[1:30:27] were concerns about what the therapeutic

[1:30:29] level, where be benefits and ORM decided

[1:30:33] that eight was going to be that magic

[1:30:36] number based on therapeutic value of a

[1:30:38] group home

[1:30:39] >> and a sober living facility.

[1:30:42] >> That's where that number came from.

[1:30:43] Steve, if

[1:30:44] >> one other thing I'd add to to that is uh

[1:30:46] some of the thought not just in ORM but

[1:30:48] throughout the country dealing with

[1:30:50] we're talking about residential group

[1:30:52] homes. So, group homes that are in

[1:30:53] residential neighborhoods, typically in

[1:30:55] single family homes. We're not talking

[1:30:57] about group homes that are in, you know,

[1:30:58] we have some commercial, more commercial

[1:31:00] like institutional type facilities.

[1:31:03] >> And uh as Jake mentioned, eight is a

[1:31:06] standard that's been therapeutically

[1:31:08] effective, financially viable, but it's

[1:31:09] also one that's been commonly uh

[1:31:12] determined that a number that fits into

[1:31:15] a residential neighborhood without

[1:31:17] changing the character of the

[1:31:19] neighborhood. There's there's been a

[1:31:20] concern. There is a historical because

[1:31:25] >> when you start getting larger and larger

[1:31:27] numbers of residents in a group home,

[1:31:29] you also have more staff members. You

[1:31:30] also have more services being provided.

[1:31:33] It starts to look more less like a

[1:31:36] residential facility and more like an

[1:31:37] institutional facility.

[1:31:39] >> So that's where that eight number kind

[1:31:41] of for the eight for group homes kind of

[1:31:43] comes from.

[1:31:44] >> Good job. Okay. Thank you. Even though

[1:31:46] you're that sold.

[1:31:47] >> Not bad. Not bad. And so so does this is a kind of a correlary question.

[1:31:51] Do do the state regulations for group

[1:31:55] homes and sober living facilities. Do

[1:31:57] they have a square footage requirement?

[1:32:01] >> I'm wondering I believe the state does

[1:32:03] have requirements for group homes. Uh

[1:32:06] square footage requirements. I don't

[1:32:08] remember what those are. They're fairly

[1:32:10] I think they're fairly lenient to be

[1:32:11] honest with you.

[1:32:13] >> Okay.

[1:32:13] >> They're like 80

[1:32:15] >> Yeah,

[1:32:15] >> 80 square feet.

[1:32:16] pretty lenient. So, it's

[1:32:18] >> Okay.

[1:32:22] Well, all right. So,

[1:32:25] >> I like the bedrooms

[1:32:28] owner occupied only.

[1:32:31] That's something that I didn't I think

[1:32:32] that

[1:32:33] >> I I don't but that was part of the

[1:32:35] discussion. But I

[1:32:36] >> occupancy, but you're bringing up the

[1:32:38] previous, but thank you for help.

[1:32:39] >> That's that's I don't I don't envision

[1:32:42] this being something in a non-owner

[1:32:43] occupied

[1:32:45] um situation. I'm struggling. I I might

[1:32:49] be able to go feel like we could raise

[1:32:51] the cap a tiny bit, a couple maybe, but

[1:32:55] again, I don't I don't know. I'm a

[1:32:57] little distant here that the it's 80.

[1:33:01] But I I do I do like the bedroom. So,

[1:33:04] mayor, if I can clarify that the number

[1:33:06] that the state that's just for the

[1:33:07] purposes of their licensing, that's not

[1:33:09] something that we have to follow.

[1:33:10] >> Oh, I know. I would what I was what I

[1:33:12] was thinking was what if sober living

[1:33:14] homes required,

[1:33:16] you know, a higher number of square feet

[1:33:18] that we could that would make it to

[1:33:21] where

[1:33:23] I'm not going to say it, but it would

[1:33:26] change probably change the situation.

[1:33:28] So,

[1:33:31] uh,

[1:33:33] that's I'm struggling with the some of

[1:33:35] the silver living and the the group

[1:33:36] homes. I have I have no I I want to have

[1:33:40] some flexibility because I do believe

[1:33:42] that one size miss all, but I'm I'm

[1:33:45] struggling with how to how to deal with

[1:33:47] the

[1:33:49] universable universal applicability

[1:33:53] of that.

[1:33:55] So Jake, maybe one clarification.

[1:34:01] We're talking about short-term rentals

[1:34:04] in residentially zoned areas, right?

[1:34:07] This would not preclude the council from

[1:34:11] a commercial zone.

[1:34:14] uh basically a facility that that had

[1:34:19] different occupancy levels that that did

[1:34:22] more like

[1:34:24] uh hospitality but had maybe a

[1:34:27] residential feel in the design and look

[1:34:31] right now what we're talking about

[1:34:32] solely is residential zones. If if in a

[1:34:36] future

[1:34:37] um project you wanted to look at

[1:34:40] allowing them in a commercial zone or

[1:34:41] creating a hospitality zone uh where

[1:34:44] we'd have different standards, we could

[1:34:46] absolutely have that conversation in a

[1:34:49] and and put standards that are different

[1:34:51] and separate and distinct from those

[1:34:53] that would be occurring in a residential

[1:34:55] zone.

[1:34:57] Um, something else I want to also

[1:34:59] clarify is, you know, as we talk about

[1:35:01] bedrooms, um, I do want to just make

[1:35:05] sure the council is going into this with

[1:35:06] eyes wide open is if you had a, you

[1:35:09] know, a 6,000 foot home and you had a

[1:35:12] large basement and that basement was a a

[1:35:14] wider open space, you may have

[1:35:17] applicants coming in to then refurbish

[1:35:20] or um, change the footprint within the

[1:35:24] home to add bedrooms to increase that

[1:35:26] occupancy. I just want to make sure that

[1:35:28] you're going into with a bedroom

[1:35:29] calculation understanding that that may

[1:35:32] is used to increase occupancy with that

[1:35:35] in that internal structure of the home.

[1:35:39] Um, next

[1:35:42] I'm running out of time unfortunately.

[1:35:44] >> Clarify. I'm not I don't want to do the

[1:35:45] bedrooms. I'm eight only.

[1:35:51] Um the next thing I want to speak about

[1:35:53] is is parking and and I understand again

[1:35:57] that this is one of those areas where

[1:35:59] there may not be a lot of uh consensus

[1:36:02] but we may be close. The really is one I

[1:36:06] think the one where there is consensus

[1:36:08] from the group is we would require that

[1:36:11] tenants of short-term rentals park off

[1:36:14] street. They are not using on street

[1:36:16] spots to park and to facilitate the

[1:36:19] rental, the short-term rental.

[1:36:22] The next area I'd like to talk about

[1:36:23] though is as we as we have them submit a

[1:36:26] parking plan, what would count as

[1:36:29] potential parking spots, tandem parking

[1:36:34] or or not? Is that is that something

[1:36:37] that the council would want to restrict?

[1:36:39] And by that I mean um as you can see

[1:36:41] from the example, if you have two spots

[1:36:44] but they're front and back, does that

[1:36:46] count as two spots or does that count as

[1:36:48] one spot or do you want to go based on

[1:36:50] width? So a spot and a spot and a spot

[1:36:53] as you go across horizontally.

[1:36:57] Are there any strong feelings one way or

[1:36:59] the other?

[1:37:01] >> I love the idea that if they can fit it

[1:37:02] in the footprint of their driveway and

[1:37:04] their garage, then it's fine. as long as

[1:37:06] it's not spilling over onto the

[1:37:08] sidewalk, whatever, they can jenga

[1:37:10] however they want to and it's up to the

[1:37:11] STR owner to man manage that. And if

[1:37:13] they don't, then they lose a license.

[1:37:14] Um, but I think that's fair.

[1:37:18] I lived in a place that had tandem

[1:37:20] parking. My husband and I had to park

[1:37:21] behind each other and we did not the

[1:37:25] street cuz it, you know, honey, come

[1:37:29] move your car so I can back out is

[1:37:32] always a problem. And I think that's the

[1:37:34] nature of short-term rental tenants is

[1:37:36] they're coming and going a lot of times

[1:37:38] and

[1:37:40] they're going to be on the street. And

[1:37:42] how will you know if that's them? Once

[1:37:44] again, we're putting the onus on our

[1:37:46] residents

[1:37:48] to then report

[1:37:53] » this question, but not quite on this.

[1:37:56] How

[1:37:59] realistic is it to have a parking

[1:38:03] complaint

[1:38:05] result in an official strike if we went

[1:38:08] with a three strike rule or whatever it

[1:38:10] is and having their license taken away?

[1:38:11] Like is that a hard thing to accomplish

[1:38:16] once we have an ordinance or is that

[1:38:19] >> I think again it depends on the

[1:38:20] circumstances, right? I mean, if we have

[1:38:24] as what we've as we've talked to

[1:38:25] different neighbors of STRs that have

[1:38:27] made complaints, the the refrain always

[1:38:30] is if there is an active nuisance,

[1:38:33] please call it in while it's active.

[1:38:36] if it's during the 8

[1:38:38] to 5 hours, we can have an NIT team

[1:38:40] member go out there and and respond, do

[1:38:44] a knock on the STR, identify what that

[1:38:47] vehicle is. We could run the license

[1:38:49] plate. we could understand that that

[1:38:51] doesn't belong to any of the neighboring

[1:38:52] homes. Uh you collect a witness

[1:38:55] statement from the neighbor saying it's

[1:38:56] not one of our vehicles. Um you could

[1:38:59] have an off a uniformed officer offsite

[1:39:03] of hours do the same thing. Um again we

[1:39:06] would then go through the ALJ. Some of

[1:39:08] them are really obvious. I mean again

[1:39:10] when we've had a school bus park in a

[1:39:12] neighborhood and they parked and they

[1:39:13] think up that parking that's really

[1:39:15] obvious. Other times it's going to be a

[1:39:18] little bit less obvious. So again, I'm

[1:39:20] going to give you the attorney answer of

[1:39:22] it really just depends on the

[1:39:23] circumstances.

[1:39:24] >> Are pictures submitted by neighbors

[1:39:26] considered

[1:39:28] >> evidence. So they doesn't have to be

[1:39:30] corroborated by an officer coming out

[1:39:33] there and looking at it, but sure would

[1:39:36] suffice.

[1:39:36] >> Again, it comes down to I mean, part of

[1:39:39] it is when neighbors say, "I don't want

[1:39:40] to necessarily be involved." Well, the

[1:39:42] way to to not have the neighborhood

[1:39:44] neighbor be involved is we have the NIT

[1:39:47] officer go out collect the photo, but

[1:39:50] Aaron

[1:39:51] >> Yeah, you've prosecuted these.

[1:39:53] >> Yeah. So, I I often do the enforcement

[1:39:55] on this and often receive photos from

[1:39:57] neighbors and photos are helpful, but

[1:40:00] they're not always sufficient. And what

[1:40:02] I mean by that is there can be a photo

[1:40:04] of a vehicle out in front of that STR,

[1:40:06] but how do we know that that vehicle

[1:40:08] belongs to the tenant of that STR as

[1:40:10] opposed to someone who's visiting

[1:40:13] a neighbor across the street or

[1:40:15] something, right?

[1:40:16] >> And so photos are good. If there's video

[1:40:19] showing them, park it and go inside the

[1:40:21] STR, that's better, right?

[1:40:25] It depends. So I have So I don't like

[1:40:28] the tandem. Back to the parking, but if

[1:40:31] someone had a side and they could do

[1:40:34] angle to get people to so then you could

[1:40:37] have someone in the driveway have a

[1:40:39] problem with that. No, if they're all

[1:40:41] off street and there's no tandem to

[1:40:45] cars. Um, but to that point, I will tell

[1:40:49] you I had I have had residents call me

[1:40:52] and say they have called our dispatch

[1:40:54] trying to get someone to go out and

[1:40:57] dispatch that the police are busy doing

[1:40:59] other things, important things, right?

[1:41:02] So, I don't know

[1:41:04] um if we would then consider just

[1:41:07] hiring, you know, have code enforcement

[1:41:10] officers that are available 247 to make

[1:41:13] sure that we always had someone

[1:41:14] available to go out and to, you know,

[1:41:18] get the evidence that we needed to so we

[1:41:21] can honor the the the you know, the call

[1:41:25] from the resident

[1:41:26] >> and and I understand the situation

[1:41:28] you're talking about because I believe

[1:41:30] that resident also then texted me and at

[1:41:32] about 11:45 at night I called the watch

[1:41:35] commander and had them send out a

[1:41:37] uniform officer. Uh we've done training

[1:41:39] memos. We've worked through the dispatch

[1:41:41] on that. So um again we've again we

[1:41:46] don't necessarily want to use uniformed

[1:41:47] officers to enforce a civil mechanism.

[1:41:50] So the idea is again officer would go

[1:41:53] out collect the initial information and

[1:41:55] then have referred over to NIT to do the

[1:41:58] followup. And that's kind of the thing

[1:42:00] is I really don't want to put our

[1:42:02] officers they're if they're busy they're

[1:42:05] busy doing other things. This is so low

[1:42:08] on the duties of a police officer to

[1:42:11] protect our citizens, right? Um, so to

[1:42:16] me the answer is we have to somehow um

[1:42:21] have code enforcement so you're not

[1:42:24] getting texts at 11:45 at night but or

[1:42:26] you know how are we going to handle that

[1:42:28] when that happens because that is a

[1:42:30] concern and it's very hard for our

[1:42:32] residents to

[1:42:35] >> I just need to for you y'all to talk me

[1:42:39] through how how would this work with

[1:42:41] owner occupied because in the tan and

[1:42:44] parking might have a garage and then

[1:42:46] let's say you have three people living

[1:42:48] upstairs, the owner and a spouse and kid

[1:42:52] and then your your um separate STR might

[1:42:56] be two bedrooms. So they would have to

[1:42:59] have we would have to have the separate

[1:43:02] so within this footprint of garage and

[1:43:04] driveway you would have to have the

[1:43:06] parking that would be for them right and

[1:43:10] then in this in a two-bedroom additional

[1:43:13] two off streetet parking spaces

[1:43:17] I'm trying to

[1:43:18] >> that's what it sounds like

[1:43:19] >> figure figure this out. Yeah,

[1:43:22] >> it does create, you know, I mean either

[1:43:25] I don't necessarily want to say this in

[1:43:26] a public meeting, but it could be game

[1:43:28] too by a owner occupied. The owner could

[1:43:32] then park in the street and the um

[1:43:35] short-term renter parks in the driveway.

[1:43:37] >> Yeah, it can be gamed.

[1:43:39] >> The owner can park in the street anyway.

[1:43:40] >> Correct. And that's why we wouldn't

[1:43:41] control it. We can't control that. So

[1:43:44] the again the idea is you'd want to put

[1:43:47] some sort of effective way

[1:43:49] [clears throat] to try to incentivize

[1:43:51] and force that parking to come off the

[1:43:54] street. So is there any strong feelings

[1:43:57] about tandem parking or not? I guess it

[1:44:00] would be the question I pose to the

[1:44:01] group.

[1:44:02] >> My my perspective is if it's off the

[1:44:04] street I'm okay.

[1:44:08] >> That's where I'm at as well. if it's

[1:44:09] garage or driveway if it's off the

[1:44:11] street or if they create a little

[1:44:12] parking

[1:44:14] off to the side. Um I'm okay with that.

[1:44:19] >> I'm the same.

[1:44:20] >> Don't like tandem.

[1:44:23] >> I don't have strong opinion.

[1:44:25] >> Okay.

[1:44:27] >> What Chris?

[1:44:28] >> Well, I apologize. Same as me.

[1:44:30] >> Tandem's okay as long as it's out of the

[1:44:31] way and it's off the street. So, same

[1:44:33] off the street.

[1:44:35] >> Oh, my brain. It just it left my brain

[1:44:37] again. Okay. So, we're talking we talked

[1:44:39] about last week that we're not talking

[1:44:41] about room sharing.

[1:44:45] Correct. Are we talking about a separate

[1:44:47] STR? Because [clears throat] then

[1:44:50] because I'm like, okay, if we're going

[1:44:51] to do share rooms, then we do have to do

[1:44:53] the number of bedrooms including the

[1:44:55] primary bedroom of the owner and that

[1:44:57] because I I did not like it. I I decided

[1:45:00] it's not for me. But one time I stay in Airbnb where I'm just one of the

[1:45:05] fam and they had, you know, I could go

[1:45:08] use the kitchen and they had their

[1:45:10] master bedroom and the sister lived

[1:45:12] there and they rented out a couple of

[1:45:14] rooms and it wasn't was my cup of tea,

[1:45:17] but how would you So we decided last

[1:45:20] week I thought that that wasn't that was more of a boarding house kind

[1:45:23] of situation and that was not something

[1:45:25] that we were I just want [snorts] to

[1:45:27] make sure that I have an understanding

[1:45:28] that that was what we the conclusion we

[1:45:30] came too.

[1:45:31] >> So, mayor, that is a natural lead in to

[1:45:34] the next slide.

[1:45:36] >> Um,

[1:45:36] >> great segue.

[1:45:38] >> Oh, that [laughter] but your but to your

[1:45:40] >> You know what? Our time's about up, but

[1:45:42] do you mind if we keep going a bit more?

[1:45:44] >> Y.

[1:45:44] >> Are you Do you need a break or anything?

[1:45:46] Don't worry, we'll get to We know we've

[1:45:49] got Brandon and Tagert and thing. We've

[1:45:51] Hang in there with us, friends.

[1:45:55] So, um, mayor, we've we've heard the

[1:45:57] concerns and and just what you

[1:45:59] articulated is, do you want to engage in

[1:46:02] room sharing where, um, an individual

[1:46:05] just rents a room within the the

[1:46:08] residential home itself on Airbnb or

[1:46:11] VRBO?

[1:46:13] Um, or if you want it more formalized

[1:46:16] where this ends up being a separate

[1:46:19] willing

[1:46:21] basement, a apartment over the garage,

[1:46:25] um, some type of designated segregated

[1:46:29] space within the home or the footprint

[1:46:30] of the home that is rented as though it

[1:46:34] were an accessory apartment or an ADU,

[1:46:37] but on a [snorts] short-term rental

[1:46:39] basis. If you were to do that more

[1:46:41] formalized process, what we would

[1:46:43] recommend is that we have an accessory

[1:46:46] apartment permit be required as part of

[1:46:49] doing the short-term rental.

[1:46:53] What are the thoughts and concerns from

[1:46:54] the council as to that process?

[1:46:58] I'm going to start with Chris on this

[1:46:59] time since I've been picking on Jeff.

[1:47:01] >> No, no concern. I I like the idea that

[1:47:03] to eliminate the boarding house, I

[1:47:06] prefer it to have some form of accessory

[1:47:09] so that they're separate and distinct,

[1:47:11] and when you come as a short-term rental

[1:47:14] user, you have a defined space that's

[1:47:17] yours for that

[1:47:19] permitted time.

[1:47:21] >> I like having an [clears throat]

[1:47:23] accessory dwelling

[1:47:25] as well. Um, one of the concerns I've

[1:47:28] heard from some people who have those is

[1:47:31] that

[1:47:32] am I going to have to every time I I

[1:47:35] have some people who have accessory

[1:47:36] dwelling

[1:47:40] apartment type things um that they

[1:47:41] sometimes short-term rental and

[1:47:43] sometimes don't like do I have to re get

[1:47:46] that every time? And I'm in my head it's

[1:47:48] you know you have the accessory dwelling

[1:47:51] one and then if you want a short-term

[1:47:52] rental it then you'd have to have that

[1:47:54] permit as well and that's you can come

[1:47:57] and go with that as needed upon

[1:47:59] availability or whatever we decide. Is

[1:48:02] that

[1:48:03] >> correct? There would be a there would be

[1:48:05] in essence a duplicate layer here. First

[1:48:07] is you attain you you obtain your ADU or

[1:48:10] accessory apartment permit

[1:48:11] >> and then if you want to

[1:48:12] >> if you want a short-term rental you

[1:48:14] obtain your short-term rental license.

[1:48:16] And I think we didn't we um Jeff tried

[1:48:20] to take they only have to get that once.

[1:48:23] They don't have to get a license every

[1:48:26] year with an ADU, right? They just have

[1:48:28] to certify once.

[1:48:29] >> You get the ADU.

[1:48:30] >> We're not double.

[1:48:31] >> Yeah. Once you annually renew renew.

[1:48:35] >> So it is.

[1:48:38] >> Yeah. Definitely want a separate place.

[1:48:40] I think there's more protection for

[1:48:43] there and

[1:48:45] um better enforcement, easier

[1:48:46] enforcement.

[1:48:48] Um

[1:48:50] yeah, helps the standard of

[1:48:53] Airbnb or

[1:48:56] offer.

[1:48:57] >> Yeah,

[1:48:58] >> Jen,

[1:49:00] >> I like the idea that there's separate

[1:49:01] spaces to live in, but whether that's

[1:49:03] the owners live in the basement and

[1:49:05] they're in the top floor or vice versa

[1:49:06] or whatever combination that is, I don't

[1:49:08] have strong feelings about that. But I

[1:49:09] do worry about the financial burden it

[1:49:11] might place on families depending on how

[1:49:12] it's organized and how you write the

[1:49:14] legislation. I think it could

[1:49:16] disproportionately impact middle-income

[1:49:18] homeowners and also older housing stock

[1:49:20] and those are the people that often are

[1:49:22] renting those units out for the

[1:49:23] financial reasons and so I don't want to

[1:49:25] penalize them. So depending on how it's

[1:49:27] constructed and requiring a specific ADU

[1:49:30] license, I think I'm not totally a fan

[1:49:32] of but maybe an an ADU permit or some

[1:49:34] kind of permit that may be a little bit

[1:49:35] different I would be in favor of.

[1:49:37] >> Go ahead. Wait, I understand what you

[1:49:39] said.

[1:49:40] >> So I

[1:49:41] >> Yes or no? Right.

[1:49:42] >> If I could reframe that maybe. Um the

[1:49:44] question I I think Janet, let me make

[1:49:47] sure I understand your concern is let's

[1:49:49] say the STR operator wants to live in

[1:49:52] the ADU. They obtain an ADU permit and

[1:49:55] they live in the ADU and they wanted to

[1:49:57] STR out the the main dwelling portion of

[1:50:01] it. that main dwelling portion isn't

[1:50:03] necessarily

[1:50:05] the subject to the ADU permit.

[1:50:09] And then there's also concern that by

[1:50:11] adding that duplicative layer of

[1:50:12] licensing, it may price out middle inome

[1:50:15] families.

[1:50:16] >> Yes.

[1:50:17] >> Is that correct?

[1:50:18] >> Yes.

[1:50:18] >> But wait, how does it price them out?

[1:50:20] It's the same.

[1:50:21] >> There's going to be an additional fee.

[1:50:22] There's fees for each of those.

[1:50:24] >> You pay ADU fee once and then you pay

[1:50:27] the STR fee. That's what I was talking

[1:50:29] about that Chris and I did. It is the

[1:50:31] only annual one would be the STR. The

[1:50:32] ADU is not an annual fee.

[1:50:34] >> Well, maybe it depends on what kind of

[1:50:36] you're going to require for the ADU.

[1:50:37] What kind of standard that needs to be?

[1:50:39] >> It's the current law.

[1:50:40] We changed that.

[1:50:41] >> And how many other cities require ADUs

[1:50:44] required to be ADUs before they can

[1:50:45] they?

[1:50:46] >> Um, I don't have a numerical number on

[1:50:49] that off the top of my head. I do know

[1:50:52] [snorts] that other cities have other

[1:50:53] licensing that is required before you

[1:50:55] obtain your STRL like you go through a

[1:50:58] conditional use permit process or you

[1:51:00] have other permitting processes um that

[1:51:03] are subject to being eligible to then

[1:51:06] get your STRL.

[1:51:07] >> I would be in favor of that. I'm not

[1:51:09] sure. I'm totally in favor of an ADU

[1:51:11] requirement.

[1:51:12] >> Well, wait. I don't Do we have that?

[1:51:14] >> We don't we don't have that.

[1:51:15] >> No, we don't even have that.

[1:51:17] >> But I I I understand what you're what

[1:51:19] you're saying. Um so the question again

[1:51:23] what I understand from Jan is you'd be

[1:51:25] open to in lie of an ADU to adopt a

[1:51:29] policy where there's a conditional use

[1:51:30] permit process.

[1:51:32] >> Is that correct?

[1:51:33] >> Yes. And for example let's say you have

[1:51:34] an older home that was built in 1940 and

[1:51:36] the windows in the basement don't meet

[1:51:38] current egress standard. So the owner

[1:51:40] says well I'm going to live in the

[1:51:41] basement my home I can do that and I'm

[1:51:42] going to rent out the top floor. So he

[1:51:44] wouldn't qualify for an ADU's permit ADU

[1:51:47] whatever license. So I don't want to

[1:51:49] penalize them because of that. Does that

[1:51:51] make sense?

[1:51:52] >> So can I just speak to that? And I'm

[1:51:54] sorry I'm I have experience as I I did

[1:51:57] insurance claims and I saw those types

[1:52:00] of homes and I would never want to

[1:52:03] approve that. Um, I got a call like a

[1:52:06] couple years ago from someone in Orum

[1:52:08] that was trying to do an ADU and he was

[1:52:09] complaining to me, "They're making me

[1:52:11] cut out my windows because my windows

[1:52:13] are too small and it's going to cost me

[1:52:15] $8,000 more to certify my view." And I

[1:52:19] just said to him, "Did you want the

[1:52:22] people that you're renting to to

[1:52:24] possibly die in a fire cuz they couldn't

[1:52:26] get out the windows?"

[1:52:28] Cuz I saw that happen.

[1:52:31] Your chief seen something like that,

[1:52:32] right?

[1:52:33] >> That's why there's a fire code. That's

[1:52:34] why there's a fire code. So, I just I I don't know if that and I'm just saying

[1:52:38] from my experience to kind of help you

[1:52:40] hear my experience and maybe that will

[1:52:41] help you see that it sounds simple, but

[1:52:44] when you actually see it happen in real

[1:52:46] life, you understand why we have fire

[1:52:49] codes. Um, and we [clears throat] don't

[1:52:51] like them because a lot of times they

[1:52:52] cost us money, but they do save lives.

[1:52:56] >> Okay. Jen, anything else you want to

[1:52:58] add?

[1:52:58] >> And that's fine to still have that that

[1:53:00] opinion. I'm just I'm just kind of I'm not you know you're fine.

[1:53:04] >> Well, I I totally get what you're saying

[1:53:05] and I agree with you to to an extent. I

[1:53:07] think where I get a little bit uh thrown

[1:53:09] off is well by that logic we would have

[1:53:10] to then go inspect every home in AR and

[1:53:12] say well this doesn't qualify. You got

[1:53:13] to bring your home up to code. So where

[1:53:14] does that line do that? No, this is only

[1:53:17] people who want a license.

[1:53:18] >> But I also think it's a little bit

[1:53:19] different when you're renting out a

[1:53:21] basement separate from the top because

[1:53:26] then you can't access that top part to

[1:53:29] get out so to speak. Does that make and

[1:53:30] there should I'm guessing they would

[1:53:32] have a separate entrance and exit and

[1:53:34] all that but that's where to me it

[1:53:37] becomes a little bit different is they

[1:53:42] you've got separation of spaces there

[1:53:45] where the basement can't necessarily

[1:53:47] access the the floor as another way to

[1:53:50] get out if needed. That option's gone.

[1:53:56] » Quinton, if I could get your opinion.

[1:53:58] >> Yeah. Um, I mean, I'm not comfortable

[1:54:00] with um, rentals where it would be a

[1:54:05] hostile style thing where you were

[1:54:07] renting a bed in a room uh, with other

[1:54:09] people that you don't know. I'm not

[1:54:10] comfortable with that. I think needs to

[1:54:12] be a space designated for the renter. If

[1:54:15] even if it's one one room, um, I would

[1:54:18] be okay with that.

[1:54:20] Um, I am

[1:54:23] I'm worried about overregulation on this

[1:54:25] and worried about the cost of

[1:54:28] um

[1:54:30] of

[1:54:32] whatever part of the home uh receiving

[1:54:34] an ADU license. I'm also concerned about

[1:54:40] controlling which part of the home um is

[1:54:43] allowed to be rented out.

[1:54:45] I think again we have a lot of different

[1:54:47] families in different situations.

[1:54:50] Um maybe they their kids are gone, they

[1:54:53] have a large home um and it doesn't make

[1:54:56] sense for them to just rent out an ADU

[1:54:59] portion of the home, but maybe it makes

[1:55:00] sense for them to rent out their the

[1:55:02] main living space.

[1:55:04] I would be cautious about overregulation

[1:55:06] here.

[1:55:08] >> Thank you, Jeff.

[1:55:10] Um,

[1:55:13] so I'm thinking of a couple of different

[1:55:15] people, uh, older seniors that,

[1:55:19] uh, have mentioned to me that they're,

[1:55:21] uh,

[1:55:23] the only way that they're able to stay

[1:55:25] in their home is because they rent out a

[1:55:27] room.

[1:55:29] I don't like that. I don't like the, you

[1:55:32] know, the the hostile.

[1:55:35] sounds hostile. the the that

[1:55:40] situation. I I think that everyone

[1:55:41] should have their own space. Um I I

[1:55:46] don't know. But at the same time, I'm

[1:55:49] concerned about

[1:55:51] and I don't know how many people would

[1:55:53] fit into that category, but people that,

[1:55:55] you know, this is helping me make my

[1:55:57] mortgage payment. I'm in my 70s or 80s

[1:56:00] and I'm renting out of room. You know,

[1:56:02] it's a single man wants a home. is

[1:56:05] running out of room to a single another

[1:56:07] single man who's in town on business.

[1:56:10] Um,

[1:56:12] and I don't like the consequences of him

[1:56:16] losing his home because

[1:56:18] he's not able to make that make that

[1:56:20] income. So, having said that, I think I

[1:56:24] would prefer to not have the hostile

[1:56:27] situation. So, I don't know if there's a

[1:56:28] way that there I I don't know how you

[1:56:30] get around that. I don't know how you

[1:56:32] navigate that thread that needle but

[1:56:36] >> so which one I didn't quite understand

[1:56:37] either.

[1:56:38] >> So I would prefer to not have the hostel

[1:56:41] but at the same time my heart goes out

[1:56:44] to those who might be in a situation

[1:56:46] where it's helping them keep their home.

[1:56:49] >> He means hostile as a boarding room

[1:56:51] >> like

[1:56:53] the AD. So the ADU the separate is your

[1:56:56] choices here. Okay.

[1:56:58] >> I agree. I don't like I in this

[1:57:01] particular s I wouldn't step into their

[1:57:02] I didn't step into their kitchen. It's

[1:57:04] like I'll just the stairs down anyway. I

[1:57:08] don't care which where which part of the

[1:57:10] owner lives in up or down or half of the

[1:57:13] house or half of I whatever whatever it

[1:57:15] is they do. I am comfortable with the

[1:57:18] accessory apartment permit and this is

[1:57:20] why because of the safety issues that

[1:57:24] are involved. I I under I I do want to

[1:57:27] minimize duplication of of licensing and

[1:57:31] inspections. And if there are laws, if

[1:57:35] there rules, I would like to if we're

[1:57:37] writing the new ordinance, look at that

[1:57:40] accessory apartment ordinance, which I

[1:57:41] know you'll do, and do that. What I also

[1:57:44] do think too is that that creates an

[1:57:47] apartment in the in a dwelling that is

[1:57:50] long-term rental ready. What I can see

[1:57:53] happening is somebody doing short-term

[1:57:54] rentals for a while and then saying, "I

[1:57:56] don't really want to do this anymore. I

[1:57:57] just want to rent it." Yeah. Rent it

[1:57:59] out. Even though a lot of times we'd

[1:58:00] hear from people saying the other way

[1:58:02] that they would prefer to do short-term

[1:58:03] rentals, but but then that way we're not

[1:58:06] trying to deal with what would be then

[1:58:07] at that point an illegal accessory

[1:58:09] apartment because it wasn't brought up

[1:58:10] to the standard. I'm concerned and I and

[1:58:13] I appreciate where you're coming from

[1:58:14] with that. I've had some as a council

[1:58:17] member some pretty um tough situations

[1:58:20] with conditional use permits and

[1:58:22] personally I would prefer not to have I

[1:58:25] like to have as few of those in our

[1:58:26] ordinances as possible

[1:58:29] and

[1:58:31] let's not talk about cassitas or guest

[1:58:33] houses today or next week or next month

[1:58:37] or next year. Okay,

[1:58:41] >> but that's sort of

[1:58:44] >> um I'm out of time. I want to respect

[1:58:46] everybody else that is on the agenda

[1:58:48] today. Um just to preview, I would still

[1:58:52] like to talk about a couple different

[1:58:54] areas which is a dormcancy period for

[1:58:57] short-term rentals. Um high level is

[1:59:01] this would allow us um and we're not

[1:59:04] asking it to be consecutive days that it

[1:59:07] is dormant like in a 30-day window that

[1:59:10] it'd be dormant for 5 days not

[1:59:13] consecutively but this way it does um

[1:59:18] reduce a loophole for somebody to

[1:59:21] potentially use STRs for student housing

[1:59:26] or in another way that could be not what

[1:59:29] we are foreseeing the STR use for

[1:59:33] um [clears throat] a legacy status uh

[1:59:38] for individuals that have obtained a

[1:59:40] rental dwelling license that may

[1:59:42] [clears throat] be not able to get a

[1:59:44] license given to other regulations. So

[1:59:46] please look at that for future and then

[1:59:49] ultimately um a path forward with how do

[1:59:53] we bring this through planning

[1:59:54] commission and let planning commission

[1:59:57] review that provide a recommendation

[1:59:59] have the public have a chance to see

[2:00:01] whatever that final ordinance is and

[2:00:04] then coming back to council with a an

[2:00:07] ordinance with any recommendations from

[2:00:09] the planning commission. So don't know

[2:00:12] when you'd like me back. Maybe you never

[2:00:14] want me to come back. You want to expand

[2:00:16] that?

[2:00:16] >> Command.

[2:00:17] >> I know. Council, a couple of different

[2:00:20] things I would just want to ask is do

[2:00:21] you feel we need some more work session

[2:00:23] time? That's the first piece to talk

[2:00:26] about some things. I would like to

[2:00:27] discuss um [clears throat]

[2:00:30] the the one provision that says that it

[2:00:32] has to be occupied for of its owner

[2:00:35] occupied 183 days a year. I would like

[2:00:37] to see that increase so we don't end up

[2:00:39] five plus months of the year possibly

[2:00:40] having two two rentals. But then um

[2:00:45] if we and then if the process to where

[2:00:48] the public can have ample opportunity to

[2:00:52] give feedback on a proposed ordinance.

[2:00:56] So I know that the process is to go to

[2:00:58] the planning commission and then to the

[2:01:01] city council. So I was

[2:01:05] what what council what do you think

[2:01:07] about what what do you think would

[2:01:09] maximize to your to your level of

[2:01:11] comfort the level of of opportunity for

[2:01:14] public input on this? So, first of all,

[2:01:16] works. Do we need another work session?

[2:01:17] And second, what kind of public input

[2:01:20] process is it? Do we follow the hearing

[2:01:23] process or do you want to have like in

[2:01:25] the hearing, say we're going to talk

[2:01:27] about occupancy and then take public

[2:01:29] comment and then we're going to talk

[2:01:30] about parking and then take public

[2:01:31] comment or what is it that you would

[2:01:34] like to see?

[2:01:35] >> Yes. On another work session,

[2:01:37] >> another work session.

[2:01:38] >> I think we're done going.

[2:01:39] >> Yeah. We haven't talked about geo

[2:01:41] fencing density.

[2:01:42] >> Okay. So we want to have you back is

[2:01:46] very deep.

[2:01:47] >> And to your point of public involvement.

[2:01:50] >> Yeah. The public

[2:01:50] >> I I really like that idea. If we were to

[2:01:53] put on our agenda, we're going to talk

[2:01:55] about occupancy. I mean, look at us.

[2:01:58] We've got all these different ideas,

[2:02:00] right? So maybe if we and we have some

[2:02:03] public comment about their experiences,

[2:02:07] their ideas, their thoughts, um I think

[2:02:12] we could benefit from that.

[2:02:14] >> Okay. So what you're suggesting then is

[2:02:16] >> maybe put but like what you said

[2:02:17] occupancy. I mean what are the big ones?

[2:02:19] Occupancy, density, parking.

[2:02:21] >> That would be separate from the public

[2:02:24] from the the the agenda item where we

[2:02:26] look at the item as a whole.

[2:02:29] >> Okay. What do you

[2:02:31] Jake, we could have a public hearing in

[2:02:32] the planning commission. Yes. Right.

[2:02:35] >> So, I'm I I think that that would be

[2:02:37] beneficial u to notice that so that

[2:02:40] planning commission can also have public

[2:02:41] feedback.

[2:02:42] >> Yep. So, city council and planning

[2:02:44] commission. I like that idea.

[2:02:47] >> So, I want to get some clarity then on

[2:02:50] what our path forward is. So, I'll come

[2:02:52] back for a future work session. Uh

[2:02:55] finish off the discussion with that.

[2:02:57] Hopefully, I think I've got some good

[2:02:59] ideas of where council is on different

[2:03:02] things. I would draft an ordinance.

[2:03:05] At that point, do you want me to come

[2:03:07] back and have a public hearing at the

[2:03:09] council level or do you want me to first

[2:03:11] go to the planning commission, go

[2:03:13] through the public hearing at planning

[2:03:15] commission? I guess that's my question.

[2:03:17] One of those routes. So I would think

[2:03:19] procedurally they would come to us first

[2:03:23] and then we would tweak any ordinance

[2:03:25] and then go to the planning commission

[2:03:29] >> and then come back to us.

[2:03:30] >> Uhhuh. Once the planning commission is

[2:03:32] heard the final ordinance.

[2:03:35] >> So you saying do that in a work session

[2:03:38] >> then go to the planning commission? I'm

[2:03:39] saying have city council meeting where

[2:03:41] we agenda items with a public um hearing

[2:03:48] where they can talk on these hot button

[2:03:50] issues the ones that are the most

[2:03:53] impactful residents. Then that helps us

[2:03:57] refine the ordinance

[2:03:59] and then go to the planning commission

[2:04:01] because the planning commission really

[2:04:02] is not going to they have no for people

[2:04:04] to go and talk at planning commission.

[2:04:06] We would have to be there. it planning

[2:04:08] commission has no legislative authority

[2:04:10] on this.

[2:04:12] It's just a formality.

[2:04:14] So I think if we're going to really hear

[2:04:16] the public, we need to put set aside

[2:04:18] time as a council to

[2:04:22] hear their on specific parts of this

[2:04:26] because I don't know about you, but I've

[2:04:27] had a lot of people ask me, "What does

[2:04:29] the ordinance say? I don't know what to ask you for because I don't

[2:04:34] know." And I'm like, "I don't know yet.

[2:04:35] We haven't seen it. We're still

[2:04:37] formulating it.

[2:04:38] >> And Lenn, are you thinking like the

[2:04:41] council meeting we would do like two

[2:04:43] topics a night or you think you'd just

[2:04:45] do them all in one night to separate

[2:04:46] them by topic?

[2:04:48] >> Um, I guess I'd have to see what they

[2:04:51] were. I don't know, Jake. here.

[2:04:52] >> I mean, the way I would anticipate if if

[2:04:55] this is the direction you'd like to go

[2:04:57] is we could come back work session, then

[2:05:00] I could come back for a council meeting

[2:05:03] as an agenda item during which you could

[2:05:06] there's no requirement to do a public

[2:05:07] hearing with that agenda item, but you

[2:05:09] could do a public hearing with that

[2:05:11] agenda item. That draft would be public

[2:05:14] and available and individuals from the

[2:05:16] public could speak on whatever issue

[2:05:19] they have with that draft. that gives

[2:05:22] council feedback on that draft. Based on

[2:05:25] that, we could then tweak the ordinance

[2:05:30] based on that public hearing. Council

[2:05:32] after closing the public hearing could

[2:05:34] say on hearing this, we'd like to see X,

[2:05:36] Y, or Z.

[2:05:38] And then I could dig it to planning

[2:05:40] commission and go through the planning

[2:05:41] commission process. Go through that

[2:05:43] public hearing and then come back to the

[2:05:45] council for a final meeting.

[2:05:47] Is that

[2:05:50] >> just a point of clarification with the

[2:05:52] intent that

[2:05:55] everything go to planning commission

[2:05:57] because some of this there could be an

[2:05:59] ordinance amendments dealing with

[2:06:01] licensing or amendments dealing with the

[2:06:04] zoning code. Not all not necessarily

[2:06:07] does business licensing issues go to

[2:06:10] planning commission. So you would want

[2:06:12] all everything to go to planning

[2:06:14] commission because it'll just help us.

[2:06:16] >> Yes.

[2:06:18] >> Formulate

[2:06:19] >> fees or you know and that's licensing

[2:06:21] right? Is that what you're saying? And

[2:06:23] maybe um

[2:06:25] >> our intent would be everything go

[2:06:27] planning

[2:06:28] >> everything. Okay.

[2:06:29] >> Where do you think planning commission

[2:06:30] will be most helpful to us Gary?

[2:06:34] Well,

[2:06:36] certainly on the zoning code, those

[2:06:39] things have to go to planning

[2:06:41] commission. Planning commission could be

[2:06:44] helpful on other things, but would just

[2:06:47] give you a recommendation. Our code

[2:06:49] anticipates this anyways that anything

[2:06:52] the council whether it's traditionally

[2:06:55] or under state law or city code there's

[2:06:58] to deal with if you want to give

[2:06:59] assignments to planning commission to

[2:07:02] look at but it I think it could be they

[2:07:05] could be helpful in both areas one they

[2:07:08] have to the other one they could be very

[2:07:10] helpful it just more helps me know how

[2:07:14] to fashion agendas and deal with those

[2:07:16] issues and present it to planning

[2:07:18] commission and educate them on what they

[2:07:20] would be doing.

[2:07:22] And they'll need a little bit of

[2:07:24] context. Frankly, I would imagine we'd

[2:07:26] need a work meeting with planning

[2:07:29] commission. Uh it's taken how many

[2:07:32] meetings here to get some I I think we

[2:07:36] need at least one work meeting to bring

[2:07:39] planning commission up to speed so that

[2:07:42] they can understand it and then hold a

[2:07:44] formal

[2:07:46] public hearing where people would come

[2:07:48] in and then they could make

[2:07:50] recommendations to you. So I don't think

[2:07:52] it' just be one night a quick thing. If

[2:07:54] you want meaningful input from the

[2:07:56] meetings,

[2:07:58] >> at least two meetings. Yes.

[2:08:00] >> So Gary, planning commission would

[2:08:03] respond to pol the overall policy

[2:08:06] direction that would come from the city.

[2:08:08] >> Yes.

[2:08:09] >> We would take that or not clear session

[2:08:13] and

[2:08:14] >> Yeah. And and that's what we would make

[2:08:16] clear to them is okay, this is what's

[2:08:19] happened based on what the council did.

[2:08:23] We have a draft of several ordinances to

[2:08:25] look at. We would explain to them what

[2:08:28] they do, kind of the the philosophy

[2:08:30] behind them so that they can then read

[2:08:33] them, understand, and be able to really

[2:08:37] respond to it and then hold a public

[2:08:39] hearing and get input. And plus, it

[2:08:42] would give them uh time to once we

[2:08:46] introduce something to them to think

[2:08:48] about it. uh because they may be oh gosh

[2:08:51] I've never thought about this this is

[2:08:54] difficult to work through and so I think

[2:08:58] those two means did that answer your

[2:08:59] question so they would respond to a

[2:09:03] overall policy direction with assumably

[2:09:06] some some guard rails and you know that has

[2:09:10] something for the that's going to be

[2:09:12] something formal and drafted uh so they

[2:09:15] know where to kind of stay within. So

[2:09:18] the benefit would be they're going to

[2:09:19] respond to that to suggest or advise

[2:09:23] potential refinements,

[2:09:25] but it's they're not going to go in they

[2:09:28] wouldn't have the expectation to spend

[2:09:30] another year and a half. And and that

[2:09:33] would be part of that work session to

[2:09:36] explain what the council would

[2:09:38] anticipate a work session to bring them

[2:09:40] up to speed, think about it, hold a

[2:09:42] public hearing and make a recommendation

[2:09:45] that is and not continue it, you know,

[2:09:48] several times because this is a big

[2:09:51] important issue and

[2:09:53] >> but this would be after we have another

[2:09:56] work session. Is that right? Can we get

[2:09:58] that as soon as

[2:10:00] >> we know thus far

[2:10:02] >> as soon as possible?

[2:10:04] >> It's ready kind of a mode

[2:10:05] >> for that.

[2:10:07] >> And and just for those in the room who

[2:10:09] are visiting us this even this well was

[2:10:12] not this evening this afternoon and

[2:10:13] online. We're not trying to we we all

[2:10:16] love our our attorney friend here. We're

[2:10:19] not trying to give him extra job

[2:10:20] security by making this longer. The

[2:10:23] point is is we want the public to have

[2:10:26] ample opportunity to give input and to

[2:10:29] see what we're considering. That is I

[2:10:31] know as a council as I've talked to each

[2:10:33] council member public input and

[2:10:35] opportunity for that is crucial. So

[2:10:38] that's we're not just trying to prolong

[2:10:39] it to make anybody's lives

[2:10:42] more difficult. It's just that we want

[2:10:45] to make sure that you as a public have

[2:10:49] the opportunity to weigh in on this. So,

[2:10:53] >> all right.

[2:10:54] >> Thank you.

[2:10:55] >> We need a break. A brief break. Okay.

[2:10:58] We'll be meet back here at quarter to

[2:10:59] five and tagger.

[2:11:04] Ready to go.

[2:11:06] >> Thanks, Jake.

[2:19:03] All right. Our next item on the agenda

[2:19:06] is item 1.3. It's a presentation. Our

[2:19:10] budget present part of our budget

[2:19:12] presentation. Our CIP and Tagert Bowen,

[2:19:16] city engineer is our presenter. So, our

[2:19:18] capital improvement project. So, thank

[2:19:21] you for your patience, Tagger, as we we

[2:19:24] wrestled with the other things for a

[2:19:25] while.

[2:19:26] >> Thanks, Mayor.

[2:19:28] >> Yeah, like like Mayor said, this is the

[2:19:30] presentation for capital improvement

[2:19:32] project CIP for fiscal year 27.

[2:19:36] And we'll we'll go through a list of

[2:19:37] projects here, many projects, dollar

[2:19:39] figures, doing some pictures. If you

[2:19:42] have any questions, feel free to stop me

[2:19:45] or or ask those and we'll we get to

[2:19:46] those.

[2:19:48] write a brief description for each one

[2:19:50] and move quickly through these so we can

[2:19:51] get to the the other presentations.

[2:19:55] >> This first slide here is just showing

[2:19:58] all the dollar amounts for those. Um

[2:20:02] first we have the CIP fund just over 5

[2:20:04] million that includes care funding for

[2:20:07] water 5.2 million water.

[2:20:09] >> So that includes the 3.6 care.

[2:20:12] >> Okay. All of

[2:20:14] that.

[2:20:15] >> Okay. Just the part. Okay. Thank you.

[2:20:19] >> Sewer 8 and a half million.

[2:20:22] >> Storm water 3.6. Then our streets fund

[2:20:26] 5.3 for just under 8 million.

[2:20:33] » First project, city center wayfinding.

[2:20:36] That includes signage. If you've seen

[2:20:39] out here by the park, got that all

[2:20:41] concrete sign. When I first saw this, I

[2:20:43] thought it was like 3 feet tall and then

[2:20:45] I walked out there to it and realized

[2:20:46] it's pretty big. Nice sign. Also,

[2:20:50] wayfinding signs. And then this is a

[2:20:53] nice sign out there on the corner. Um

[2:20:56] signs like these just around city center

[2:20:58] campus is what that item would be.

[2:21:04] Nelson's Grove Scope improvements would

[2:21:05] include improvements to got some ponds

[2:21:08] there, liners for those ponds, some

[2:21:10] buildings that need maintenance, some

[2:21:13] other things at Nelson's Grove RC mower

[2:21:16] 75,000.

[2:21:18] This is that steep slope down here on

[2:21:20] Center Street that would be a remote

[2:21:22] controlled mower. Pretty cool.

[2:21:25] >> Wow.

[2:21:27] It's making it safer. Tree planting for

[2:21:29] 150,000. this to be various areas and

[2:21:32] city- owned properties for trees.

[2:21:35] Windsor Park, ballfield dirt

[2:21:38] would be similar to out here at city

[2:21:40] center.

[2:21:42] Nice ball field dirt to for Windsor

[2:21:45] Bonavville Sports Court.

[2:21:48] We've put this out to bid and that'd be

[2:21:52] uh replacing the current asphalt

[2:21:55] basketball court with a post-tension

[2:21:58] concrete court.

[2:22:00] Bonfield Park.

[2:22:02] This one I didn't know what this was.

[2:22:05] This is Canyon View Park. Not that

[2:22:07] familiar with this type of project, but

[2:22:09] dog park and Rainbow Bridge for 85,000.

[2:22:13] Guess it's kind of like a

[2:22:16] cemetery or

[2:22:21] » remains will be there.

[2:22:23] >> Dog color on there or locks.

[2:22:26] Special thanks to no wise that's passed

[2:22:30] away and this is a big park.

[2:22:34] 15,000 for some constructing the

[2:22:37] softball dugouts at elementary

[2:22:41] getting run down there. Freshening those

[2:22:44] up now. Tempogous event center for

[2:22:46] 40,000. Some maintenance type

[2:22:49] improvements there at Temponogus Park.

[2:22:53] Uh the last two here is let's go back

[2:22:56] park 500,000 pump track

[2:23:00] and

[2:23:01] it's a pretty a pretty cool thing over

[2:23:04] in Cook Park in Pleasant Grove if you've

[2:23:06] been there and familiar with that that

[2:23:07] the kids love these pump tracks. They're

[2:23:10] really popular to be these are just

[2:23:13] examples and what could go in there and

[2:23:16] that's a community park. Then uh another

[2:23:20] project at Spring Water would be right

[2:23:23] down there by the treatment plant with a

[2:23:26] RC track and then a pump track option

[2:23:28] there.

[2:23:32] The last item on this slide, 925,000 for

[2:23:35] lakeside playground replacement.

[2:23:40] Playground's been well used here and

[2:23:42] definitely needs replacement. So have

[2:23:45] some concepts here of there's an above

[2:23:47] ground view of

[2:23:50] slides and swings and then on the left

[2:23:53] there

[2:23:54] ninja warrior type really cool layout

[2:23:58] concept for lakeside sports park

[2:24:03] total 2.2 2 million.

[2:24:06] Another slide with OCIP with those

[2:24:09] projects. Major corridor

[2:24:12] beautifification would be major streets

[2:24:14] like University Parkway, State Street.

[2:24:17] If businesses want to beautify their

[2:24:19] frontage, they could

[2:24:22] apply for a grant that this money would

[2:24:24] go to pay for kind of like a carrot to

[2:24:27] get them to incentivize them to beautify

[2:24:29] their property and the city could pay a

[2:24:31] certain percentage of reimbursement to

[2:24:35] those properties.

[2:24:37] Um, cemetery master plan projects for

[2:24:40] 500,000 would include the children's

[2:24:43] memorial, cremation garden, and memorial

[2:24:45] trail head.

[2:24:48] This is just off the

[2:24:52] Canal Trail on 800 East

[2:24:55] there between the upper and lower

[2:24:57] cemetery. It's a concept layout for a

[2:25:01] memorial garden there with collecting

[2:25:03] pond.

[2:25:06] Nice access there from the cemetery and

[2:25:08] from the

[2:25:10] could also include a

[2:25:12] right there. There's some

[2:25:19] this item for 100,000 the police

[2:25:21] training facility design services would

[2:25:27] of the canyon at our gun range.

[2:25:32] Um, I don't know if this has a pointer

[2:25:34] on it, but on the left there,

[2:25:38] see how the slope's been cut into the

[2:25:40] mount side? They want to expand that

[2:25:42] back. So, that short range, we could

[2:25:43] extend that to increase that depth. Or

[2:25:47] also on this this other side here where

[2:25:49] that steep slope is, we could expand the

[2:25:50] parking to a possible retaining wall

[2:25:53] there. And then the picture on the right

[2:25:55] shows the rifle range, which is

[2:25:57] currently not being used. And there's an

[2:25:59] option there to possibly drop that. And

[2:26:03] similar to the left where they've cut

[2:26:04] out of the slope, we could cut that down

[2:26:06] and create a a safer backdrop for them

[2:26:10] to shoot. And so that 100,000 would go

[2:26:13] to a consultant to help us uh first

[2:26:17] design service.

[2:26:20] A public safety parking lot pedestrian

[2:26:22] C,000.

[2:26:24] This cost would be just forward the

[2:26:28] crossing through the parking lot with

[2:26:30] the the speed tables and safe safer

[2:26:36] crosswalks, sidewalk improvements in

[2:26:39] addition to the money we already have

[2:26:41] for the wall

[2:26:46] part of downtown phase one for 960,000.

[2:26:52] Look at that. I don't know, Gary, you

[2:26:54] have more on this or

[2:26:55] >> Nope. You're familiar with downtown.

[2:26:57] >> Okay.

[2:27:00] >> Library Garden 125,000.

[2:27:03] That'd be potentially the north side of

[2:27:05] the library.

[2:27:09] The park option there.

[2:27:12] Fire station 33 remodel would include a

[2:27:15] [clears throat] possible concept of

[2:27:17] remodeling the kitchen.

[2:27:19] some other costs there to restore fire

[2:27:21] engine one,

[2:27:23] some fire department equipment, and then

[2:27:26] the council chambers audio visual for

[2:27:28] 100,000.

[2:27:30] So, take that total with the other it

[2:27:32] comes to the just over 5 million for

[2:27:34] CIP.

[2:27:35] >> You go back really quick. What was the

[2:27:37] council chambers audio visual put on

[2:27:39] there?

[2:27:41] >> That's 100,000 to improve some equipment

[2:27:43] here in the council chambers.

[2:27:47] What needs

[2:27:52] » Trevor? [laughter]

[2:27:54] >> How much time do you have?

[2:27:56] >> Um, view picture and picture and uh

[2:28:01] on-site storage for the recordings as

[2:28:04] well as the

[2:28:06] ability to stream directly to YouTube

[2:28:07] without having to have Zoom to Zoom to

[2:28:09] do that. Um, and I think that 100,000

[2:28:13] line include something that's actually

[2:28:16] already funded through another project

[2:28:17] for the um

[2:28:19] to have Zoom.

[2:28:29] Can we add a TV on the back wall? How

[2:28:33] much are those?

[2:28:35] >> When you question Yeah. Will it because

[2:28:38] when you use half the room like we did

[2:28:40] that for neighborhood commission once

[2:28:42] and all the t people that were facing

[2:28:45] the other way had to turn around to see

[2:28:46] the TV. So you had one more back there

[2:28:48] >> if if that's in the budget maybe.

[2:28:50] >> Yes.

[2:28:55] » You also have these on carts up in the

[2:28:58] EOC that can be rolled down and you

[2:29:00] those

[2:29:03] >> one of those down.

[2:29:06] So we have some wire for it.

[2:29:16] » Building maintenance. Just one item.

[2:29:19] Station two there on North Main Street.

[2:29:22] 50,000 per floor. and got cracking and

[2:29:25] just replacing the epoxy coating there

[2:29:29] for

[2:29:34] » waterline projects.

[2:29:37] 2 million includes master plan projects.

[2:29:40] Another couple other maintenance items

[2:29:41] there

[2:29:45] for sewer 500,000 for maintenance.

[2:29:48] master plan 8 million and a half

[2:29:52] and storm water.7 million

[2:29:56] for streets. Uh this is our standard uh

[2:30:00] yearly annual project. That's 115

[2:30:03] million.

[2:30:04] Got our slurry and crack seal with

[2:30:07] microsurface

[2:30:10] one half million memorial trail head

[2:30:13] that would help to supplement the

[2:30:16] funding for from this the CIP budget for

[2:30:19] the the memorial trail head there at the

[2:30:22] cemetery.

[2:30:24] Then uh there are other similar accounts

[2:30:28] for the proposed budget for trip hazard

[2:30:31] miscellaneous street construction and ADA concrete projects that we do

[2:30:36] every year. So

[2:30:40] » one one quick clarification you're

[2:30:43] showing the budgeted cash amount that

[2:30:46] would go towards these projects but for

[2:30:49] example with water sewer storm that

[2:30:52] would be the cash portion. It would come

[2:30:54] back to the council if there was

[2:30:57] financing

[2:30:59] the master plan.

[2:31:05] » Yeah, we we went away from uh budgeting

[2:31:08] the individual elements within that

[2:31:11] master plan because what we found is

[2:31:15] making a guess as to which things were

[2:31:18] gonna happen when. And so rather than

[2:31:22] just trying to put information in there

[2:31:24] that ended up being not correct, uh it

[2:31:28] was

[2:31:30] uh more conducive just to put here's how

[2:31:32] much is available towards all those pro

[2:31:34] any project that's identified within the

[2:31:36] B and then to your point B um that may

[2:31:42] not cover the entire cost of a

[2:31:44] particular project that may require

[2:31:47] bonding or some other financing element

[2:31:50] But that would be determined at the time

[2:31:52] that particular project was going to

[2:31:57] >> Yeah, we would bring if it was

[2:31:59] financing, we'd bring it back to the

[2:32:00] council for an official decision.

[2:32:08] » That was it for CIP. So, any questions?

[2:32:11] >> Council, any questions?

[2:32:14] >> Tagert. Tagert. Uh, these look like

[2:32:17] great projects. um appreciate you

[2:32:19] bringing them to us. Excited uh for

[2:32:23] those capital improvements. I'm just

[2:32:25] curious in your deliberations, I know

[2:32:26] this is a citywide effort, but in the

[2:32:29] deliberations, what are some of the

[2:32:30] things that

[2:32:32] >> uh we would like to fund, but we felt

[2:32:36] like were not um our highest priorities

[2:32:38] this year that didn't make it on your

[2:32:39] list that we have an interest in trying

[2:32:43] to continue to fund either next year or

[2:32:45] through other sources.

[2:32:47] the projects.

[2:32:50] Uh many of these projects come through

[2:32:53] public works

[2:32:56] provide that service for them helping

[2:32:58] them to manage these projects bid them

[2:33:00] out. So many of the parks, a lot of

[2:33:04] these were parks projects, you'll you'll

[2:33:06] notice and so we're working closely with

[2:33:08] Tyler Hay

[2:33:10] and so I know they're always trying to

[2:33:12] improve parks with buildings,

[2:33:15] uh, playgrounds.

[2:33:18] You might be more familiar with that to

[2:33:19] answer that question, Chris. But

[2:33:22] >> I would also say I' I'd highlight, you

[2:33:25] notice some of those things says it was

[2:33:27] for design, for example, improving the

[2:33:30] gun range and then adding maybe some

[2:33:32] training components. Tiger's talking

[2:33:34] about with our our parks, we can do

[2:33:36] some, but there's we can always do more.

[2:33:40] So, uh, Bryce, you can maybe speak to

[2:33:43] future plans in in that you see coming

[2:33:46] down the road in the near future related

[2:33:49] really probably more big parks.

[2:33:52] >> Yeah, I think what Ty said is exactly

[2:33:55] right. We sometimes also have to get the

[2:33:58] design uh impact built out first so then

[2:34:00] we can go and pursue grants and other

[2:34:02] funding sources. Um, and so we have to

[2:34:04] come to y'all with maybe the total price

[2:34:06] tag and then it does take a year or two

[2:34:08] or three to get it to the most optimized

[2:34:10] spot. Um, maybe something like Lakeside,

[2:34:12] we showed a playground and that feels

[2:34:15] really like the direction we want to

[2:34:16] move right now, but there are a number

[2:34:18] of ongoing uh issues that would have to

[2:34:21] be resolved first. Sometimes those can

[2:34:22] change our projects. And so I think

[2:34:24] point too of we don't want to or

[2:34:26] Brandon's point of we don't want to show

[2:34:27] you something and then it does get

[2:34:29] changed, but that is definitely part of

[2:34:30] what we do. And so I think a lot of the

[2:34:31] times relying on our master plans uh for

[2:34:34] parks and wreck, using those building

[2:34:37] out a CIP, reading the room on what the

[2:34:40] financial year is like or what the

[2:34:41] opportunity uh year is like, you know,

[2:34:43] maybe for other county funds or state

[2:34:45] funds, federal funds, and then trying to

[2:34:47] piece it all together. So the the plan

[2:34:49] is always what happens first, the master

[2:34:51] plan. Uh and then we tried to piece

[2:34:53] those together. Tyler and I and Chris uh

[2:34:56] work together closely on sort of a five,

[2:34:58] seven, 10year plan. Um, and we have like

[2:35:02] some things have a very specific order,

[2:35:04] but a lot of them have a okay, of these

[2:35:06] three or four things, one or two of

[2:35:07] these is going to make sense in the next

[2:35:08] 18 20 to 24 months. Let's be ready on

[2:35:10] several and then we can plug them in as

[2:35:12] we go. And so I think, you know,

[2:35:14] Lakeside, we had a responsibility for

[2:35:18] certain amounts of spending so that we

[2:35:19] could get matching funds. And so that

[2:35:21] prioritizes a couple of things there. Uh

[2:35:23] maybe a CDBG grant that comes through Heather Cox and the strategy and

[2:35:27] innovation team. all of a sudden we get

[2:35:29] money there. We need to accelerate

[2:35:30] something like that. So to that point

[2:35:32] there's oh we'd love to do all of it now

[2:35:35] yesterday but a lot of it really is

[2:35:37] being ready with a broad plan and then

[2:35:39] trying to fit them in in a way that

[2:35:41] makes sense for us.

[2:35:44] If that's the case of of the things that

[2:35:46] we saw today how many of them do you

[2:35:48] anticipate we will complete in the next

[2:35:50] fiscal

[2:35:51] >> complete as in residents are playing on

[2:35:53] the new thing?

[2:35:55] Um, what do you think Leninia is going

[2:35:57] to look like this fall in our

[2:35:58] construction period? Um,

[2:36:02] >> seeing it catching a third.

[2:36:03] >> Yeah.

[2:36:06] It that might that might feel about

[2:36:08] right. I if the money comes in, then we

[2:36:10] work with designers. We take the designs

[2:36:12] for a playground to the public. We get

[2:36:13] their feedback and look to see can we

[2:36:16] get it in in the fall construction

[2:36:17] period or the spring and then go from

[2:36:20] there. the the phase 3 bike park at

[2:36:23] Mount Tibonogus that we're going to

[2:36:25] celebrate the opening of this summer. I

[2:36:27] want to say it was fiscal year 25. So

[2:36:29] two years ago that it got approved went

[2:36:31] to design work from the construction

[2:36:33] period that made sense put it in. People

[2:36:36] will be biking on it this fall.

[2:36:39] >> A lot of what we saw is going to be a

[2:36:41] three year plus time horizon, but there

[2:36:44] are a few things in there that we think

[2:36:45] we'll see in the next year.

[2:36:47] >> I mean the the dugouts

[2:36:50] would have probably done some of those,

[2:36:52] if you will, smaller type items. Those

[2:36:54] are certainly kind of intended to be

[2:36:57] done in the current within the current

[2:36:59] fiscal year. Many of the larger dollar

[2:37:01] items obviously have a longer time

[2:37:03] horizon. Windsor Park is an example

[2:37:06] where we had a couple of major projects.

[2:37:08] While we are disrupting the park and we

[2:37:10] have large machinery and people can't

[2:37:12] really use it, can we go ahead and get

[2:37:13] in the other two things that we might

[2:37:14] need in the next couple years so we're

[2:37:16] not constantly ripping up a portion of a

[2:37:17] park? So,

[2:37:19] Uh that maybe why we're a little couchy

[2:37:22] about committing to something. Exactly.

[2:37:24] Because there is some opportunity cost

[2:37:26] of just trying to get them all done at

[2:37:27] the same time or or get something all

[2:37:30] the way to completion then we can move

[2:37:31] to another part of of of the city. I

[2:37:33] mean during the process we we

[2:37:37] everybody submits through the capital

[2:37:40] our capital projects and we evaluate

[2:37:41] those and come back to them when we have

[2:37:43] their meetings and there's you know some

[2:37:46] force trading going on right say well we

[2:37:48] don't have enough money for that well is

[2:37:50] there something else that you would

[2:37:52] rather do to get done now and we can put

[2:37:55] some money away to be able to start the

[2:37:57] process of saving towards getting that

[2:38:00] particular thing done. So there's a bit

[2:38:02] of that that goes on and think of

[2:38:04] anything off the top of my head, but I

[2:38:06] knew I know that we do that.

[2:38:08] >> Thanks for having a thorough process.

[2:38:11] >> Or another example could be to's point

[2:38:15] about sources of funding. Uh as you

[2:38:18] know, it took us a little bit longer to

[2:38:20] get uh full approval for a federal grant related to our fire

[2:38:27] training facility. And so now that we've

[2:38:29] got that sort of signed on the dotted

[2:38:31] line by President Trump, that then

[2:38:33] allows us to expedite potential uh

[2:38:36] rebuild of um fighter station one for

[2:38:40] example. So so to some extent it it

[2:38:45] boils down to what's the funding source

[2:38:46] to get these done. Um Chris, you can

[2:38:49] maybe also speak to

[2:38:50] >> Right. So

[2:38:52] >> cemetery master planning too.

[2:38:53] >> Oh, in response to your question about

[2:38:55] what what's on the horizon that's not

[2:38:57] identified here, we [clears throat] have

[2:38:59] about $250 million of work to happen at

[2:39:01] the warm water reclamation facility.

[2:39:03] We're going to be um issuing

[2:39:05] approximately a $70 million bond for the

[2:39:07] first phase that'll start working the

[2:39:10] next year. In the next 15 years, we'll

[2:39:12] do three more $70 million bonds just for

[2:39:15] that facility.

[2:39:16] We have about $4 million that we're

[2:39:18] looking at uh spending on streets right

[2:39:20] now that are going to be failing in the

[2:39:22] projected near future. That's pending

[2:39:24] the tough um adoption, but that's part

[2:39:27] of our presentation tonight as well. And

[2:39:29] we have two $5 million builds that'll be

[2:39:32] under construction in the next two to

[2:39:33] three years as well. So, those are our

[2:39:35] big ones on the on the horizon for for

[2:39:37] public works.

[2:39:38] >> And and you all thought was expensive.

[2:39:40] [laughter]

[2:39:41] >> Still

[2:39:43] fire. party. I love my bathroom and my

[2:39:45] running water and [laughter]

[2:39:47] >> I'll take that over every day.

[2:39:49] >> Yes.

[2:39:51] >> As much water as you

[2:39:56] » and I just want to highlight with the cemetery master plan. We've been

[2:40:01] looking at cremation niche

[2:40:04] head and you know the children's

[2:40:06] memorial for quite some time. We have

[2:40:09] looked at both our historical revenues

[2:40:11] there and projected revenues from the

[2:40:15] use of a cremation garden uh to and that

[2:40:19] proposed budget there anticipates

[2:40:20] [clears throat]

[2:40:22] 500,000 being available

[2:40:25] every year to to cover those expenses.

[2:40:28] And then the the trail head portion will

[2:40:30] be covered by the funding source that

[2:40:32] comes from um

[2:40:35] fifth fifth sales tax that was adopted

[2:40:40] a few years ago.

[2:40:43] Right. Any other questions? That was a

[2:40:45] good question.

[2:40:47] Great. Thank you. Thank presentation.

[2:40:51] We'll move on to the next item. Item 1.4

[2:40:53] is a presentation. It's actually a

[2:40:55] continuation of our care

[2:41:00] um allocation deliberations and I'll

[2:41:03] turn the time over to Brandon Nelson,

[2:41:06] our finance director.

[2:41:09] Um and really this this particular

[2:41:11] component is uh just was asked that we

[2:41:15] uh come back with to give you an

[2:41:17] opportunity after having seen uh the

[2:41:19] exhibit to come back with uh

[2:41:23] conversation amongst yourselves and

[2:41:25] deliberation on potentially the items

[2:41:28] that were as part of that exhibit. Um

[2:41:30] and so we really just want to get um

[2:41:33] your discussion about that any of the

[2:41:35] items on there. All right, before we get

[2:41:37] started on that, I don't know. Quinn and

[2:41:40] Jenna, are you both on the care?

[2:41:42] >> Yeah.

[2:41:43] >> Would you mind just take and I can't

[2:41:45] forgive me if I've already asked you to

[2:41:47] do this and you did it the last week,

[2:41:48] but refresh my memory. Would you mind

[2:41:50] explaining just talking about the

[2:41:52] deliberation process and maybe just give

[2:41:56] some insights as to the in how the how

[2:41:59] the care the commission came to the

[2:42:01] decisions that they did with funding and

[2:42:05] not funding just

[2:42:06] >> yeah I can start if you want

[2:42:08] >> great please jump in chat

[2:42:11] >> thank you

[2:42:13] >> so um there are a couple of components

[2:42:16] to this and I'm new to this so I'm I've

[2:42:18] been learning and asking lots of

[2:42:19] questions along the way. Uh we do have a

[2:42:21] care tax advisory commission that's

[2:42:23] composed of five uh residents.

[2:42:26] Um they meet primarily to hear

[2:42:29] presentations for arts grants that are

[2:42:32] in the small grants category and for

[2:42:36] several nights. Jeff Jeff was recently

[2:42:38] on this as well for several nights in

[2:42:40] March.

[2:42:41] That commission is in this room uh

[2:42:44] hearing presentation after presentation

[2:42:46] of of different groups um and

[2:42:51] often providing them with partial

[2:42:53] funding and making uh calculations as to

[2:42:56] how do we take the value that they

[2:42:59] provide for their community

[2:43:01] uh and

[2:43:03] um

[2:43:04] >> that's right there. match that with the

[2:43:06] resources that we have available to

[2:43:08] provide for our small arts grants and

[2:43:11] they make u collective decisions about

[2:43:15] uh the number that they want to award

[2:43:17] those. So if if you go up to the rand

[2:43:19] and just go up to the the small grants

[2:43:21] right mid many mid- major grants they

[2:43:24] ended up with $143,000

[2:43:26] uh that were allocated across those

[2:43:29] grants. I would say that uh the majority

[2:43:31] of applicants received some money money

[2:43:34] uh but a small minority received all the

[2:43:36] money that they wanted. So much of that

[2:43:39] deliberation is how can we allocate

[2:43:41] scarce resources to a lot of deserving

[2:43:44] institutions that that that for me is

[2:43:47] the first time being part of that that

[2:43:49] was really insightful and revealing to

[2:43:51] see how many great things we have in the

[2:43:52] city and I've had a chance to attend

[2:43:54] some of the performances from those

[2:43:57] groups.

[2:43:58] um since then and I'm glad that we're

[2:44:01] able to provide them with some funding.

[2:44:03] >> So you did a and I just was with I'm

[2:44:05] looking at at Jen's there was a rubric.

[2:44:08] Was this the first year rubric was was

[2:44:10] done to and so the Okay, so could you

[2:44:15] Jen or elaborate a little bit on

[2:44:17] >> Yeah, happy to. Um I we discussed it and probably peppered Brandon and Trevor

[2:44:22] with more questions than they knew what

[2:44:23] to do with and they were so patient with

[2:44:24] us. But um just wanted to see you know

[2:44:27] how are how are these decisions being

[2:44:28] made? What are the criteria being made?

[2:44:30] Are we all on the same page? So uh

[2:44:32] Trevor helped us create a rubric or so

[2:44:34] that we could evaluate apples to apples

[2:44:36] sort of sort of thing. So for example,

[2:44:39] what is the community need and purpose?

[2:44:41] Um is their need clearly defined? Is the

[2:44:43] target population specific and

[2:44:44] appropriate? Uh how are the funds going

[2:44:47] to be used? Is it is is are the funds

[2:44:48] tied to a specific activity? What is

[2:44:50] that activity? Um are they uh looking

[2:44:53] for funds other places as well? are we

[2:44:54] the only source of funding? How

[2:44:56] successful are they going to be? Those

[2:44:57] kinds of questions. Um, and our our uh

[2:45:00] commission did a really good job. They

[2:45:01] had the rubrics open real time as they

[2:45:04] were uh presenters were presenting and

[2:45:06] they could fill in their scores and at

[2:45:08] the end they could compare uh how they

[2:45:10] ranked everybody versus everybody else

[2:45:12] and it was a pretty straightforward

[2:45:13] process and our commission did an

[2:45:15] excellent job at being partial but

[2:45:17] really thoughtful about the process. So,

[2:45:20] it was really fun, I think, for for us

[2:45:21] as well, just to see the the amount of

[2:45:23] good being done in our community through

[2:45:25] these organizations. And you just were

[2:45:27] like, I wish we had money for all of

[2:45:28] you, for all of the things, but I think

[2:45:30] they made good judicious decisions that

[2:45:31] will bring the most benefit to ORM.

[2:45:34] >> Council, I don't think you saw the big

[2:45:36] smile that went on Trevor's face when

[2:45:40] >> the assignment of making a rubric,

[2:45:43] >> Trevor, thank you. You did a great job.

[2:45:47] >> It wasn't just the rubric. The magic

[2:45:49] that none of us could believe that

[2:45:50] Forever pulled off was this.

[2:45:52] >> Uh we all had a spreadsheet. Jen and I

[2:45:55] were not voting members, but we all had

[2:45:57] a spreadsheet

[2:45:59] uh where people could put in the amount

[2:46:01] of money that they thought that they

[2:46:02] wanted to give to that organization and

[2:46:04] then it immediately populated uh the

[2:46:07] master spreadsheet so we could discuss

[2:46:09] that and see what everyone thought.

[2:46:12] Really a very efficient process. So, so

[2:46:15] the numbers that we see here for these

[2:46:16] different

[2:46:18] uh was there a lot of tweaking after was

[2:46:20] there a lot of discussion after or as

[2:46:22] you went through it was there a general

[2:46:24] consensus I I've I've taken part not in

[2:46:27] the care but in other type and other

[2:46:29] types of grants I know that there's a

[2:46:32] usually a point where you start and then

[2:46:34] you tweak is that

[2:46:37] >> lots of twe lots of tweaking

[2:46:38] >> lots of tweaking

[2:46:39] >> yeah I think that the rubric scores gave

[2:46:41] us like a baseline and then then the

[2:46:43] outliers were ones that there was some

[2:46:44] significant about and why or why not.

[2:46:47] So,

[2:46:48] >> okay. Particularly when you had a

[2:46:49] rubric, maybe the score was a 10 and you

[2:46:52] had somebody else with a 20. And so then

[2:46:55] you we there would be a lot of

[2:46:56] discussion about so why did you go with

[2:46:59] a why did you rank them so low and why

[2:47:01] did you rank them? So the discuss group

[2:47:03] why did you rank them so high and then

[2:47:05] there was a lot of discussion and

[2:47:07] deliberation on appreciate the

[2:47:11] >> can I speak for that?

[2:47:12] >> So I have a friend who's on the care

[2:47:14] commission a recent friend. She hasn't

[2:47:16] been my friend for very long, but

[2:47:16] anyway. Um um and I was just curious

[2:47:19] because I served with Jeff when we were

[2:47:21] residents on the care commission for six

[2:47:23] years.

[2:47:24] >> Yeah.

[2:47:25] >> Before both of us jumped into this

[2:47:26] position. And um really fun talking to

[2:47:30] her and finding out how, you know, these

[2:47:33] um uh rubrics and things had worked and

[2:47:36] the the the cohesion of the group and

[2:47:39] some of the things you've talked about.

[2:47:41] Very positive very positive feedback. um

[2:47:44] so much so that I had Trevor send me the

[2:47:47] you know what you guys did the new forms

[2:47:49] and stuff and I love all of it. I think

[2:47:51] it's been really good. There's a couple

[2:47:53] things that see she suggested that I

[2:47:55] might suggest too if you don't mind if I

[2:47:58] take a second are we ready to go on

[2:47:59] council? Okay. Any questions about how

[2:48:01] the how this was?

[2:48:04] >> Can I just add one another thing? So

[2:48:06] this is the the small arts grants but we

[2:48:09] also have mid major grants right. So

[2:48:12] Sarah is the big one there. So

[2:48:14] separately aside from the care

[2:48:16] commission, Brandon and Jen and I and

[2:48:19] Trevor and Bryce huddled u and reviewed

[2:48:23] the Sarah proposal and the Metropolitan

[2:48:25] Valley proposal as well. Um and we were

[2:48:30] able to award the Sarah their full award

[2:48:32] this year even though it was

[2:48:34] considerably larger than last year. And

[2:48:37] then uh the wreck proposal, capital

[2:48:39] improvement, and some of the other um

[2:48:43] arts arts proposals uh came from from

[2:48:47] staff uh and we had a chance to discuss

[2:48:50] those. Bryce had some really innovative

[2:48:52] ideas this year uh around an honorarium

[2:48:56] program and uh artist writer and

[2:48:59] residence program and other

[2:49:01] >> the yellow can we talk about the what is

[2:49:04] the honorarium and the artist writers

[2:49:06] and residents and artist

[2:49:08] >> sure len did you want to talk about

[2:49:11] >> yeah no I can wait I thought this was

[2:49:12] holding into what you were saying but I

[2:49:14] can wait and add this at the very end

[2:49:16] that's comp this is whatever yeah that's

[2:49:19] fine

[2:49:21] I don't know. Bryce, do you want to

[2:49:22] speak to those or Brandon?

[2:49:24] >> If if that's what y'all would like, I'd

[2:49:26] be happy. We we had submitted several

[2:49:29] recreation has traditionally all uh not

[2:49:32] always. Previously, we had submitted the

[2:49:34] recreation programs again part of the

[2:49:36] CIP process master plan uh directly to

[2:49:39] our council liaison. And over the last

[2:49:43] few years with my dual role in

[2:49:45] recreation and library, some of these

[2:49:48] other civic-reated arts ones would

[2:49:49] bounce back and forth with Pete Wolfley

[2:49:52] and his work with the arts commission

[2:49:53] and I. And so that's where we would take

[2:49:56] a couple of these uh civic related art

[2:49:58] ones and have our staff write them up.

[2:50:01] Um so specifically on the civic related

[2:50:04] one, heart of downtown I think we're all

[2:50:05] pretty familiar with and there will be a

[2:50:06] number of art components to it. I don't

[2:50:08] think Gary there's no shovel ready

[2:50:10] product projects that we're doing on

[2:50:11] that. This is so that we have an art

[2:50:13] baseline budget for when we approach

[2:50:15] that portion. Uh number two is the

[2:50:17] library hall city facilities. This will

[2:50:19] be the second year that we will have

[2:50:22] done this in it in its entirety.

[2:50:24] Historically they the a care group would

[2:50:26] get their grant but they couldn't afford

[2:50:28] to do their art anywhere. And so we

[2:50:30] said, what if we can cover those direct

[2:50:32] costs through a one lump sum and then

[2:50:35] our staff instead of being the bearers

[2:50:37] of bad news of, oh, this is actually

[2:50:38] what it takes to put on a show can then

[2:50:40] reach out to every group that receives a

[2:50:42] care grant and say, we can do a free

[2:50:44] show for you as part of your

[2:50:45] performance. And so that was our effort

[2:50:47] to make sure that the art that was being

[2:50:49] performed and learned was then being

[2:50:50] delivered to audiences through Library

[2:50:53] Hall. Um, and so that's what that um

[2:50:56] facilities rental group is there for.

[2:50:58] And so this last year uh 20 plus shows

[2:51:00] at library hall made possible through

[2:51:02] that library hall uh care grant. Next is

[2:51:06] the honorarium program and this is a

[2:51:08] little bit an extension of that. Uh our

[2:51:10] arts commission, our events commission,

[2:51:14] our library commission all have need of

[2:51:17] bringing in artistic groups to perform

[2:51:19] to show uh to uh be at farmers market

[2:51:23] and be the music on the stage. maybe

[2:51:25] they are part of a program and there is

[2:51:27] often a fee associated with that. We

[2:51:29] thought by having this set aside fund um

[2:51:32] we would be able to have different staff

[2:51:34] groups tap into those funds to then hire

[2:51:37] uh care groups or future potential care

[2:51:40] groups to come in and perform and we

[2:51:42] could pay a small stipend uh anywhere

[2:51:44] from $250 to $750 depending on the type

[2:51:46] of art, the uh number of performances,

[2:51:48] everything like that. Uh we were really

[2:51:50] excited about the honorarium program

[2:51:52] because in many ways if they in fact if

[2:51:54] a group were to approach us right now

[2:51:56] today to say we would love to be care

[2:51:57] we'd have to say great check back in

[2:51:59] with us in 12 months and that's a bit of

[2:52:01] a bummer answer. Now we can say don't

[2:52:03] miss the application deadline next

[2:52:04] spring also we'd love to get you on this

[2:52:06] list and we can bring you out and so uh

[2:52:09] we can get some money to some of these

[2:52:10] groups earlier and throughout the year

[2:52:12] without having to wait for a once a year

[2:52:14] March set of meetings to be able to have

[2:52:16] some of those funds. And so that's what

[2:52:18] the honorarium uh will be used for. Um

[2:52:21] uh performers in the parade, farmers

[2:52:24] market, uh concert series. Um it it's

[2:52:28] pretty broad right now and uh both the

[2:52:31] library events and arts commissions will

[2:52:33] be involved with soliciting, selecting,

[2:52:35] choosing who might be able to receive

[2:52:37] those amounts.

[2:52:38] >> Is concert series um is that the live

[2:52:42] rock concert? No, that's a that's a

[2:52:45] separate group with them. That's going

[2:52:47] to be different then.

[2:52:48] >> That will be a standalone event, not

[2:52:50] part of an existing city event.

[2:52:52] >> Okay.

[2:52:54] >> Yeah. This would be more like uh on uh

[2:52:56] is it tomorrow when the farmers market

[2:52:58] kicks off? There's always art um music

[2:53:01] being played. Now, we'd be able to say,

[2:53:02] "Hey, apply." And also, if you're

[2:53:04] selected, you would be able to receive

[2:53:06] this amount of an honorarium for

[2:53:07] performing,

[2:53:08] >> the birthday cake and all that other.

[2:53:11] >> All right. Next is the artist and writer

[2:53:13] and residence. And this idea actually

[2:53:15] came from the city council retreat. Um,

[2:53:17] council member Mikum had brought that

[2:53:18] up. I think council member Lansson, you

[2:53:20] had mentioned something about a poet

[2:53:21] laurette. And so the goal here was to

[2:53:23] say how do we design a program or put

[2:53:26] parameters to a program that would meet

[2:53:28] those goals and also give us a little

[2:53:31] bit of a beta test on something like

[2:53:34] this. you know, it's it's a really new

[2:53:36] program and we had a lot of questions as

[2:53:38] staff and so we went and researched what

[2:53:40] had been done in other areas,

[2:53:42] universities, municipalities to say, how

[2:53:44] would you bring in an artist and write

[2:53:46] on residence? How would you define the

[2:53:48] value of the art being in which is such

[2:53:50] a crude question to like put a monetary

[2:53:52] value to art? Uh, but that's the job.

[2:53:55] And so to say, how do we bring in these

[2:53:58] folks? What kind of programming would

[2:53:59] they do? How would they interact with

[2:54:01] our residents? How do we create that?

[2:54:03] And this was our best attempt as staff

[2:54:06] to put a number to something like that.

[2:54:09] Um, in fact, number 47 and 48 originally

[2:54:11] were put in as a single one, but the

[2:54:14] career advancement grants for the artist

[2:54:15] was actually an effort as part of this

[2:54:17] idea of writers to bring in and have a

[2:54:20] scholarship for graduating seniors from

[2:54:22] each of our local high schools that

[2:54:23] would be a part of this. So, similar to

[2:54:25] maybe like a Miss Orum structure where

[2:54:27] rising seniors can receive some funds,

[2:54:29] but they're tied to this program. And

[2:54:31] then we have um the professional or um

[2:54:34] other resident programs that could all

[2:54:36] be part of the writing. Uh the goal was

[2:54:38] to put those together. So uh that was

[2:54:40] the goal with 47 and 48 is grant funds

[2:54:42] available to bring in artists and

[2:54:44] writers. I think uh the submittal we did

[2:54:46] had two separate ones. One was an artist

[2:54:48] and residence and one was a writer and

[2:54:50] residence. So the uh artists could be

[2:54:52] much broader. Um we saw a lot of cities

[2:54:54] do like a muralist and residence. Um,

[2:54:56] and their goal is to come in, immerse

[2:54:58] themselves in the city, learn about us,

[2:55:00] and then they leave having produced a

[2:55:02] mural that reflects their time and uh,

[2:55:04] time spent with us. The the writer in

[2:55:07] residence would again be very broad. It

[2:55:09] could still be poetry or short story or

[2:55:12] literature or whatever you want. And so

[2:55:15] the artistic outcomes would be broader

[2:55:17] to reflect the different styles of

[2:55:19] writing and go from there. Are there

[2:55:23] parameters on what those artists or

[2:55:25] writers

[2:55:27] how they apply for that?

[2:55:30] I guess let me back up. My my concern

[2:55:33] with putting tax money towards that is this is ORM tax money and it should

[2:55:40] directly

[2:55:43] benefit or help ORM residents. And so

[2:55:48] I would want to see those artists or

[2:55:50] writers local talent that we are helping

[2:55:54] to promote local people, not necessarily

[2:55:58] bring people in. And that's something

[2:55:59] that we didn't really get a chance to

[2:56:00] discuss at um the retreat. Um, but

[2:56:05] especially because this is tax money

[2:56:07] being spent, that's something that

[2:56:10] I I just want to make sure that it's

[2:56:14] forum focused.

[2:56:17] One of the reasons I think we wanted to

[2:56:18] test it was we looked at the way some of

[2:56:22] these grants up above operate and are we

[2:56:25] creating opportunities for people to

[2:56:27] participate in art but then perform

[2:56:29] elsewhere in the valley or are we

[2:56:30] creating spectator opportunities for art

[2:56:34] to go and sit in auditorium and receive

[2:56:35] the art and so when I look at you know

[2:56:37] going to a show you know you bring in

[2:56:40] talent and I'm trying to think who was

[2:56:42] the big finale the commodors was that

[2:56:44] our

[2:56:45] >> oh yeah summer obviously not from here

[2:56:47] but the the artistic value is that we as

[2:56:49] residents get to go and watch and

[2:56:50] partake of it and so we had that exact

[2:56:53] same question to say what is the value

[2:56:55] we're creating is it an opportunity for

[2:56:57] an or resident to create and produce and

[2:56:59] go out with their art or is the

[2:57:01] opportunity for us to receive and then

[2:57:04] how do we quantify that how do we to

[2:57:06] your point ensure that there's value

[2:57:07] here so the model we looked at was the

[2:57:09] Utah humanities uh through I the Utah

[2:57:12] state uh department of museum people in

[2:57:15] culture. They had a program that was

[2:57:17] very similar to this. So, we wrote a lot

[2:57:18] of it based off of that. The other thing

[2:57:20] I would say, council member, is I don't

[2:57:23] think I I would say our staff wanted to

[2:57:26] write the structure and skeleton of

[2:57:28] this. I don't think we want Bryce to be

[2:57:31] like I choose them. You know, I think

[2:57:33] that's where we say let's is this the

[2:57:35] art commission? We we've written a

[2:57:37] structure out of what this program could

[2:57:38] look like. How do we engage the art

[2:57:41] commission or library commission to say

[2:57:43] let's now build a really specific rubric

[2:57:45] an application timeline um an amount of

[2:57:48] u you know we set aside this amount as

[2:57:50] our budget do we like those numbers do

[2:57:53] we want to do two people across 30,000

[2:57:55] or do you want 30 micro artist and

[2:57:58] residents and it it would look very

[2:57:59] different I think that would be really

[2:58:02] worth exploring in the first year of a

[2:58:04] program like this if y'all wanted to

[2:58:05] move forward with it

[2:58:06] >> yeah I agree with Crystal I don't know

[2:58:08] are you

[2:58:09] I agree with Crystal. I feel like, you

[2:58:11] know, one of the thing the care monies,

[2:58:14] the care tax when I was on the

[2:58:16] commission and the whole time I've been

[2:58:18] on the council has been about um ORM

[2:58:22] residents being in these groups or andor

[2:58:27] touch points to ORM residents. Um, you

[2:58:30] know, like the Sierra, the reason the

[2:58:32] Sierra gets so much money is they, you

[2:58:34] know, how many people do they touch and

[2:58:37] how many opportunities to experience the

[2:58:39] arts that they provide. So, that's why

[2:58:42] they have that amount of money and do

[2:58:45] such a fabulous job. So, um, two things

[2:58:49] with this. I would definitely want it to

[2:58:52] be Oram writers. I would not want to go

[2:58:55] outside and bring someone in. I feel

[2:58:58] like we need to reward if we did this

[2:59:01] reward local talent. I actually have a

[2:59:05] friend who has a writer's group. She

[2:59:07] asked me if they could get a free room

[2:59:09] here to read every month, right? And but

[2:59:11] so I'm guessing there are a lot of those

[2:59:14] that talent. There's a lot of that

[2:59:15] talent around here that maybe we could

[2:59:17] give them a spotlight just like the

[2:59:19] gentleman who did the um the art

[2:59:21] exhibit. went to that read that um the

[2:59:25] Honey Bake Ham Guy Mark.

[2:59:27] >> That was amazing. I'd never seen

[2:59:29] anything like it and that was super fun

[2:59:30] to see those artists get their rewards.

[2:59:34] >> Um so that would that would to me would

[2:59:37] be a a caveat that would stay within the the

[2:59:42] heart and the theme of our care tax,

[2:59:45] what our residents pass the care tax

[2:59:46] for. You know, I feel like um I would

[2:59:49] just if it's we're using taxpayer

[2:59:51] dollars for this. It is an art form, but

[2:59:54] we would want to definitely have forum

[2:59:59] residents getting that

[3:00:01] thought on that

[3:00:02] >> and I'm going to very respectfully

[3:00:05] disagree somewhat because I was on the

[3:00:09] city council when we when we put this

[3:00:11] together and we had this exact same

[3:00:13] discussion. We want to have ORM

[3:00:15] residents. We want to encourage Orm

[3:00:17] residents in this case to be the writer

[3:00:19] or the artist. I'm I'm just not

[3:00:21] comfortable requiring it because I'm

[3:00:23] somebody, you know, if you want if you

[3:00:25] want or resident to write, I can write I

[3:00:28] can write a me limmerick and or or

[3:00:30] something like that. And I realize we

[3:00:32] have some amazing talent in our in our

[3:00:34] community. I'm just [gasps] I'm just not

[3:00:38] comfortable even though I realize it's

[3:00:39] taxpayer money. I I'm viewing it from

[3:00:42] somebody who who goes and appreciates

[3:00:44] our like Mr. dattle here. He does not

[3:00:46] live in Orum. I appreciate his art and I

[3:00:50] don't know what I I'm sure that didn't

[3:00:51] come from Ketch, but I'm just saying is

[3:00:53] that touch point that you talked about.

[3:00:55] I I get the I get the uh I appreciate

[3:01:00] the art, but I understand what you're

[3:01:02] saying, but I just am concerned about

[3:01:05] requiring that it be there. may be

[3:01:07] saying that we prefer a preference to

[3:01:10] this and but I would like to leave it up

[3:01:12] to the arts council and the library

[3:01:15] commission or wherever wherever this

[3:01:17] resides to to help make that with giving

[3:01:20] them that instruction.

[3:01:22] >> Can I add another perspective to that?

[3:01:24] So if you have a writer I I'm lived in

[3:01:28] this world. I was in the publishing

[3:01:30] world for years. You can you can have a

[3:01:33] writer that

[3:01:36] people may or may not know and you might

[3:01:40] have 10 people that will show up. So

[3:01:42] your touch point there is 10 people. But

[3:01:44] you have another writer that comes that

[3:01:46] everybody knows.

[3:01:48] That person is able to connect with

[3:01:50] hundreds of people and help hundreds of

[3:01:52] people inspired in their writing because

[3:01:56] of who they are and their experience and

[3:01:58] what they've, you know, with what

[3:02:00] they've done with their with their

[3:02:02] writing. Um, so

[3:02:06] I I guess I would agree that that that

[3:02:08] would be a good decision for the arts

[3:02:09] commission to come up with that. You

[3:02:11] know, how do we want to go about doing

[3:02:12] this? And I'm comfortable with both

[3:02:13] ways. I mean I agree and I I remember

[3:02:15] also about keeping money in Orum but

[3:02:19] another perspective to that might be we

[3:02:21] might be able to expand that net

[3:02:24] depending on what the goal is. The goal

[3:02:25] is to inspire more writers. We might be

[3:02:28] able to do that if we had a person name

[3:02:31] that comes to my head, Stephen C. He's

[3:02:32] not around anymore, but if we had and

[3:02:35] he would charge a lot of money, so

[3:02:37] that's out of the ballpark, but there

[3:02:39] are writers that I think that would come

[3:02:41] that we could pack library hall

[3:02:44] >> like Beth Brower with her resident. We

[3:02:47] got and so that's

[3:02:49] >> Yes, that's my point. I didn't mean to

[3:02:50] say I don't did I say requirement. I I

[3:02:52] guess I meant preference

[3:02:54] >> to ORM because when it was described at

[3:02:57] the retreat, it was we get someone not

[3:02:59] from ORM

[3:03:00] >> and to me I was kind of like I'd kind of

[3:03:02] like to try maybe if we exhaust all of

[3:03:04] the ORM opportunities.

[3:03:07] >> Absolutely.

[3:03:08] >> We could I I'm not to where this um so

[3:03:12] yeah, that's where I am. But can I add

[3:03:14] one more little I'm sorry I'm going to

[3:03:15] kind of be a little disagreeable here.

[3:03:18] Um, we already have I just rolled off

[3:03:21] the arts commission and we have still

[3:03:23] not funded our sidewalk art,

[3:03:27] uh, crosswalk art and our utility box

[3:03:32] um, art.

[3:03:34] >> So, I feel like this probably needs to

[3:03:36] wait until that which has already come

[3:03:39] before our arts commission, been

[3:03:40] approved. We've seen approved um, audit

[3:03:44] designs. I mean, Pete's not here, is he?

[3:03:48] Um, so those are things that perhap I

[3:03:51] don't know how they didn't get, you

[3:03:52] know, maybe we should have discussed

[3:03:53] this before it actually went on a a

[3:03:55] budget thing, but um, those have already

[3:03:58] been approved by our arts commission and

[3:04:00] should, in my opinion, should be funded

[3:04:02] first.

[3:04:04] >> That's a great question for for Pete. I

[3:04:06] think

[3:04:06] >> not that's not disagreeable. That's just

[3:04:08] clarification.

[3:04:10] >> And I know there was a couple technical

[3:04:11] issues. We're not allowed to do

[3:04:12] sidewalks currently per uh Department of

[3:04:15] Transportation regulations. Chris,

[3:04:17] >> we just had one painted on First North

[3:04:19] though, so I'm not quite sure.

[3:04:20] >> Okay, so

[3:04:22] >> that was

[3:04:24] stuff going on.

[3:04:25] >> We can figure out the crosswalk

[3:04:28] >> and I I know I know we have funding

[3:04:30] currently for utility boxes that is set

[3:04:32] aside. So I I not on the arts

[3:04:34] commission. I just know that that fund

[3:04:36] is funded and there ready to go. So, I'm

[3:04:38] sure somewhere between design and

[3:04:40] contractor, we're just looking to

[3:04:42] finalize those ones

[3:04:43] >> and and if there's

[3:04:46] we don't have enough funds, we will use

[3:04:48] our utility funds.

[3:04:52] I wanted to get [laughter]

[3:04:55] >> you doing what?

[3:04:57] >> And council member Bill, if I may,

[3:04:59] >> if we pass the t if we pass the tough,

[3:05:05] » nice try sneaking that one in.

[3:05:08] >> I I guess I would I would end on I think

[3:05:11] you and I are really really aligned and

[3:05:14] I love what our council members and and

[3:05:17] staff did to build a rubric for

[3:05:19] selecting. I think having a and again

[3:05:22] not all art fits into a rubric and I

[3:05:24] don't want to turn art into a science

[3:05:26] but is there a way for us to report back

[3:05:29] what would success look like or failure

[3:05:31] look like on an artist and residence

[3:05:33] program or an honorarium program to say

[3:05:35] we spent this money and we got four

[3:05:37] people to show up and we got a a note in

[3:05:39] the forward of a book. It's like was

[3:05:41] that worth it or not? I'm glad I'm not

[3:05:43] the one doing this and y'all are the

[3:05:45] ones doing this, but it would be

[3:05:47] interesting for us to report back how

[3:05:50] was what was the impact either

[3:05:52] participatory or community experience of

[3:05:54] a particular project. So when we get

[3:05:57] back here, I can give y'all a lot better

[3:05:59] info to say do we like it or not or you

[3:06:01] know

[3:06:02] >> Yeah. Because comparatively $30,000 is a

[3:06:04] lot of money compared to what these

[3:06:06] other performing groups are getting,

[3:06:08] >> right? So hopefully we will get a lot

[3:06:11] for that. Um or we can structure it to

[3:06:13] where we have a lot of touch points.

[3:06:20] » I guess

[3:06:20] >> yeah. Can I I think you might have

[3:06:22] something too. Did you want to go first?

[3:06:23] >> It's short. I I just was going to add my

[3:06:25] voice to what Jeff said. And I think and

[3:06:27] having been an artist myself in college,

[3:06:29] not vocal artists, but um I I love the

[3:06:32] idea that we can have a master class,

[3:06:33] bring someone else from the outside in

[3:06:34] to give a master class to our people so

[3:06:36] that we can take the things that we

[3:06:38] learn and broaden and contribute in our

[3:06:39] own community and throughout the world.

[3:06:40] I I don't have feelings that it needs to

[3:06:43] be an orum only person. I think it could

[3:06:44] be someone else that could bring their perspective and a worldview that

[3:06:47] we don't normally have to inspire our

[3:06:49] own people.

[3:06:50] >> Thank you. And I'll just say I think a

[3:06:52] lot of the the value um for our ORM

[3:06:56] residents from a program like this is

[3:06:58] having somebody from the outside uh come

[3:07:00] and just partner with UVU, partner with

[3:07:03] the school district. Uh get out there uh

[3:07:05] and work with young people very actively

[3:07:08] just bring new things that we just don't

[3:07:10] currently have in terms of programming.

[3:07:13] uh we could it's essentially bringing a

[3:07:15] whole series of uh as part of the the

[3:07:19] contract associated with coming that

[3:07:22] inspires and has just touch points all

[3:07:24] throughout the city with lots of

[3:07:26] >> I guess I would want to understand what

[3:07:28] do you mean by

[3:07:30] >> I don't I feel like we're not living

[3:07:32] under a rock here I feel like we're

[3:07:33] pretty aware I I mean it kind of made it

[3:07:36] sound like we're we need to be

[3:07:38] enlightened but I I I don't know I guess

[3:07:41] I don't know what that means then

[3:07:42] >> just visit schools, right? Having if

[3:07:46] it's a visual artist, having an

[3:07:47] exhibition where you invite lots lots of

[3:07:49] young people um to participate. Uh if

[3:07:53] it's a writer, being able to work with

[3:07:55] young aspiring writers, people in senior

[3:07:58] English classes to really help people

[3:08:00] understand the process and get them

[3:08:02] exposed to things that maybe they

[3:08:04] haven't had a chance to

[3:08:06] >> professionally like him. So, one of my

[3:08:08] concerns with that is we don't have

[3:08:10] really the ability to speak for UVU or

[3:08:12] the school district on how that looks.

[3:08:14] And so, putting money towards something

[3:08:16] that we don't know whether or not we can

[3:08:18] actually functionally do

[3:08:20] >> is a little bit concerning. The Sierra

[3:08:22] seems like our best bet in partnering

[3:08:25] with somebody to have that or using

[3:08:28] library hall, that kind of thing.

[3:08:31] And so, I I just I still worry about

[3:08:35] putting money towards

[3:08:38] outside artist.

[3:08:40] I still worry about that part. I I think

[3:08:43] we have enough local talent. We have

[3:08:45] great local talent that until we exhaust

[3:08:47] that

[3:08:49] we're not we're not serving our citizens

[3:08:52] and the tax money that they need.

[3:08:55] >> I think we have a different perspective

[3:08:56] of that.

[3:08:57] >> So, how do we decide? I mean, we can

[3:08:58] have different perspectives, but how do

[3:09:00] we what direction do we give to Bryce?

[3:09:02] I mean, you know, what's the application

[3:09:05] going to look like? Who's what's the

[3:09:07] rubric? Do we put do we put a higher

[3:09:11] point system to local or not? I mean,

[3:09:14] that's what you want. Those are the

[3:09:15] answers the questions you want answered,

[3:09:17] right, Bryson?

[3:09:18] >> I made we made a first run at it in our

[3:09:20] um in the information we shared with uh

[3:09:22] you know, Brandon ahead of that. I'd be

[3:09:24] happy to share that with the group. I

[3:09:26] think it again was meant to be

[3:09:27] illustrative and to say we would love to

[3:09:30] work with these the arts commission

[3:09:31] library commission to shape that. Um but

[3:09:34] if that would be useful to say hey how

[3:09:35] do how do we set this up? How much

[3:09:37] programming do we do? How much of each

[3:09:39] of these things? What do we value? And

[3:09:40] we'd be able to work with our missions

[3:09:42] or

[3:09:43] >> Yeah. So here's the question too. So

[3:09:45] when you talk programming are we then

[3:09:46] taking money out of the facilities to

[3:09:49] have because this person's going to come

[3:09:50] to library hall. So is that out of that

[3:09:53] 30,000 to then rent library hall for

[3:09:55] them or

[3:09:57] >> multiple people?

[3:09:58] >> You know what I mean for that night? Do

[3:10:00] we have one night of kind of like the

[3:10:02] art night or

[3:10:04] >> I I think generally if they're using our

[3:10:07] facilities they would fall, you know,

[3:10:08] the library hall would cover their

[3:10:10] rental. But I I I think to your point,

[3:10:12] yeah, there would be other costs

[3:10:13] associated with running a program like

[3:10:14] this. And I think that 30,000 would have

[3:10:16] to be uh comprehensive of the cost of

[3:10:19] the program. We don't we don't have

[3:10:21] library funding set aside to operate

[3:10:23] this program outside of this upcoming

[3:10:26] fiscal year. We didn't put together

[3:10:27] accounts towards it.

[3:10:28] >> I might suggest that you know we start

[3:10:30] with a steering committee and that you

[3:10:32] know the steering committee might

[3:10:33] include chair of the arts commission

[3:10:35] include Bryce might include Pete um and

[3:10:40] just some of those decisions I don't

[3:10:42] think we're positioned as a city council

[3:10:44] to make

[3:10:45] >> I would like to have it be brought to

[3:10:46] the city council. I would like a

[3:10:48] proposal from maybe arts and library

[3:10:51] commissions

[3:10:53] then come to us as far as how these

[3:10:55] funds are going to be.

[3:10:57] >> Well, I think um I think it makes sense

[3:11:00] to be an ORUM first. I mean that's kind

[3:11:02] of the priority is we use orum artists,

[3:11:03] writers, etc.

[3:11:06] But depending on what the event is,

[3:11:11] um,

[3:11:13] you know, it would be it might be fun to

[3:11:16] have somebody from outside depending on

[3:11:17] what the event is, but if in other

[3:11:20] events it would be great to have

[3:11:21] somebody from Worm

[3:11:23] and I and I agree. I think, you know, we

[3:11:25] should look within our own within our

[3:11:26] own homes and neighborhoods and is there

[3:11:28] somebody that could do this for us? And

[3:11:31] if that works, great. If not, it's a

[3:11:34] totally different event

[3:11:36] uh depending on what the goal of the

[3:11:38] event is from the arts commission than

[3:11:40] maybe look outside in those situations.

[3:11:42] I don't think it has to be a one size

[3:11:45] fits all depending on what the what the

[3:11:48] event what the goal of the

[3:11:52] while I'm here. Maybe maybe we can go

[3:11:55] back and and try to develop a proposed

[3:11:59] policy that would show

[3:12:01] essentially how how will we show

[3:12:05] that we will give something to ORM

[3:12:07] residents through an application process

[3:12:10] and andor a preference to a demonstrated

[3:12:15] ability to partner with ORM entities

[3:12:17] like ORM Sierra ORM schools or UVU and see if we can bring back a a

[3:12:25] framework policy that

[3:12:27] >> that you think is achievable.

[3:12:29] >> And I'm sorry, I'm going to be that

[3:12:31] person. Are we doing it just with our

[3:12:33] artist and writer and residents, but

[3:12:35] what about our honorarium? Do we do have

[3:12:37] a policy for them? And do we have a

[3:12:38] policy for those who get the rent from

[3:12:41] the library hall

[3:12:43] >> or for our care tax recipients

[3:12:45] >> or for the for the other career

[3:12:46] advancement? I think that if we do it

[3:12:49] for one, we need to do it for all.

[3:12:51] >> The rent one is covered underneath that

[3:12:53] when they apply, they have the that's

[3:12:57] already part of that application. They

[3:13:00] have the ability to do that.

[3:13:01] >> Do what I'm saying is as we're talking

[3:13:03] about having a policy come back, but do

[3:13:05] we need policies to come to the city

[3:13:06] council for the honorarium program and

[3:13:09] for the library hall or how I'm trying

[3:13:11] to understand the difference.

[3:13:13] >> They already qualify for facility

[3:13:15] rental. That's at the honorary, correct

[3:13:18] me if I'm wrong. That's the

[3:13:20] >> current currently anyone that's on this

[3:13:21] list will qualify for three library hall

[3:13:24] rental.

[3:13:24] I guess my my what I was kind of

[3:13:26] thinking is kind of the knowledge that

[3:13:28] you got when you researched how other

[3:13:30] communities did it

[3:13:31] >> and then putting that together with this

[3:13:33] same lens of maybe we look for ORM

[3:13:37] people and have an option in case we

[3:13:39] don't have talented ORM people to bring

[3:13:41] I don't know is that what you guys are

[3:13:43] >> is that something that the commission

[3:13:45] the arts council can look at I know the

[3:13:47] care commission's typically been a heavy

[3:13:50] to pull them back in September but

[3:13:51] >> well that would be fun for not to do

[3:13:55] signals on if you want more meetings,

[3:13:57] [clears throat] but I I yes, I would

[3:14:00] love the idea to test this out um and

[3:14:04] report back. I I would hope every year

[3:14:06] we test it out, report back, and if we

[3:14:08] find that the value and versus work and financial commitment from our

[3:14:12] residents has changed, then we tweak or

[3:14:14] cancel or fail fast and move on. because

[3:14:16] we could totally find like to your point

[3:14:18] Quinn, there could be an outside person

[3:14:20] we pull in and they just hit it out of

[3:14:23] the park, you know. So, I'm not opposed

[3:14:26] to any of that, but I would like to hear

[3:14:27] what other cities have done. Maybe have

[3:14:29] I like your idea of the care commission

[3:14:31] being the ones who finalize or or not

[3:14:34] finalize, but um draft that type of

[3:14:37] application. It it might actually make

[3:14:40] more sense just because the care

[3:14:41] commission is seasonal to have the arts

[3:14:42] and the library commission work on it,

[3:14:44] >> but they only do go one time. They only

[3:14:46] I mean I think it'd be great to pull

[3:14:48] them back in because they're the ones

[3:14:50] that are going to be awarding these

[3:14:52] dollars. So, let's give them let's pull

[3:14:55] them in in September again. Said

[3:14:57] >> I I could prepare those options, I

[3:14:59] think, for y'all as a council. And I

[3:15:01] would also I guess one other thing I

[3:15:03] could prepare if it would be helpful for

[3:15:04] y'all is

[3:15:06] unintended consequences on the other

[3:15:08] groups. If we did a ORM only or ORM

[3:15:11] preferred I don't know if that would be

[3:15:13] helpful to be like oh well then these a

[3:15:15] like uh I don't want to call it one

[3:15:17] group but like oh maybe they're actually

[3:15:19] based in London and but we they practice

[3:15:22] or perform here. It's like, oh, I would

[3:15:24] want y'all to see if, you know, as we

[3:15:26] make a policy for his one program, if it

[3:15:28] would have accidental ripple effects

[3:15:29] elsewhere. So, I can prepare some of

[3:15:31] that and return to y'all.

[3:15:34] >> But can I just can I just say to that

[3:15:36] it's always been that way and I feel

[3:15:38] like the care commission has always

[3:15:39] handled that really well

[3:15:41] >> and I trust the care commission to you

[3:15:43] know that what you just went through.

[3:15:45] Um, that's why maybe some get more money

[3:15:49] and some don't get as much money. I mean

[3:15:50] that is very carefully part of the

[3:15:53] process

[3:15:54] >> of of that. So I'm I'm completely

[3:15:56] comfortable with that as it is

[3:15:59] >> right

[3:15:59] >> for me

[3:16:01] they they do consider those things

[3:16:03] carefully. Yeah.

[3:16:06] I think maybe um coming back to the

[3:16:09] council could be you know a return and

[3:16:12] report via you know mail memo uh uh in

[3:16:17] my meetings with you with you all and I

[3:16:20] use the term policy maybe lightly maybe

[3:16:23] it's looking at the rubric the rubric

[3:16:27] and the application process that our

[3:16:28] care commission did and and and trying

[3:16:30] to make sure that our artists and

[3:16:32] library commission take those things

[3:16:38] You want to say one more thing?

[3:16:39] >> Well, two more. We want to talk about

[3:16:40] the application thing, but the I would

[3:16:43] actually I'm not quite sure where when

[3:16:44] we strayed [clears throat] from this

[3:16:46] last year, but it used to be that the

[3:16:48] council would um award and discuss the

[3:16:54] major grants. And when you got when

[3:16:56] you're dealing with a million dollars, I

[3:16:59] feel like that should be council versus

[3:17:01] the year commission. I I really

[3:17:03] appreciate the care commission with the

[3:17:04] mids and

[3:17:06] >> the

[3:17:06] >> care commission did nothing with the

[3:17:07] major grids.

[3:17:08] >> Okay. Well, then it was Quinn and Jen

[3:17:11] >> and staff. Yeah.

[3:17:12] Maybe if we could have

[3:17:14] that. I think that might be a little

[3:17:15] more transparent too, a little more

[3:17:17] discession oriented and maybe even more

[3:17:19] of a rahrh for this bureau where

[3:17:20] everyone can really see what they are

[3:17:22] offering for community.

[3:17:26] Is that

[3:17:27] >> just to do that? Right.

[3:17:28] >> Been quite a while since we've done

[3:17:31] as far as them

[3:17:32] >> presentation.

[3:17:38] So we have

[3:17:39] >> it was when the hail left.

[3:17:42] >> Well, yeah, there were even before the

[3:17:44] hail left, they didn't present anything

[3:17:48] >> considered

[3:17:50] together as a group

[3:17:51] >> because I know when I was on the care

[3:17:52] commission when Jeff and I were

[3:17:53] >> they used to Yeah. they would come in

[3:17:55] and they would know that it used to. So

[3:17:56] that's going back

[3:17:58] >> and then they took it away from our care

[3:18:00] commission and said this is for the city

[3:18:01] council.

[3:18:03] >> So I noticed that Adam came to the work

[3:18:06] session so we could maybe more

[3:18:09] >> distinctly you know recognize and have a

[3:18:12] you know a Q&A or a back and forth

[3:18:15] >> uh in future um

[3:18:18] care deliberations specifically for

[3:18:21] especially for our major grants. Um and

[3:18:24] but then also note at the request of

[3:18:26] Adam um uh we we have him come and do a

[3:18:31] presentation in a council meeting in the

[3:18:33] fall after the uh the shell program. So

[3:18:37] [clears throat]

[3:18:37] that he has some recent data and impact

[3:18:41] [clears throat] to share well as visuals

[3:18:44] to go along with it so that it's not a

[3:18:47] >> so not a presentation but just part of

[3:18:49] the budgeting.

[3:18:51] >> Correct.

[3:18:52] >> So I think next year I'll I'll be sure

[3:18:55] to meet with Adam and and make sure that

[3:18:58] he comes to a work session to have you

[3:19:01] know just a back and forth you ask

[3:19:04] questions. he can he can maybe highlight

[3:19:07] uh uh the application material that he

[3:19:10] puts in. Um

[3:19:14] and then uh and then beyond that he

[3:19:16] would come to a regular council meeting

[3:19:18] in the fall after the shell does their

[3:19:22] >> reportive event.

[3:19:26] >> Okay. Should I say this last thing real

[3:19:27] quick because I know we're over time,

[3:19:28] but um so yeah, the only thing that I

[3:19:31] heard feedback from was on your on the

[3:19:34] form is they wanted to you'd have the

[3:19:36] one part where you say how many do you

[3:19:38] kind of like how many in the population

[3:19:40] do you serve also was how many residents

[3:19:43] are involved in your group was something

[3:19:46] that she had said and then um

[3:19:50] okay there's there are some groups that

[3:19:53] are on our care that are um historical

[3:19:57] community

[3:19:59] um founded community um

[3:20:03] beloved groups.

[3:20:06] >> They've been there since day one.

[3:20:07] >> Yes. And

[3:20:10] um

[3:20:12] I I just wonder I felt like there there

[3:20:14] could be a somewhere in the rubric we

[3:20:16] need to have a way to show that that's

[3:20:20] who those groups are and

[3:20:24] why we support them.

[3:20:28] Um

[3:20:29] >> I I was taking

[3:20:31] [laughter]

[3:20:32] >> So there's a couple groups that are um

[3:20:36] historical groups, legacy groups, yeah,

[3:20:38] that that probably don't score very high

[3:20:41] on some of these rubric questions, but

[3:20:44] due to their um

[3:20:46] >> maybe they could say

[3:20:47] >> touch points their

[3:20:48] >> historical roads given point. Yeah, that

[3:20:50] was the only other thing that I

[3:20:53] >> certainly shant

[3:20:55] >> that's the exact philos

[3:20:58] >> one thing that the commission talked a

[3:21:02] lot about again this is my first year so

[3:21:06] I I was learning a lot from our our

[3:21:08] commission but uh one thing that they

[3:21:11] were concerned with trying to assess as

[3:21:13] they heard presentations was uh they see

[3:21:16] this money as kind of startup money to

[3:21:18] help people get started um but they

[3:21:20] don't want groups to be dependent on it year after year without

[3:21:24] seeking additional funding. So they

[3:21:26] often asked presenters as they came what

[3:21:30] additional funding are you seeking and

[3:21:31] how how are you trying to become

[3:21:33] self-sufficient and that was one of the

[3:21:34] criteria that they talked about and

[3:21:37] sometimes that was a little bit

[3:21:38] intention with this this particular

[3:21:41] designation which is we have some groups

[3:21:43] that are more active in seeking outside

[3:21:45] funding than others.

[3:21:46] >> Yeah. and and I because our policy is I

[3:21:49] don't know if it's a policy but you know

[3:21:50] the care does kind of talk about that

[3:21:54] so there has to but um just a

[3:21:56] consideration there I don't know how to

[3:21:58] do it but it's a good point

[3:22:00] >> at least uh I'm looking at Trevor be

[3:22:03] pretty easy to add into the rubric

[3:22:05] something that speaks to historical

[3:22:09] experience impact

[3:22:11] >> one of the questions on there is like

[3:22:12] overall value to the community and I

[3:22:14] think that would be the opportunity to

[3:22:15] either add some subcategories or

[3:22:18] something that would legacy components

[3:22:20] so that group could get

[3:22:22] or allow the commission to vote.

[3:22:25] >> If we go back in time, it it was these

[3:22:28] legacy groups and the Sierra that

[3:22:30] actually passed the care tax that got us

[3:22:32] the

[3:22:34] >> Well, and some of these groups like the

[3:22:35] Shantinets, they serve I don't know how

[3:22:38] many on here really service our senior

[3:22:42] population like the Shantanets do. And

[3:22:44] so who are they serving? How many how

[3:22:47] many of these groups are we are they are

[3:22:49] is their focus on a certain subset of

[3:22:51] the population. And so seeing the subset

[3:22:54] of the population that their focus is on

[3:22:56] might be helpful too.

[3:22:58] >> I think that is why we have interviews

[3:23:01] >> that are supposed to sell that not not

[3:23:03] us.

[3:23:04] >> Yes. So um as I argue that they should

[3:23:09] be the ones trying to sell a commission

[3:23:12] and keep in mind this is just the

[3:23:13] commission's proposal

[3:23:16] every right to change whatever you want

[3:23:21] >> as the

[3:23:23] wording entity. This is called

[3:23:25] deliberations for a lesson.

[3:23:29] » We certainly and almost every one of the

[3:23:33] and that was one of the things on the

[3:23:34] rubric we already had talked about

[3:23:36] adding as far as having a specific item

[3:23:38] on there as far as the um the number of

[3:23:41] people that are on in their group that

[3:23:44] are ORM residents if you will. We asked

[3:23:48] every one of them,

[3:23:49] >> but

[3:23:51] we will definitely put it.

[3:23:52] >> Yeah.

[3:23:53] >> And she did say that. She said we had to

[3:23:54] ask. She said, "But if you could add

[3:23:55] that, tell them to maybe add that, you

[3:23:58] know." Um, that was Yeah. There she is

[3:24:01] very appreciative of all your work on

[3:24:03] this. Um, said she liked it so much

[3:24:06] better.

[3:24:08] >> And we realize it's a work in progress,

[3:24:09] so hopefully you do, too. Um, we're

[3:24:12] constantly trying to refine it.

[3:24:13] >> Oh, good. It was good.

[3:24:15] >> Thanks for the effort. Right. Anything

[3:24:17] else?

[3:24:18] >> So, so what would happen is

[3:24:22] so also keep in mind art and writer now

[3:24:25] that we kind of know that maybe you want

[3:24:27] to have some sort of call it third party

[3:24:31] um awarding. I don't know how other to

[3:24:34] say that. Um but you know that 30 that

[3:24:38] those monies wouldn't necessarily um

[3:24:40] just be spent you know without some sort

[3:24:43] of uh prior approval. um whatever that

[3:24:47] prior approval ended up looking like. Um

[3:24:50] and so if if for whatever reason no

[3:24:52] agreement could be made on that. So it's

[3:24:54] not like those monies just disappear.

[3:24:56] [clears throat]

[3:24:57] They they stay within the the care fund

[3:25:00] and you can move those around wherever

[3:25:03] it is uh we you know as a council you

[3:25:05] felt like they needed to go if that

[3:25:07] didn't work out.

[3:25:08] >> So keep that in mind as well.

[3:25:10] >> Yeah. Because can I just I mean I think

[3:25:12] 30,000 is a lot. I mean, we're only

[3:25:15] giving the ballet 25 and we've been

[3:25:16] doing that for 20 years or 15 years

[3:25:19] we've been doing this, but um so I'm I'm

[3:25:23] willing to go with that because I'm not

[3:25:25] familiar with what it is and I'd like to

[3:25:27] help do some seed money there. But to

[3:25:30] the point of every year it being that

[3:25:32] much, I really I don't know that, you

[3:25:34] know,

[3:25:36] >> I guess you're saying, right?

[3:25:37] >> That's what you're saying is we'll see

[3:25:38] if we spend the money.

[3:25:41] So yeah, so we would come forward in our

[3:25:43] u the May 12th council meeting with the

[3:25:46] resolution or or I think it's an

[3:25:48] ordinance the ordinance with this

[3:25:50] exhibit and then

[3:25:54] point is that fair statement of where we

[3:25:58] would be going.

[3:25:58] >> Yes. Thank you.

[3:26:00] >> Thank

[3:26:02] you. This has been a good discussion.

[3:26:04] That's one of the things I I really like

[3:26:07] about ORM is that we're we're doing

[3:26:10] things that haven't been done before.

[3:26:12] Not that we're off doing something kind

[3:26:14] of halfcocked or whatever, but we're doing this and so we don't have a

[3:26:18] lot of Well, this is our first rodeo and

[3:26:22] so if it were our second or third or

[3:26:24] fourth rodeo, it would be the discussion

[3:26:26] would be a bit different. But I'm

[3:26:28] grateful to have these discussions with

[3:26:30] our first rodeo. And now we're going to

[3:26:33] go to the one that's the agenda item is

[3:26:36] the most fun to say fleet and streets

[3:26:39] of a budget and thing Carter our fleet

[3:26:43] manager Chris Sher public works director

[3:26:45] and Bill are you here for moral support

[3:26:48] >> I'm here for presentation

[3:26:50] >> okay

[3:26:51] >> he's here for the muscle

[3:26:52] >> he's for the streets so we got the

[3:26:53] fleets in the streets

[3:26:55] >> thank you how uh being respectful of

[3:26:57] time how much time do I have you want

[3:27:00] the long version short version.

[3:27:01] >> Okay, it says here 30 minutes, but we're

[3:27:04] um we're 10 minutes over what I mean,

[3:27:06] but I want to respect I want you to be

[3:27:08] able to say what you need to say and

[3:27:10] that you sat over three hours to come

[3:27:12] and say [laughter]

[3:27:15] >> give give a short version in terms of

[3:27:17] what you present and Chris also please

[3:27:21] feel free to ask questions and then know

[3:27:24] that uh this presentation and supporting

[3:27:27] documentation

[3:27:28] >> Yeah, I'm look through the I want I've

[3:27:31] been I've been in your shoes in other

[3:27:32] presentations when the council's I want

[3:27:35] you to feel like you've got you you got

[3:27:38] to say what you came to say.

[3:27:40] >> We'll race through it pretty quick and

[3:27:41] if there's questions feel free to ask.

[3:27:43] Um

[3:27:44] uh Teresa shared with all of you I hope

[3:27:47] that the three spreadsheets uh the first

[3:27:50] spreadsheet is general fund leasing. The

[3:27:52] second spreadsheet is general fund uh

[3:27:55] purchasing and then the final one is

[3:27:57] enterprise

[3:27:58] and there are different types of

[3:28:00] purchases there um basically leasing uh

[3:28:04] different types of leasing uh purchasing

[3:28:06] and then syncing funds.

[3:28:09] We'll dive right into it and I I won't

[3:28:11] so much go for uh all the description of

[3:28:14] the vehicles but um kind of the amounts

[3:28:17] here. You'll see that uh we're going to

[3:28:19] extend the lease one year on four

[3:28:20] vehicles for $15,000.

[3:28:24] Um

[3:28:26] and then we're going to trade in 12

[3:28:29] vehicles and lease new vehicles for 12

[3:28:32] for lease for $164,500.

[3:28:37] And then we have an annual lease payment

[3:28:39] on multiple vehicles um that are still

[3:28:43] year two of three and uh uh year three

[3:28:46] of three for $105,500

[3:28:48] for 10 of those vehicles.

[3:28:51] Uh the fire department, we're we're

[3:28:53] funding a pumper for a seven-year lease,

[3:28:56] I believe. Um not a lease, we're going

[3:28:59] to finance it uh for $160,000 a year.

[3:29:02] >> This is the one that you're waiting for

[3:29:04] the documents for.

[3:29:05] >> Okay. Okay. So, this is a purchase set.

[3:29:07] >> This is our lease purchase. Yes.

[3:29:09] >> We're intended. We're flying back on the

[3:29:11] 19th for a final inspection. So, we'll

[3:29:13] >> Okay. So, I'm waiting for the email.

[3:29:16] >> We soon

[3:29:20] and then uh one of the

[3:29:22] vehicles will be uh selling and and

[3:29:24] recouping 35,000 estimate from that. So,

[3:29:29] um,

[3:29:32] the subtotal here for by departments,

[3:29:35] $410,000

[3:29:36] for all of them. And then you'll see the

[3:29:38] breakdown there.

[3:29:42] And now we move into purchasing. Uh,

[3:29:44] there's three vehicles that we propose

[3:29:47] uh, purchasing for the parks department

[3:29:49] that we currently leasing. Uh, the lease

[3:29:51] is getting expensive, so more sense to

[3:29:54] purchase. uh an excavator, a small

[3:29:56] loader, and a a trailer to transport

[3:29:58] them for $76,000.

[3:30:02] Um community development uh they look a

[3:30:05] little low for $9,000 for two vehicles,

[3:30:07] but those are being repurposed from

[3:30:08] enterprise funds, and those are going to

[3:30:11] help. Uh they're a little bit fitting.

[3:30:15] Parks and Recreation,

[3:30:18] $27,500.

[3:30:20] There's a a large gang mower in there

[3:30:22] and some UTVs and a couple small mowers,

[3:30:25] riding mowers.

[3:30:27] [clears throat]

[3:30:28] And then um traffic, $80,000 for a van,

[3:30:32] a fulls size van to transport the that

[3:30:35] folds around and work on signs.

[3:30:38] And then uh we come to purchasing for

[3:30:40] the general fund, $663,000.

[3:30:44] You'll see animal control patrol, K9,

[3:30:47] some sport utility vehicles. uh some of

[3:30:49] those are hybrid then uh uh some

[3:30:52] undercover vehicles there.

[3:30:55] So the request for the general fund uh

[3:30:59] is just over a million dollars. There's

[3:31:02] a quick breakdown there.

[3:31:05] Move into uh

[3:31:08] hold on that was for purchasing

[3:31:12] and then the total request is just under

[3:31:14] 1.5 million.

[3:31:21] If I can just highlight here perhaps

[3:31:24] especially for those that are in the

[3:31:26] council, you'll notice a kind of a

[3:31:28] multi-pronged approach. And we base this approach off of trying to balance

[3:31:34] cash flow versus what's the best deal

[3:31:37] versus what we can manage or uh you know

[3:31:40] where the warranties are at and

[3:31:44] look at all of that on a vehicle per

[3:31:47] vehicle basis to then yeah I can

[3:31:52] post

[3:31:54] >> I did read the spreadsheet just so you

[3:31:55] know go through all I reading between

[3:31:59] the lines there. Um,

[3:32:02] are you saying that because sometimes it

[3:32:04] makes more sense to lease and sometimes

[3:32:06] it makes more sense to buy

[3:32:07] >> and question. It's a case by case kind

[3:32:10] of thing and that's why we have some

[3:32:11] leases and some purchases.

[3:32:13] >> Exactly.

[3:32:14] >> And I'll add to that as well that you

[3:32:16] mentioned uh mentioned that enterprise

[3:32:18] funds will often times purchase newer

[3:32:20] view new vehicles then after uh being

[3:32:23] lightly used we will then ship them down

[3:32:26] to other including general fund

[3:32:28] departments.

[3:32:29] to what was it? Two trucks or so,000.

[3:32:32] It's

[3:32:33] >> one of those situations. Our new truck

[3:32:35] is their used truck.

[3:32:37] >> Yeah.

[3:32:39] >> Like brother, big brother

[3:32:40] >> cozy coupe or something. That's how my

[3:32:43] kids feel about

[3:32:45] >> Chris's also giving me a couple of

[3:32:47] sweaters.

[3:32:49] [laughter]

[3:32:54] » Thank you. That uh should we go into

[3:32:55] enterprise funds real quick?

[3:32:57] >> Yes. saving quicker.

[3:33:00] Um, as there it's pretty consistent year

[3:33:02] to year uh with storm water. We have

[3:33:04] syncing funds where we're saving our

[3:33:07] vehicles on buyback programs when we we

[3:33:10] purchase and we fill in three years. So,

[3:33:12] you'll see

[3:33:13] >> fouryear threeyear fouryear estimations

[3:33:16] of the sinking. Are you is that you're

[3:33:18] meeting that dollar amount and that's an

[3:33:20] adequate time frame?

[3:33:22] >> Yes. Like that jet roer we've been

[3:33:24] saving um for two years already and this

[3:33:27] is the third year. third year pays for

[3:33:29] it and you're still on track with what

[3:33:30] do you need it and

[3:33:32] >> most good

[3:33:33] >> um most often that's the case we do have

[3:33:36] a generator at the very end of this

[3:33:38] presentation where we had to bump it one

[3:33:39] more year found the pricing was a bit

[3:33:41] more anticipated but anyway I'd say

[3:33:45] things crystal ball is pretty darn good

[3:33:49] to do most out on the final year but yes

[3:33:53] there are exceptions to them

[3:33:54] >> yeah it's always nice to have the bank

[3:33:58] already uh you know already sinking fund

[3:34:00] with a big chunk of that ready to go. So

[3:34:06] here's the breakdown for streets.

[3:34:12] Here's water reclamation.

[3:34:15] Couple big ones is a jet roer and the

[3:34:17] bottom one there a camera van inspection

[3:34:19] van for this first

[3:34:21] and then the water department. Um,

[3:34:27] a little bit bigger request than the

[3:34:29] other funds.

[3:34:32] Total for enterprise funds is just under

[3:34:34] 2 million.

[3:34:36] Here's a tenure history if you're uh

[3:34:39] this is all on the on the spreadsheet

[3:34:42] too on sheets four and five. So,

[3:34:50] and that's that's the end of the

[3:34:51] presentation. um $3.4 million request

[3:34:56] for vehicle replacement this year.

[3:34:59] >> Any questions?

[3:35:00] >> How's that working out maintenance-wise?

[3:35:02] Are we still are we saving money then

[3:35:04] because we're replacing we're not having

[3:35:06] any I mean I keep hearing all these new

[3:35:08] vehicles now have so much tech that they

[3:35:10] break down sooner or they have issues

[3:35:12] sooner. Is that do we need to worry

[3:35:14] about that or are we doing fine?

[3:35:15] >> Um have to accelerate purchase sooner?

[3:35:18] Well, in some of some of the vehicles we

[3:35:20] do like the yellow iron are back we we

[3:35:24] purchased but then we flip in three

[3:35:25] years and maintenance is is in that

[3:35:28] program. The least vehicles also kind of

[3:35:30] helps take care of that. Uh but there's

[3:35:33] more and more vehicles. Yeah, they're

[3:35:34] getting a little bit scarier as they

[3:35:35] come. Um we have a few hybrids and if we

[3:35:38] have an issue with those, they'll

[3:35:40] probably just go to the dealer. But so

[3:35:42] far they've held up pretty good.

[3:35:45] We take a look at the warranties that

[3:35:46] are offered on CFS too and that we try

[3:35:50] to stay within warranty and something

[3:35:52] maybe comes up higher on the list to

[3:35:54] replace if warranties on bigger aspects

[3:35:58] of it

[3:36:00] at the end of the term.

[3:36:03] >> How's the if you want to talk about the

[3:36:05] order bank has that timing improved at

[3:36:08] all?

[3:36:09] >> Yeah, it has improved a lot. uh CO threw

[3:36:12] some curve balls and it was hard to get

[3:36:14] vehicles. I had to kind of do things a

[3:36:16] little differently, but now things are

[3:36:19] steady. The order banks uh been open for

[3:36:22] months. Most of them are closed now, but

[3:36:24] they'll reopen pretty soon.

[3:36:28] It's it's a lot less stressful that

[3:36:32] build times. We've seen some of the one

[3:36:34] ton forts come in in about two two and a

[3:36:37] half months, which is incredible.

[3:36:39] Uh during the co days we were waiting

[3:36:43] sometimes around a year.

[3:36:45] >> Yeah.

[3:36:46] >> And the only reason I bring that up

[3:36:48] Quinn you mentioned about capital

[3:36:50] projects and when almost all of that

[3:36:53] money does get spent in that fiscal

[3:36:55] year.

[3:36:57] There are a few that maybe

[3:36:59] near the end of the fiscal year and so

[3:37:01] we might not get them done in the fiscal

[3:37:03] year. It may happen right at the

[3:37:05] beginning of the next fiscal year but

[3:37:06] usually does not go much beyond that.

[3:37:11] I say that obviously there's a large

[3:37:13] amount of that 3.4 million as you saw

[3:37:15] that were sinking fund related bigger

[3:37:19] vehicles. So it's not that entire 3

[3:37:20] million like fire engines and jet rotors

[3:37:23] and stuff maybe

[3:37:24] >> the ones we truly intend to purchase

[3:37:27] those things that those ones do happen.

[3:37:30] >> Thank you track of all of that.

[3:37:34] >> Welcome. Thanks everybody for your help.

[3:37:36] It's been a It's always a really

[3:37:38] involved process.

[3:37:41] >> He's done a phenomenal job over the last

[3:37:43] several years on this. Every year it

[3:37:44] gets better and better. So, he pays a

[3:37:47] lot of attention to detail. He has a

[3:37:49] great staff. Robbie Robbie is here right

[3:37:52] now. And and Sean

[3:37:53] >> and Sean, sorry. Any was there anyone

[3:37:55] else?

[3:37:58] >> Thank you.

[3:37:58] >> Question and maybe you already answered

[3:38:00] this while I was out. How many vehicles

[3:38:02] are in our fleet?

[3:38:05] Is that a fair question? [laughter]

[3:38:07] >> Yeah, there's non more than a lot. I

[3:38:10] >> actually actually ran a report today and

[3:38:13] of all the vehicles and equipment

[3:38:15] including small equipment we have at

[3:38:17] 100,361.

[3:38:20] But most people are more interested in

[3:38:23] um like vehicles we drive. We have about

[3:38:26] 350 vehicles that we drive. We have

[3:38:29] about another uh 250 vehicles when you

[3:38:32] look at riding mowers, trailers,

[3:38:35] um backhos and different things like

[3:38:38] that. So about 550 600 uh

[3:38:43] bigger type vehicles and then a lot of

[3:38:45] small stuff.

[3:38:48] >> So

[3:38:51] >> Thank you.

[3:38:52] for your patience waiting for

[3:38:54] us.

[3:38:55] >> You bet.

[3:38:56] We could ask you what you think about

[3:38:58] occupancy.

[3:39:00] [laughter]

[3:39:06] » He bases it on seat belts.

[3:39:09] [laughter]

[3:39:10] >> Oh, that was

[3:39:14] seat belts in each.

[3:39:18] » Excuse you for a second.

[3:39:22] » All right. Now we go to the streets

[3:39:24] portion. Bill, thank you for your

[3:39:26] patience. And what are your thoughts on

[3:39:29] those streets?

[3:39:32] There we go.

[3:39:33] >> Oh, the tough

[3:39:34] >> I don't want to pass the tough utility

[3:39:35] fee. Can you tell us about that tonight?

[3:39:37] >> Yeah, I'll be able to. Um, does anyone

[3:39:40] need a break?

[3:39:41] >> 610, but uh how much time do I have,

[3:39:44] Brian?

[3:39:45] >> Five minutes.

[3:39:47] uh definitely introduce it and share

[3:39:50] maybe kind of the major milestones from

[3:39:52] here to go through this full process.

[3:39:54] >> I'll start with uh

[3:39:57] so um what are we calling it down there

[3:39:59] at Sarah now? Uh the project with the arts and all of

[3:40:03] that heart.

[3:40:06] So, so the heart of Warham Part of that

[3:40:08] component could be funded in part by a

[3:40:11] tough revenue source which is 720 South

[3:40:15] Street which might cost around $100,000

[3:40:18] to do an overlay or about uh you know

[3:40:21] significantly more uh to do a

[3:40:23] reconstruct. So part of the vision for

[3:40:26] that I think is that team Bill and I

[3:40:29] team. So first of all this is this is

[3:40:30] Bill Street. Sorry, Bill Peterson.

[3:40:33] [laughter]

[3:40:35] straight and then I feel straight up.

[3:40:38] He's not

[3:40:41] » great Mary Street. So anyway, um Bill

[3:40:44] and I started probably about this, you

[3:40:46] know, within like a month or two of each

[3:40:48] other.

[3:40:49] >> Been a minute.

[3:40:50] >> Yeah. 199 1994.

[3:40:54] >> Yeah. We have two we have two division

[3:40:55] managers that have announced retirement.

[3:40:57] So out of the hundreds of years of of

[3:40:59] expertise we have there, two of them are now officially leaving. uh one's our

[3:41:04] storm water and that is uh Rick Sabi and

[3:41:08] then GIS not to get off track here but

[3:41:10] and then also Cody Stagel is our GIS

[3:41:12] first GIS division manager in the

[3:41:14] history of OR and so we have two

[3:41:16] vacancies there and also I have Tyler

[3:41:19] that was stolen by

[3:41:21] Rice.

[3:41:23] We got some things to do in any case.

[3:41:26] Tough this tough fee we I introduced it

[3:41:28] to you a couple weeks ago. Um,

[3:41:32] I have Bill here to help out with

[3:41:35] questions. Thank you to the

[3:41:42] What was mine? I thought anything else.

[3:41:44] Okay, very good. Thank you. Um, I'm

[3:41:47] going to zip through some of these at

[3:41:48] the very beginning and Bill can answer

[3:41:50] some detailed questions that you might

[3:41:52] have. Today we have how many millions

[3:41:55] tens of millions of square feet of

[3:41:57] asphalt do you think we have in the

[3:41:58] city? odd. It's 50 50 million. If we

[3:42:02] were to construct them all today,

[3:42:04] reconstruct everything today, it's $8 a

[3:42:07] square foot. What is that?

[3:42:10] >> That's a lot. 400 400 million, I think,

[3:42:13] if I doing the math right.

[3:42:14] >> And then for So, and 75% of our asphalt

[3:42:17] that we own right now today is local

[3:42:20] streets. And that's where we're showing

[3:42:22] that we have significant aging and

[3:42:23] concerns. We've focused on commercials,

[3:42:25] our uh connectors and arterials. This

[3:42:28] map here shows uh anything that's about

[3:42:31] 60% or 50% of our roads in local roads

[3:42:35] are over 50 to 60 years old today and

[3:42:38] we've stretched the life as long as we

[3:42:40] could. Uh we mentioned to you last time

[3:42:43] about the condition index and so forth.

[3:42:46] Highend condition indexes from 90 to 100

[3:42:49] or low as all 29 to zero. Our roads

[3:42:52] primarily right now for our locals are

[3:42:54] in this category of fair. every year

[3:42:56] they degrade about uh 3% so they're

[3:43:00] going to be approaching the poor

[3:43:01] category at which point we might need to

[3:43:03] reconstruct. So our plan right now is

[3:43:05] with the help of this uh this tough fee

[3:43:07] is that we'll be able to extend the life

[3:43:10] beyond what we see here if we don't do

[3:43:12] any maintenance to be on it here. Um the

[3:43:17] loads when they reach uh reach a certain

[3:43:19] condition though um and degraded then we

[3:43:22] need to repair uh not just repair them

[3:43:24] we need to perhaps overlay them or

[3:43:27] replace them altogether and reconstruct

[3:43:28] them. This shows a condition index. Uh

[3:43:31] red is meaning they've failed. Green

[3:43:34] bright green means that they're perfect.

[3:43:36] We don't have any bright greens but we

[3:43:38] do have some reds that are popping up.

[3:43:40] Everything in between is somewhere

[3:43:42] around 60 or so 50 on our OCI. We're

[3:43:45] getting to a critical point right now in

[3:43:48] our in our street system.

[3:43:50] So, what's what do the different OCI

[3:43:52] conditions look like? This is an OCI 90

[3:43:55] to 100. That's 89 to 70. Looking at this

[3:43:59] one here, it's 50 to 69. 30 to 49. This

[3:44:02] is starting to get to the point where we

[3:44:03] might need to reconstruct.

[3:44:05] And I'm going to show you some

[3:44:06] reconstruction examples on here. Um on

[3:44:10] 17 South, we're doing a project down

[3:44:11] there today. We are reconstructing this

[3:44:13] after we put in a new water line and

[3:44:15] sewer line in this street from 800 East

[3:44:17] over to State Street. This is another

[3:44:20] one that's on our list. If we had the

[3:44:22] funding available um to do to

[3:44:24] reconstruct this on Northwest from 1580

[3:44:27] South to 18800 South, this street is

[3:44:29] basically glued together. Uh this is a

[3:44:33] lot of gorilla glue that we're going to

[3:44:34] use in here. This is crack sealing. This

[3:44:37] is what This is amazing though. This is

[3:44:39] a cheap dollar amount to extend the life

[3:44:41] of the road. It doesn't look pretty.

[3:44:43] It's lipstick, but uh it does extend the

[3:44:47] life quite dramatically.

[3:44:48] >> I am the behold. I am the beholder.

[3:44:50] Chris, this is pretty. What do you

[3:44:56] » residing

[3:45:00] skateboard? You would hurt yourself on

[3:45:03] these terror attacks for

[3:45:07] creative care. optimistic, right? This

[3:45:11] is a failed road here in 600 North. You

[3:45:13] can see on this one, we already have

[3:45:14] curved guttered sidewalk in both sides.

[3:45:16] We look we're looking to do that. This

[3:45:17] is this is really rough. Um, this one is

[3:45:21] a really interesting example that Bill

[3:45:23] prepared. This picture on the left is a

[3:45:25] great example of what slurry seals will

[3:45:27] hide. Okay, over here

[3:45:31] that is the same street

[3:45:34] like a year later. It looks like this.

[3:45:36] That's a skin patch. That's all we've

[3:45:38] done there. It looks nice, but it's

[3:45:41] going to look like this in a short

[3:45:42] amount of time. Bill, how many years

[3:45:44] will it take? One one or two years to

[3:45:46] look like this again?

[3:45:47] >> Oh, a couple. Yeah,

[3:45:48] >> couple of years. So, we're just we're

[3:45:51] just kind of stretching it along as the

[3:45:53] best we can. So, these are all examples

[3:45:55] of roads that we're planning on

[3:45:56] reconstructing that are reaching that

[3:45:58] level below probably OCI of 40 or so.

[3:46:02] 70% of our streets are local. That's 35

[3:46:06] million square feet. Um, if we were to

[3:46:08] reconstruct all of those, that's $8 a

[3:46:10] square foot versus $2 a square foot of

[3:46:12] an overlay. So, we're looking at

[3:46:14] targeting these roads to being overlaid

[3:46:16] altogether. You might ask, what is our

[3:46:18] plan? This is our 5-year plan right now.

[3:46:20] We have a plan for the next 25 years for

[3:46:23] every single road in the city, every

[3:46:25] single road segment. This is an example

[3:46:28] I'm going to blow up a little bit here.

[3:46:30] If we had $4 million for asphalt, this

[3:46:32] is what we would do for overlays over

[3:46:34] the next five years.

[3:46:37] Um, I mentioned this already, but 35

[3:46:40] million square ft of asphalt is local

[3:46:42] streets and another 15 or 14 million is

[3:46:46] arterials and collectors that we have a

[3:46:48] really good handle on right now. The

[3:46:50] locals is where we need to focus.

[3:46:52] >> Can I just ask one quick question? I'm

[3:46:54] just curious, Chris. do the who are the

[3:46:56] employees that do all this patch stuff,

[3:46:57] the slurry and then who makes all the

[3:46:59] squiggly lines? Are they Om city

[3:47:00] employees or is that contracted out?

[3:47:02] >> Contracted out.

[3:47:04] >> Bill manages all of that.

[3:47:05] >> Okay.

[3:47:06] >> We do we do a lot of asphalt work in the

[3:47:08] city. We How many tons of asphalt did we

[3:47:11] put down last year?

[3:47:12] >> Uh right around 4,000

[3:47:13] >> 4,000 tons. And then how many cubic

[3:47:16] yards or of of concrete?

[3:47:18] >> Concrete right around 800.

[3:47:19] >> 800. And so they have a fantastic crew

[3:47:22] that hits that. They're on the ready to

[3:47:24] handle issues, not to reconstruct a new

[3:47:27] road per se, but to make sure that the

[3:47:30] road is safe to traverse at any time.

[3:47:32] And if we have soft spots and things

[3:47:33] like that, we need

[3:47:35] >> Yeah, they'll go through all these roads

[3:47:36] uh prior year before a slurry and level

[3:47:40] them. Uh remove any areas that are bad.

[3:47:44] [clears throat] If they need a crown,

[3:47:45] they might run the paper cross put a

[3:47:47] crown before it gets a slurry. So, but

[3:47:49] we are doing the better.

[3:47:52] So we do more targeted, smaller scope of

[3:47:55] work.

[3:47:57] >> Yeah. And we're quick to react and make

[3:48:00] it so it's acceptable level of so we can

[3:48:03] get ramps that we can talk to the curbs

[3:48:06] in.

[3:48:07] >> This is what we're targeting right now

[3:48:08] for concrete. When you're looking at a

[3:48:09] road, it's not just asphalt. We have to

[3:48:11] look at the curb gutter sidewalk, ADA

[3:48:13] ramps, handicap ramps, and so forth. Of

[3:48:15] all of our high hazard rated sidewalks,

[3:48:18] we got about 3,100 ft of that. And then

[3:48:21] for our missing ramps that where we have

[3:48:23] existing sidewalks but we don't have ADA

[3:48:26] ramps, that's about 400 of those. And so

[3:48:29] that breakdown comes to about almost $4

[3:48:33] million is what we're looking at. And

[3:48:34] we're proposing to spend about uh 10% of

[3:48:38] that a year. So that' be about 400,000

[3:48:41] just on concrete alone. We have a plan

[3:48:45] right now. This is year one that goes

[3:48:47] out 27 26 different road segments in the

[3:48:50] city. The first four or five are about

[3:48:53] $8 a square foot. Everything else is

[3:48:55] about $2 a square foot. Those are all

[3:48:57] being escalated uh for $5 or 5% a year

[3:49:00] over the next every year for the next

[3:49:02] five years. This is what we'll be doing.

[3:49:05] If we receive tough revenues uh for $4

[3:49:08] million, we would be spending about

[3:49:10] $336,000

[3:49:12] three about $400,000 on concrete,

[3:49:15] $400,000 for admin, and about 3.2

[3:49:18] million on asphalt.

[3:49:21] Similarly, in phase two or or the next

[3:49:24] year, we have another 26 projects or so,

[3:49:28] all identified on our map. This is phase

[3:49:31] three. Everything's identified. We have

[3:49:33] 48 projects on this year. We have 47

[3:49:36] projects on this year. You can't read

[3:49:38] this. I'm just saying and demonstrating

[3:49:40] to you. BJ can probably, but we have a

[3:49:43] plan. This plan is in place. We're at

[3:49:46] the ready. As soon as the funding is

[3:49:48] available, we will start executing this

[3:49:50] plan. Any questions?

[3:49:53] >> So, we could do that within the fiscal

[3:49:57] year if the funds were available.

[3:49:59] >> Yes. Yeah.

[3:50:02] It's it's probably it'll probably take

[3:50:04] us to handle all of these local streets

[3:50:06] about 20 years

[3:50:08] on this projected time frame. The longer

[3:50:11] we delay, we'll go back and do it again.

[3:50:14] >> Well, yes. Yes. Exactly. Rinse and

[3:50:16] repeat. Every year it degrades about 3%.

[3:50:19] So our score is dropping about 3% a

[3:50:21] year. So after 20 years it'll go from

[3:50:23] like a if it's a score of 100 today,

[3:50:25] it'll drop down to about 40 by the time

[3:50:27] we get to it in 20 years.

[3:50:29] >> Yeah. With no surface. with no no

[3:50:32] maintenance, no surface treatments and

[3:50:34] so forth. But we do do that. We stretch

[3:50:36] the life as best we can. Back sealing

[3:50:38] surly slurry seals and so forth. We

[3:50:41] started the slurry rotation. Our our

[3:50:43] slurry seal rotation is every eight

[3:50:45] years. It started back in 2003

[3:50:49] and the recommendations in the state of

[3:50:51] the street was after three slurry sills

[3:50:54] it the road needs a milllay. And we are

[3:50:58] currently starting our fourth uh

[3:51:00] rotation.

[3:51:01] >> Wow.

[3:51:04] >> I'm just curious the cost the

[3:51:05] inflationary cost from year to year by

[3:51:07] not doing it. I mean is the cost

[3:51:10] obviously goes up

[3:51:12] >> compounding 5% probably on average a

[3:51:15] year,

[3:51:16] right?

[3:51:18] We feel like this is not too aggressive

[3:51:21] but it's responsible.

[3:51:23] Um, and it's something that we cannot uh

[3:51:27] not address.

[3:51:29] We need to be progressive and take care

[3:51:32] of it.

[3:51:33] >> Have asphalt prices jumped?

[3:51:37] » They uh I believe they jumped last year

[3:51:40] by about $20. They were we were paying

[3:51:43] 50 and it jumped to 72. Depends on what

[3:51:46] mix you're getting.

[3:51:49] We're small enough that we can't

[3:51:51] actually unless we're doing a big job,

[3:51:53] we have to take what they're they're

[3:51:54] making at Geneva

[3:51:58] 7.

[3:52:01] » I guess you want to give the the

[3:52:03] timeline of approval process from here

[3:52:07] mind the council of that.

[3:52:08] >> Right. So, we need to adopt a resolution

[3:52:11] and ordinance that adopts the

[3:52:13] transportation utility fund in the city

[3:52:15] of ORM. We're working with legal on on

[3:52:18] preparing that right now. Um we feel

[3:52:20] like we have a pretty robust plan in

[3:52:22] place to address asphalt and concrete.

[3:52:24] So I think that's in place. We've

[3:52:26] checked the majority of the check boxes

[3:52:28] with the exception of the resolution and

[3:52:31] knowing the targeted amount to do. And

[3:52:34] uh and then we're also waiting on uh

[3:52:37] finishing the UVU traffic study that's

[3:52:40] uh started out and they uh it might be

[3:52:43] windy. So, it's right on the cusp of

[3:52:45] getting that finalized so we can tweak

[3:52:47] the rates.

[3:52:49] [clears throat]

[3:52:52] » All right, Kelsey, do you have any

[3:52:54] questions?

[3:52:58] >> Thank you.

[3:52:59] >> Great.

[3:53:00] >> Thank you.

[3:53:03] » All right. So,

[3:53:07] thank you all.

[3:53:09] Just a reminder that tomorrow we have a

[3:53:11] birthday party over in the park at 6.

[3:53:14] is opening the farmers market and

[3:53:18] seventh birthday

[3:53:20] >> and our neighbor is going to be there

[3:53:22] giving out.

[3:53:24] >> So, um

[3:53:26] Steve, do we need a motion to adjourn?

[3:53:28] >> Yes.

[3:53:29] >> Okay, we need a motion to adjurnn.

[3:53:31] >> We have a motion. Second. All those in

[3:53:33] favor. We're see you tomorrow.

[3:53:40] That was

Orem City Council | 5.5.2026

Transcript