City Council · 2020-06-30

Potential spread of COVID-19 and as authorized by Utah Governor Gary Herbert's March 18th, 2020 executive order, the Orem City Council meeting on June 30th, 2020 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no public access to the Orem City Council chambers. Those desiring to view or participate in the meeting must do so electronically. Those wishing to make comments should submit them through oram.org/comments or citycouncilpubliccomments@oram.org. Comments will be accepted before and during the meeting. All comments received will be read into the record during the live meeting. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed to additional comments. The live meeting event may be streamed at orem.org/meetings. Thank you for your cooperation during these challenging times. We'll now go ahead and begin our work session. We start off first of all with a presentation on annual open meeting ethics and land use training, 30 minutes, and Greg Stevens is our presenter. Greg, we will turn it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor. I am going to share my screen with you now.

Okay.

So the State of Utah requires us to do an annual Open and Public Meetings Act training, and IRMA requires us to do an annual ethics, conflict of interest, and land use training. So our goal tonight is to hit all of those trainings, and feel free to interrupt if you have any questions. I'll be doing the open meetings and the ethics trainings, and then Steve Earle will be doing the land use training. So generally, the policy behind the Open Meetings Act is that We're doing the public's business, so everything we need to do, everything we do is going to be open and transparent. There's a question of what constitutes a meeting. Basically, anytime we have 4 or more council members who gather together to discuss city business, we have a meeting. That includes the workshops, executive sessions, site visits, and traveling tours. There are a couple of exceptions. Chance gatherings, for example, if 4 of you happen to get together or randomly meet at Costco, that would not constitute a meeting. Social gatherings such as a city council Christmas party, that wouldn't constitute a meeting either. So the general rule is all meetings are open to the public. There are exceptions when we move to a— or adjourn to a closed meeting. To do so, we have to be in an open, regularly scheduled meeting. We have to have a quorum present. 2/3 of the council members present have to vote to adjourn to a closed meeting. And then this information has to be included in the motion or announced.

Thank you.

The reason for holding the closed meeting and the location of the closed meeting. And then we have to keep track of the vote by each council member. In certain situations, like if you adjourn to a closed meeting tonight, the location of the closed meeting would just be to meet electronically.

Great.

The reasons that we can have a closed meeting, and some of these you'll recognize, some of these we've never used: to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; certain types of strategy sessions— commonly we do this for pending or reasonably imminent litigation— or for the purchase or sale of real property. The idea is that on these property discussions A public discussion would prevent the city from completing the transaction on the best terms possible, so that's why it's justified to go into a closed meeting. Other reasons: security deployment, investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. The one important thing to remember on closed meetings is that We should only be discussing the item that we adjourned to the closed meeting for. Sometimes there may be a temptation to start talking about other city business. We just need to make sure that we limit all discussion to just the one topic or two topics, whatever the case may be, that we adjourned for. There are certain things that we cannot use the closed meeting for. For instance, things that are not listed as allowable uses of closed meetings, to approve an ordinance, resolution, or basically anything that requires formal action, to interview a person to fill an elected position, to discuss filling a midterm vacancy, and to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of a person applying to fill a midterm vacancy. Sometimes during the public comment portion of the meeting, someone will bring up a topic that is not on the agenda. According to state law, it's okay to talk about that, to discuss it, but the council can't take final action on it at that time. Electronic messages— basically, it's not a violation of the Open and Public Meetings Act if the council communicates with each other Through electronic communication. A couple caveats to that: council members should not be sending electronic messages back and forth to each other during a council meeting. That would keep all deliberations from being open. And just remember that any communications that you have with each other may be subject to GRAMA. Now, I'd also suggest not deleting any of those types of messages. Electronic meetings— this is where it gets interesting, and this is where we have done things this year that we have never done before. Initially, we did it pursuant to Governor Herbert's executive order on March 18th, then more recently on June 25th, The Governor Herbert signed HB 5002, which outlines some provisions for when we can have an electronic meeting in ways that were not previously allowed by the act. So if you look at this first requirement with the asterisk, it says at least one council member shall be present at the anchor location. That's what the law used to say. But because of the executive order and because of HB 5002, there are situations when an anchor location is not required. For instance, what we're doing tonight. Another normal requirement would be we have to provide space and facilities at the anchor location for the public to attend and monitor the meeting and to make comments during the meeting. The change for that is We have to provide a means for the public to monitor the meeting and to make comments electronically. And some of the other provisions— the mayor just makes sure that everyone's understanding what's going on and is participating, and everyone is clear on what they're voting on before the vote. Here are some of the provisions of HB 5002. When we were using the Governor's executive order, he basically said as long as the emergency was in effect, we could waive some of those requirements of the Open Meetings Act. This new legislation actually requires Mayor Brunson to make a written determination before we have these kinds of meetings. He has to determine that the meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk. To the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location, he has to state the facts that he's basing that determination on. When he reads at the beginning of the meeting information about the meeting, he'll have that type of information about why we're holding the meeting this way, and our public notice will also have that information. And just so you know, Mayor Brunst did sign. a document determining that it would be appropriate for us to hold a public meeting without an anchor location. So he's done that for this meeting, and it would also apply, if necessary, to our meeting in July.

And Greg, maybe one comment there. I believe that's only good for 30 days until we determine again. Is that correct?

That's correct. So the determination that you signed will be good for this meeting. It would also be good for our meeting in July. But beyond that, we— you would have to sign another determination.

I have a question. It says determining it based on facts. Is that related to our county numbers of COVID or what kind of justification facts do you have to put in that document?

Well, you know, in our future ones we might put in more facts, but this one, because we had such short notice, we kind of threw one together real quickly. But I think the main thing that we're basing it on is the state's determination that we should engage in social distancing, and we can't control how many people might show up to a council meeting, and we can't guarantee at this time that we can maintain social distancing with the public, with each other, even the council members. If you're all up there on the dais, we can't really keep you social distanced. So right now we're basing it on the inability to social distance.

Thank you.

Okay, some of the notice requirements for our meetings. You may recall we usually have an annual notice that has the meeting schedule for the entire year. In addition to that, we provide 24 hours notice of each meeting, and we also have certain public hearings that have additional noticing requirements. Emergency meetings. This isn't to be confused with meetings that occur during a declared emergency. So all of the meetings that we've been having during COVID are not technically emergency meetings. We've been noticing them like regular meetings. An emergency meeting would be a situation where something happens that requires council action that we can't get out the regular 24-hour notice. That's something that would be very, very rare. Rules of conduct: with a two-thirds vote, the council can expel any person who is disorderly from the meeting. That actually includes fellow council members. And roll call votes: certain times when we have to do a roll call, and I think Mayor Brunson is very good about following these. any ordinance, any resolution, any action which could create a liability against the city, for instance, a contractual liability, or any councilmember could request a roll call vote on any item.

Greg, according to your meme there, we can vote with a yahoo?

Actually, yes. I mean, usually it is the ayes and the nays, but the whoot-hollers and yeehaws, those would be all great. As long as the city recorder can determine what you are trying to do. So I'm going to move on to ethics unless there are any questions about open meetings.

No question, but I did want the council to know that I'm on.

Good to have you on, Tom.

Welcome. So basically, state law has certain prohibitions and also certain things that you're supposed to disclose. And these things that I'm going to talk about apply not just to council members but to all city employees. So first of all, there are 3 things that are prohibited by state law: improper use of information, improper use of position, and improper acceptance of gift. Here's the information. Basically, if you receive information just because you're a councilmember, there's no other source for getting the information, and you use that information to further your personal economic interest or to get special privileges for yourself, that would be a violation of the law. You know, an example of that, you know, just a far-flung possibility that would probably never happen, but let's just assume that someone announced that there was a temple coming to Orem, and you as a council member knew what the location of that temple was going to be, and you told your brother-in-law about that so your brother-in-law could scoop up some property that was in the vicinity of that temple, that would be a clear violation of the Ethics Act. Another thing would be improper use of position. So if you use your position as a mayor or city council member to further your personal economic interest or to secure special privileges for yourself, that would be a violation of the Act. The gift section is a little bit more complicated, but basically it prohibits you from accepting any gift of substantial value or of substantial economic benefit if receiving that gift or benefit would tend to improperly influence you, or a person would think it would tend to improperly influence you. There are some specific exemptions to that. Uh, if you have a non-pecuniary gift having a value of less than $50, if you receive a reward that's publicly presented, if you receive a bona fide loan, or a political campaign contribution. None of those would constitute gifts that violate the Act.

Greg, I think Jeff's got a question.

Okay.

So yeah, just so someone invites you to lunch and they pay for the lunch. As long as it's not more than $50, I guess the question being, is that an okay thing?

Or—

Yes. So according to state law, if it's less than $50, that's the safe harbor and won't be technically a violation of state law. I would suggest in some situations to maybe go beyond what state law requires just to protect yourself. So if it was someone taking you to lunch and it was obvious that the sole reason they were taking you to lunch was to try to influence you to vote a certain way as a city council member or to enact a certain policy as a council member, I would suggest just paying for the lunch yourself. It's just not worth the appearance of Potential impropriety, right? But technically, according to the law, if it's less than $50, you're, you're okay. Okay, state law also requires certain things to be disclosed. Uh, this first one, if you receive compensation for assisting someone with the transaction involving the city, I I agree you need to disclose it, but I would say as a council member and probably even as a city employee, I can't think of a way that this wouldn't be unethical if you followed through on that. Another one is, is the more common one. If you're an officer or owner or employee of a business regulated by the city, that could be almost anything. I mean, a business That has a business license is a business that's regulated by the city. So on something like this, I would suggest just to overdisclose if you have any doubt. It's not that difficult. All of these disclosure forms are available from the city recorder. They take just a minute to fill out. So I would suggest again, if there's any doubt, just fill out the form and disclose it. You're at If you have an interest in a business that does business with the city or anticipates doing business with the city, that needs to be disclosed. And then also there's a catch-all. If you have a personal interest or investment which creates a conflict between your personal interests and your public duties, that has to be disclosed. And then also, if anytime any of these issues were disclosed at a public meeting, you should disclose that conflict at the meeting. I think Brent had a comment.

Yes, I was wondering, Greg, it seemed like in the past you've given all the council members a form even though there was no conflict just to fill out to have on record that you had no conflict at that time. I don't think I've seen that for a while. Is that something that we need to do, or—

No, I don't know that you need to do it just to say you don't have one, but again, I would be perhaps over-inclusive in what you put in the disclosure form. You know, let's say you are an employee of UVU. Well, you could say that that's not necessarily a business regulated by the city, but it wouldn't hurt to disclose that. Or if you have a commercial property in the city, you may want to disclose that information just so that nobody could come back later and say, hey, you know, you never disclosed that, and we think that created a conflict with X action that the council considered.

And, and that's the kind of form that Brett refers to that we did disclose all that previously. those type of things.

Yes, the only thing I would suggest is if you've done it previously, I noticed that I was checking on my personal disclosure forms and I had submitted many of them over the year, but there was a time when, before Jody was city recorder, that all of the old disclosures were purged. And so I found myself not having disclosed, or at least not officially having disclosed some of the things that I had disclosed and I had to resubmit the form. So you, you just might want to check and make sure that what you think has been disclosed has been disclosed.

Maybe it'd be a good idea—

Go ahead, Brent.

I was just saying maybe it'd be a good idea to just email that form to us so we can just fill it out in case there's any questions so we can look at it.

That's probably a good idea. I don't know if Jody's on this call or not.

Okay, okay, thank you.

So we have those state law provisions. We also have a city ordinance that's actually stricter than state law. It says if you have to take action on any matter that involves your direct financial or personal interest, and it's reasonably foreseeable that that decision will have an individualized material effect on your interest, you need to both disclose the conflict and disqualify yourself from deciding on the matter. Sometimes we have questions on what that actually means. Let me give you a couple of examples where I think it would not apply and where it would apply. Let's say the council was considering some amendments to the R-8 zone. And there are probably several council members that actually live in the R-8 zone. However, because so many people in the city live in an R-8 zone, it would be hard to say that that really affected your personal financial or Or direct financial or personal interest. However, if the City Council was considering a specific rezone for a piece of property that you own, then that would be your direct financial or personal interest, and it would be something that should be disclosed, and you should recuse yourself. Here are some of the things that can happen for violations of these ethics laws. You can be criminally prosecuted, removed from office, and any improper contract or transaction can be voided. I've kind of put together this chart for the type of action, when disclosure is required, when recusal is required. What's interesting is that On those state law disclosures, technically you don't have to recuse yourself if you made the disclosure. I would personally recommend that you do so anyway, especially since under the city ordinance, if it's also a violation of the city ordinance, you will have to recuse yourself. Any questions on any of these provisions?

Greg?

Yes. A while ago, an ethics committee was formed with various personnel throughout the county. Is that still in practice or still in effect?

Yes, it is. Still, to my knowledge, they've never received a complaint, but that committee does still exist. Okay, that would be for claims of ethics violations against the council member or the city manager.

Okay, thank you. I know that was done several years ago and I haven't heard much. That's good.

We just have— luckily we haven't had any complaints. Okay, well, with that, I'm going to quit sharing my screen and I'm going to turn the time over to Steve Earle to talk about Thank you, Greg.

Hello, Council.

I'm assuming you can all hear and see me okay. As Greg mentioned, I want to do a little bit of training on land use. Some of this is training that I typically do for the Planning Commission, and some of it carries over to you, although not, not all of it. But a couple of points that I wanted to discuss with you is, is the types of actions that you take as City Council. And we kind of separate those into 2 primary categories, one being acting in a legislative capacity, which typically refers to when you are making laws passing ordinances, making text amendments to the codes, even applies to when you are rezoning property and things like that. Those are all considered legislative acts. And why we are concerned about that is, you know, any action that the city council takes can potentially be challenged by somebody who doesn't like the action or who is aggrieved by it. And The reason that it's important to know what capacity you're acting is because there's a different standard of review that applies to when the courts look at what you've done. So when you're acting in a legislative capacity, the standard is that court's going to uphold what you've done if it's reasonably debatable that what you've done is in the best interest of the of the public. And that's a very low standard or very easy standard to meet. The only way that that typically doesn't get met is if it's so arbitrary and capricious what you've done that basically nobody could even argue that the action you've taken is in the best interest of the public. That virtually almost never happens. But the second kind of action is where the challenges sometimes come up, and that's when the council or the Planning Commission acts in an administrative capacity. So as opposed to enacting laws, when you act in an administrative capacity, you're basically applying laws that you've already passed to a specific situation or a specific application that comes before you or comes before the Planning Commission. And the common examples are For example, when the planning commission considers site plans or preliminary plats or plat amendments and things like that. So what that means is when somebody, for example, somebody comes in with a site plan, they want to build a certain building on a certain piece of property or have a certain kind of a use. The planning commission just basically is looking at whether what they're proposing meets the ordinances that have already been passed by the city council. It might be in terms of, you know, is the zoning correct? Is the building height correct? Is the area correct? The use correct? If all that complies with the existing ordinances, then the Planning Commission is required to approve that application. Now that's important because they, they just have no discretion basically when they have that kind of an application comes before them. And sometimes that means that they end up approving things that maybe neighbors don't like. Or even they don't like themselves. But really, when that happens, their hands are tied because the city council has previously acted in passing the law and they are just applying the law. Now, the council rarely has to approve a site plan or a preliminary plat, although that does happen occasionally. But the same standard would apply to the council when that kind of an application comes before you. In other words, when that administrative application comes to you, that is not the time to make legislative decisions about whether this is a good idea or something you really want to see happen. That's the time to simply apply the law that's already been enacted. A kind of a hybrid situation is, is one dealing with the approval of conditional use permits. And coincidentally, you happen to have an application for a conditional use permit coming before you this evening. So this is actually quite timely. And you may know that conditional use is defined as a land use that, because of its unique characteristics or potential impact on the municipality, surrounding neighbors, or adjacent land uses, may not be compatible in some areas or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the detrimental impacts. This is an area where cities often get sued when they deny conditional use permit. In fact, it's probably one of the most common reasons that cities get sued in the context of land use decisions. And the reason they get sued typically is because an applicant who is aggrieved says that they didn't— the council didn't follow the right standard, or they didn't make the right findings, or they applied the law incorrectly. Utah law is very specific and limits the city council's discretion on what you can do with a conditional use permit application. Utah Code Section 10-9A-507 says that a land use authority shall approve a conditional use if reasonable conditions are proposed or can be imposed To mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in accordance with applicable standards. So note, note the, the language there that you shall approve a conditional use if those conditions are met. So when a conditional use— somebody comes before you requesting a conditional use, you do not have the kind of discretion you have in the legislative context to simply deny it if you don't like it or approve it if you do. You have to follow in that situation certain standards that Utah law has outlined. And specifically, that is if they— well, let me back up to that language. Well, let me say that if you want to deny or you don't like an application for conditional use under Utah law, you basically have to find that there are negative impacts or detrimental impacts that are shown by facts in the record and supported by substantial evidence. And you have to also show that those negative impacts cannot be reasonably mitigated. And if they can be reasonably mitigated, then again, you're obligated to approve the application.

So Steve, a question for you.

Yes.

So in relationship to what we will consider this evening in our City Council meeting, the Planning Commission outlined a number of items that should take place with this conditional use permit, which makes the use applicable for the neighborhood and viable. And So it appears that the Planning Commission has outlined what needs to happen, which they find acceptable and can in fact happen with this property.

So, Mayor, if I—

Correctly.

Well, yeah, let me— so the Planning Commission is the first level of review. They're not the final word. You're still the final—

I understand that. I'm just talking about what they outlined.

Yeah, so what they've done is they've proposed a set of conditions that they believe will reasonably or adequately mitigate the negative impacts that this particular use would have. Now, you are not necessarily bound by what they have recommended, obviously. But if you were to say you didn't like this for some reason and you wanted to deny it, what you would need to do under the standards that are set forth in Utah law, you'd have to say You know what, there are negative impacts associated with this proposed use on this particular piece of property that cannot be adequately mitigated even with those conditions that the Planning Commission has suggested, or maybe some, even with some additional conditions that the City Council might be able to come up with. And therefore, you know, that would be a justification to deny it. But absent that, there's really no discretion to deny. That's the standard that you have to meet to deny an application for a conditional use permit.

Brent, do you have a comment?

Yeah, it sounds like we're getting set up here, but Steve, the thing is you've got 7 council members that have different experiences and different viewpoints than the Planning Commission. Now, if we can't put our input and suggestions in, why does it even come to the City Council?

Well, I think that's exactly what I said, is you're not bound by what the Planning Commission recommended or what they found. That was their opinion. That was their findings. You may disagree with that.

You may—

Okay.

If there are facts in the record that suggest that those conditions that they suggested are not adequate to mitigate the negative impacts and that you can't or nobody can come up with a set of conditions that can reasonably mitigate the negative impacts, then again, that would still be grounds to deny the application. But, and, you know, this is what I was coming to later on, those— that conclusion has to be supported by facts in the record that basically constitute substantial evidence supporting that finding. And it can't be just generalized fears or speculation. It has to be actual facts that are supported in the record that justify those conclusions.

What record are you talking about?

When I say the record, I mean sort of like the record is like the minutes of the city council meeting. What evidence was produced in the city council? What findings were made? What conclusions were made that are supported by the facts at the city council meeting?

Because even—

Let me give you an example if I can. So let's say that there might be a concern about traffic. I mean, this is something that was discussed in the Planning Commission meeting. And there may be a concern that, or even, you know, generally with conditional use permits, that's, that's often a concern that is raised, that this is going to generate too much traffic, or perhaps it's going to, you know, affect the safety of the children in the neighborhood or something like that. Those are generalized concerns, speculative concerns, if you will, that, that aren't considered facts that would support a finding that the traffic impact is too great. A fact would be something like, okay, well, we have done traffic counts, we have done a traffic study that show how many vehicular trips this particular use is going to generate. And we know here's what the capacity of the existing street is. This is how many trips are currently on that street, and that the number of trips, traffic trips, that this particular use is going to generate is, you know, going to overburden the road. Or, you know, the traffic engineer suggests that it's going to create unsafe traffic conditions. Those would be facts that would support a conclusion. What would not support it, again, would be, say, a neighbor that comes out and says, you know, hey, this is going to create too much traffic. This is, you know, our children are going to be unsafe. This is going to devalue our properties. You know, again, unless they have got some specific actual evidence that it's going to devalue their properties, just making a generalized statement that it's going to does not constitute sufficient facts.

Well, I think it's— I think facts is pretty broad. I mean, I I think that's a pretty broad statement, Steven.

Well, I'm just telling you, I'm just telling you what the law is. And I wanted to give— if we have time, give you kind of a case study or a case example of something that happened in the city of Moab back in 2017. So there was a situation there where a property owner, a residential property owner, they were in what was designated the R-2 zone under the Moab ordinances. Which under that zone, residents— residential dwellings were allowed as well as some limited commercial uses. And in that particular zone, a bed and breakfast was listed as a conditional use. So this particular resident came into the Moab City Council, applied for a conditional use permit to do a bed and breakfast. So what happened was they had a hearing before the Planning Commission, they had a hearing before the City Council. And basically the neighbors came out and they said, hey, we don't like this because we think this is going to generate a lot of traffic. It's going to generate a lot of noise with people. We're worried that, you know, these bed and breakfast people will come in with their ATVs and their, you know, off-road vehicles, and it's going to create a parking problem. It's going to create, you know, an incompatibility with the neighborhood. So those were all generalized concerns and not what, you know, they're basically concerns that you would expect in a situation like that. So with regard to the traffic, the staff had done a study with regard to what kind of traffic impact that bed and breakfast use was expected to have, and they determined that it was expected to generate about 9 traffic trips per day, which was actually less than the 10 to 12 trips that were expected to be generated by a typical single-family residential home. And so the council ended up denying that application by a 3-to-1 vote. And there were 3 council members who voted against it stated different reasons. The first one said that she thought that allowing a bed and breakfast in that the R-2 zone was contrary to the Moab General Plan. Which, because the general plan stated that one of the goals of the city was to restrict commercial development in the residential zone. Well, the court looking at that said, well, yeah, but that doesn't really make sense because, you know, the ordinance already says that a bed and breakfast is a conditional use in that zone. So how is that contrary to the general plan? It just doesn't really make sense. Another council member expressed concern about the character of the town expressed concern that, you know, the residents were worried about the tourism trade taking over the city. And the third councilmember that voted against it basically said, hey, we need to listen to the people in the neighborhood and basically follow what they want. Since the neighbors don't want it, you know, they said we're going to vote— I'm going to vote against it. So the court, when they looked at the reasons that were given for denying the conditional use permit, they said Okay, we understand these reasons that were given, but none of these 3 council members talked about what the actual adverse impacts were that were going to be created by this bed and breakfast. And they didn't talk about whether those adverse impacts could be mitigated by conditions. And, and so they basically said, you know what, none of those reasons that were offered hold up under scrutiny and because they're not supported by the facts. They were just basically generalized concerns. They weren't substantiated. And again, the difference between evaluating a conditional use permit as opposed to, say, doing a rezone, your discretion under state law is just less under this situation. You're not legally allowed to just do whatever you want like you are in most zoning type of situations. You have to follow the criteria that state law has set down. for approving or denying that conditional use permit. So basically the court said, you know, try again. They sent the case back down to the city council to try and come up with a set of articulable facts that they could support that there were actually detrimental impacts and to just determine whether they could be mitigated by establishment of conditions.

So if I may, if I could ask—

sorry, I interrupted you there, Steve. I thought you'd hit a period. So a few weeks back, maybe a few months back, we just— we discussed a project on Center Street and 10th East where there was a desire to have twin homes. So that was a change in zone. Yes, that's a different thing because it wasn't a permitted use. And we said no, we don't think the zone should be changed, or at least the majority said, no, I don't think the zone should be changed. That's different than what you're explaining. If they had said, hey, we want to build red houses there, and I said I only like blue houses, they could tell me to pound sand. I can't control that. But I can, as a group, collectively, we can change it. We could stop the change of a zone.

Is that correct?

Is that—

That's absolutely correct, because again, the decision whether or not to rezone property is a legislative decision where you have very, very broad discretion. You can basically decide to vote against an application to do that basically just because you don't like it or you don't think it makes sense there. You don't have to come up with the same degree of factual findings that you would in denying a conditional use permit.

Part of the reason—

So there's a huge luxury on the issue today is what you're suggesting?

That's correct. And part of the reason is because the decision is already— the legislative decision has already been made that this type of a use is a conditional use in this zone. You know, if you look in our Appendix A, you'll see a whole list of different uses there that are listed either as N for not permitted, P for permitted, or C for conditional. And again, with a conditional use, the discretion is really quite limited. And because that's the case, many years ago We made a very conscious effort to go in and take out as many of those conditional uses as we could and just decide whether they ought to be permitted or non-permitted. Just because, you know, they're inherent, the conditional use permit applications are just inherently difficult to handle because, you know, you're always gonna get, or you're often gonna get neighborhood opposition that makes it difficult to, you know, make a decision just straight on the facts. So, uh, I guess I just had a couple takeaways from that Moab example, if I can. And I'll just be quick on this. You know, if the Moab City Council didn't want bed and breakfasts in their R-2 zones, then what they should have done is change their land use code to make those uses not permitted in that zone and not to have left them as conditional use. And again, in order to justify denying a conditional use permit in that situation, they've got to show that there are negative impacts supported by the facts in the record that cannot be adequately or reasonably mitigated by imposition of conditions. And then thirdly, I guess, generalized fears, and I've stated this I guess a few times, but generalized fears and concerns unsupported by actual facts are not sufficient To deny a conditional use permit.

So Steve, yeah, I don't want to belabor it, but I thought it interesting that one of the council members who voted against it didn't like it because they thought it would increase tourism in Moab. I thought that pretty interesting.

Well, yeah, it was more that they didn't— the locals didn't want the tourism industry to be taking over, you know, the local residents essentially. Well, yeah, I'm sure that that's a— that's a— there's competing interests there.

Yep.

So Steve, I have a question related to like parking. Is staggered having people come at different times, is that considered a reasonable accommodation? Let's say we're concerned with the number of cars at a daycare, and if they have some people come at certain times, and maybe we don't think that they're actually going to do that, or that'd be hard to enforce, but if they say they're going to do that, is that considered reasonable enough to believe that they would minimize that? I guess I'm trying to understand. They can say something and try to fix the problem that we're concerned about, but we may not be able to enforce it. We're not going to send our police, but is that enough to mitigate the problem if they say they'll do that?

Yeah, yeah, it's not just a matter of them saying that they'll do that. It's, it's actually imposing a condition requiring them to do that that is what matters. So if you can impose a condition on them in connection with the permit, and that, and if complied with, that would mitigate the negative impact, then I think that was your question.

If that—

Yeah, well, I'm just wondering if we, they can say it. I'm worried about the enforcement. I mean, how are we, are we gonna double-check on it at some point?

You know, it's like everything else, you know, that we have in our zoning ordinance, that they're all subject to the same concern about, you know, the difficulty enforcing things. We typically enforce these things on a complaint basis. So if there were complaints that were generated, but that they weren't complying, then yeah, we would typically send out neighborhood preservation officers to look into that and, and to either require compliance or, you know, if they were chronic violators, then their conditional use permit could be revoked.

Okay.

But if they make accommodation and tell us they're going to do this, then we have to take them at their word. Is that, is that right?

Essentially, that's right.

Okay.

So have you ever revoked one?

To my knowledge, I don't know. Since I've been here, I don't know that we have ever had to revoke one. I'm not aware of any where we have.

That goes back to the enforcement. You don't enforce them.

Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure that we've had a whole lot of complaints that people weren't complying with the terms of their conditional use permits. I can't really think of a conditional use permit we have out there where we've had significant complaints, quite honestly.

Okay, why don't we go ahead and move on? And appreciate it, Steve and Greg. And okay, thank you for your presentation. We'll now move on to fraud risk assessment, and our presenter is Brandon Nelson.

All right.

Can you guys hear me all right? Oh, we got to unmute me.

All right.

Now can you hear me all right?

Yes.

Great.

Okay.

Let me start with kind of giving you a little background in relation to this assessment. Originally, this assessment was produced by the State Auditor's Office for small local governments, special districts, and other smaller entities as a way for those boards and commissions, et cetera, and city councils for that matter, to be able to know what kinds of things should my entity be doing to stop fraud or at least be able to have some idea of how to address and/or, you know, see if fraud is occurring or find it potentially. And so they produced an assessment for those groups. After a few years, the State Auditor said, you know, I think it would be a great idea if we took this assessment and we made it a little bit broad— bigger, and we broadened it to all entities so that they have a way to talk to their boards about the things that they do to try to alleviate those potential fraud elements. So that's where we've come to today, and this is the first year that the State Auditor has required that we show you this fraud risk assessment and go over it with you, this questionnaire. And supposedly each year from now on that will go on. Now the form itself may change, the point structure may change as time goes on, But this is where we are right now. From the state auditor, he says this assessment is a starting point. It is the hope of the office that local governments will add to and adapt to this form to improve how they manage their internal controls and the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. So again, that's just kind of give you an idea of why we are here. I'm going to just kind of touch on some of these. All of the items, you know, I've marked all the ones that I could find information kind of specifically related to that, either within our employee handbook or within city ordinance that specifically addresses those. So I've indicated those cases. Now I have the detailed information. I don't know that we necessarily necessarily need to go in that. If you have a question about any one of those in particular, I can kind of point you to where to find that. But that's the— for number 1, and number 1, page 2, that's what answers number 1 on this form, all of those things that are marked on page 2. So we meet all of those qualifications, we have all of those things in relation to basic separation of duties and controls. And so we meet that Category 1 item and we receive, if you will, the— and the other thing I want to talk about is these points. The State Auditor somewhat arbitrarily chose the point structure system in relation to this. So I think you will see over time that these are going to get refined because in our opinion some of these carry a higher weight than maybe we would have given them. So number 2, as I mentioned, almost all of those items are identified either in our employee handbook or city ordinance or in our accounting policies and procedures. And so we meet every one of those items. Item number 3 That is basically me. I am a CPA, so we qualify there as I am part of the management team. And do I have at least a bachelor's degree in accounting? And the answer is yes, I do. So 3A as well, we meet that. I'm going to skip 4 and 5 for a minute and touch on 6. Do I also have 40 hours of formal training in accounting? I am required as part of my CPA license. to do that as well. So we also meet that item. And as the mayor—

as—

and, uh, I think Brent Sumner has been serving on that audit committee for some time as well. Um, for number 9, we, we also have a formal audit committee that we, we meet each year with the audit and whenever we change auditors to, to go over that. So we meet that category. So I primarily want to touch on the 4 items that we have not marked Yes. So that you have some idea as to why they are not marked yes. Number 1— or number 4, sorry. Employees and elected officials are required to annually commit in writing to abide by statement of ethical behavior. Now, you just had a presentation from Mr. Stevens that discussed ethical behavior. We also have in our employee handbook, we have an item touching on ethical behavior, and we have a Sydney ordinance that also touches on ethical behavior. But this item specifically says annually commit in writing to abide. So by the strict written language used in number four, we fail that.

Condition.

However, in my opinion, we touch on all of those things. They exist. And so I think the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law may apply here. But I can't in good conscience mark that as a yes because we don't do that annually and don't do it in writing. Number 5, have all the board members completed the state auditor online training at least once in the last 4 years. The state auditor created a training to— for each board member to potentially go in and be able to learn about, in essence, all things within the city related to finance. And that training takes approximately 1 hour. I'm not going to say that— I don't know if that training, how valuable that training is. I don't want to indicate that necessarily I believe that that is something you should or should not do. But just know that I don't believe that any of you guys have done that. I can certainly provide you with the login. to— or the place, sorry, the website to be able to do that. But keep in mind, it's have all of the board members complete it. So if I— again, I'm following the language strictly, it would mean that all of you would have to complete that in order to meet— get a yes in that category. So I leave that out there. Number 7, does the entity have or promote a fraud hotline? We do not, as a city, have any kind of fraud hotline. Certainly anybody who has any concerns would undoubtedly call someone here, probably the mayor, probably many of you as the city council, maybe the city manager, maybe even myself. However, it's not— It's not a fraud hotline. We don't specifically have it, and we don't— certainly don't promote it. And in the language used by the State Auditor, promote means, you know, that's on our website, there's a place that they can go and they can do that. Now, keep in mind the hotline, and let's see if I can find the language that they use. It says a hotline is a means by which the public and employees can anonymously Report concerns about improper behavior of an entity's officers or employees or concerning practices of the entity. So in many cases, yes, you may we may be able to put something up on our website by our IT staff. But can we make it anonymous? There are companies I've looked at a couple. For instance, I looked at URS, and URS uses a company whereby. You can submit an anonymous item to this company, and then this company scrubs that and then sends it. So therefore, it's not— they know who it is, but you do not. The people receiving that at URS do not know. All they know is that you have this complaint, and then that whoever that is sent to is then tasked with following up on that complaint. So that's a possibility. There is a possibility we could create our own hotline. I believe Provo— I looked at Provo's, for instance, and Provo has one. And I believe, from what I remember, when that is submitted, it goes to the members of their audit committee. So that's a possibility.

Whether that—

and the State Auditor's Office actually has a fraud, waste, and abuse hotline as well that we could even— that any citizen could use right now. And so, you know, I— whether or not we feel like we need to go that far as far as doing that, again, I don't believe so, but that might be more me saying that rather than how you you feel as a body. Number 8, does the entity have a formal internal audit function? So while we do internal auditing, we do not have a formal internal audit functioning. And the definition, let me give you an idea of state again, state auditor. So he says, Internal auditors are independent of the work they audit. So therefore, it can't be someone in the accounting department. It has to be separate from the accounting department, the finance department. And they may focus on financial operations, systems, processes, or compliance. As part of the internal audit plan, auditors try to find discrepancies. Between operational design and operational reality. So not everything an internal audit function does is related to finance. Sometimes they have a finance component, but that's not all they do. And then the last thing, or one of the other elements he puts in here, is most local governments can execute an effective internal audit program by contracting with an audit professional to work a few days a year. And just so you're aware, gosh, 10 years ago or so, maybe even slightly longer than that, when I first came, we did hire a third-party accounting firm to basically do an internal audit, and they reviewed various elements of our internal controls, our fixed assets, and various other things like that. So that is a possibility as well, you know, whether that be an a hired independent auditor that we hire in-house who does internal audit or whether we hire a third party to come and periodically do internal audit. We would then meet that particular category. That all said, as you can see with what we already do, the total points earned are 315, which puts us right on the edge of moderate and low. So whether you consider that an acceptable risk level or whether you would like to see that improve, that's somewhat in your ballpark in— as far as committing potentially. Some of these cost money. Others not— don't necessarily cost money. So anyway, that's the presentation as far as—

Thank you.

indicating to you where we stand in relation to this questionnaire related to the fraud risk. Are there any specific questions related to any of the items that I've discussed or anything on this assessment questionnaire?

Anyone from the council?

I just want to say it seems pretty easy to do an annual commitment in writing from us and certainly a 1-hour training over 4 years is not an unreasonable request. So 4 and 5, I don't think would take too much energy. Maybe we could have a few months to get them completed. That's just fine. That's just what I'm saying.

Just to kind of address— so number 4, I did speak to my contact with the State Auditor's Office, and he said, well, that one specifically says our employees, because I wanted to get some clarification as to, okay, does that mean like every employee? And he basically indicated no, it— you could make that be those who are managers. Let's say our division managers and executive staff, those people who are in that, that level, they could also sign on that commitment in writing as well as elected officials. And that would meet the— meet that qualification for getting points, if you will, for that number 4, just to give you an idea.

Okay, that doesn't seem too difficult. Thanks.

You bet.

Any other questions? All right, well, thank you, Brandon. Appreciate bringing us up to date on that fraud risk assessment.

You bet.

Thank you.

We'll now go to a discussion of city retention. As far as the schedule goes, Jody Bates, our city recorder, is our presenter. Jody, we'll turn the time over to you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. In your packet, you are provided with our next department that we are looking at for a retention schedule. This is the legal department. We're going to be doing this every city council. You'll have one in a discussion and one on consent. There's not a lot I can say. I just hope you had a chance to take a look at it, and if you've got any questions, please feel free to ask.

If not—

Yeah, well, that was a quick 5 minutes.

If not, it'll be on consent at the next City Council meeting.

Okay. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. Let's go ahead and move over to a discussion on neighborhood plan of Sunset Heights East, Sunset Heights West, Cherry Hill, and Lakeview neighborhood plans. And Jason Bench is our presenter, and Jason will turn the time over to you.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

So I have Grant in my office. Can you see my presentation as well?

We cannot.

Okay, hold on one second. Is that better?

No, we just see your name. All right, now we can see the City of Orem.

All right, thank you. Everyone, for being here. It was just a quick update, an overview of what we have done with the Sunset Heights East and West and Lakeview Cherry Hill neighborhood plans. These are our last 2 neighborhood plans that we're bringing forward to the council. And Grant is here. He's the one that's kind of spearheaded this process, and he's here to present kind of what we've gone through and what we've done to get to this point and tell you how we're going to move forward with Planning Commission, City Council review over the next month. So I'll turn the time over to Grant.

Okay.

Mayor and Council, this is Grant. I've got a few slides here just going to review the timeline, the process, and some examples. So we began historically, just a reminder kind of what a neighborhood plan is. It provides neighborhood details, demographics, pictures, and general information. at that small micro neighborhood level. It helps the local communities to influence planning in their neighborhood. It helps you and other city staff and leaders be informed about their, the residents' desires and about their neighborhoods. And then a major effort of this process has been to form a vision statement for the neighborhood and goals and, and other concerns. And obviously this can't solve all the issues that were identified through this process, but we're working with you, especially this year with this neighborhood plan goals efforts, to kind of identify stepping stones and small goals that we can achieve some of these efforts that these, these residents have come forward, not only through these 2 neighborhood groups— sorry, these 4 neighborhood groups, but all of the neighborhood plans of the last 5 years. So typically a neighborhood plan includes these, these following chapters: demographics, land use, transportation, economic development, public works, neighborhood preservation, and implementation. And usually what we've done is done a kickoff meeting where we invite the neighborhood to come out. And then at that meeting, we kind of discuss the process and then invite members that have come to that meeting to sign up for the advisory committee. So you see here, this began last September. We had our kickoff meeting and then we kind of followed off, off into those advisory committee meetings. One, one unique part of this process was we did get UVU Steve Anderson from UVU involved early on to come to a few of the meetings as Lakeview Cherry Hill— excuse me, Sunset Heights East and West— are directly, you know, in that area. So they were there present at more than one meeting. And we actually, different than other neighborhood planning process, we had Just a UVU presentation there right before the beginning of December. So this is kind of outlining all the meetings that we had and when they were, and then kind of due to the coronavirus, we took a little bit longer to get to our final meeting last week where we had a Zoom webinar neighborhood meeting. Any questions so far that I can answer?

From anyone?

Okay, keep going.

And then one of the great things I think that, that's, that was part of this process was early on, very early on, we got some feedback from the advisory committee requesting if we could record these meetings. We hadn't recorded them in the past, and so we quickly devised a way to do that. And so you can see here, what you see before you here is is on our orem.org/planning website. We had, right following, pretty quickly following a meeting, we had the notes that we put—

Grant, we're not seeing you change the screen, Grant. You may have it on the other dual monitor, but we're only still seeing the picture of Orem.

Let's see here.

Is it—

This one?

All we're seeing is a picture of Orem.

Let's see, do you see it now?

No.

Oh, let's see.

Nothing's changed.

Jason has so many screens. We'll try one more screen. There it is right there.

That's it.

That seems to be the right plan.

Okay, we are caught back up here.

Now you can—

I believe you can see this now, correct?

Why don't you start from the beginning, Grant?

Okay, I'm just—

we'll start right back over. Um, so, so there's the Sunnyside, East, West, Lakeview, and Cherry Hill. This is, like I said, just a review of what we've done in the past. Overall, the process of what a neighborhood plan process does and what it includes and why it's important. Um, so then I kind of went through the major chapters of the neighborhood plans. And then we've structured those neighborhood advisory committee meetings around each of these chapters, essentially. So we had, you know, land use, we did contact with the planning division, transportation chapter, we talked, we brought in UDOT, and then Paul Goodrich, before he retired, was at that meeting. We had an advisory committee meeting with Kenham. Matthews in November. And then, as I mentioned, we had UVU present because they're a major presence in, in the Sunset Heights East and West neighborhoods. And then we had our Neighborhood Preservation Unit present in January. We had a reprise from Public Works present. And then we had Kathy Lewis present in Economic Development. And then we had the City Manager's Office present in February. Then we added an additional meeting this time as well. We, in the past, we've kind of done a just a cursory review of the goals that they've formed through the process and the vision statements as they've gone on. So we decided this time in this process, it would be helpful for the advisory committee just to meet And just focus on that. And they kind of had a really, I think, a really fruitful discussion and in-depth discussion about, hey, what's the vision statement? What are these goals? What are the goals? What are the major priority goals? And, and then due to, as I mentioned before, due to coronavirus, we pushed kind of the neighborhood meeting back. And then we had that last week over Zoom as a webinar. And then we were planning on going to a public hearing, Planning Commission on the 15th, and then the 11th, August 11th City Council meeting. And then as I kind of—

right where we—

I'm starting back over catching up. So this was the example of the orem.org/planning website where this information was uploaded following the meeting and then also recordings. So we have— we started with the transportation meeting.

We got it.

We had just an audio recording. But after that, following that, we had all the other meetings recorded and uploaded to the city's YouTube website. So residents, the advisory committee, and anyone else was able to view that, kind of be apprised of what was discussed if they weren't able to attend. There was a large interest in that UVU meeting, and many, due to the timing of the meeting around the holidays, they— there was a large, really large interest in that one being recorded as well. So we just thought, hey, we should just record all of them. So, so that was available and still is for viewing and review. And typically a meeting format was There's also presentation slides. So if a presentation was given, we would have the presentation and then following the presentation, we would gather the groups together as the advisory committee and discuss goals around that topic. So as I mentioned, transportation, economic development. We had goals kind of in those notes from each of those meetings, those suggestions. Formed into goals, concerns formed into options or goals to try to take action on some concerns and some at the neighborhood level. So you can see some of these. This was from some of our meetings just showing I myself and our previous long-range planner Jenna would break off into these smaller neighborhood groups, Sunset Heights East and West and Lakeview and Cherry Hill. And kind of lead the discussion, but are be the scribes, I should say, for the discussion. But the residents really led the discussion and were really, really involved in informing those goals and the vision statements. So here you see the boundaries, and then just to cover the working draft that we have available now for both neighborhoods. Plans. And then we've got the kind of the vision statements, just wanted to show you those as well, that those have been finalized. Well, they were finalized at that meeting where we— March 5th meeting for each of the neighborhoods. And then, and usually in one of these, this is an example from the land use chapter for Sunset Heights East and West. There's kind of a city-scale, citywide view of land use designations, and then we drill that down to current zoning, land use, and the neighborhoods boundaries showing that. And then also included in that chapter would be the goals that were identified specific to land use for for that neighborhood. So these were the ones, for example, from Sunset Heights East and West for land use. And then there would be following a similar format for each of the other chapters. So demographic characteristics at the neighborhood level for the neighborhood, transportation, streets master plan in that area, and then goals for transportation, economic development, and so on. And one of the other parts that's been different, I think, with this process, since we're, we're on the last 2 neighborhood plans that we're adopting or hope to be adopted this year as kind of a conclusion of this 5-year process, we're at kind of a transition point where we're looking for an opportunity to say, hey, how can we make sure we monitor these goals effectively, work with you to target them as it's one of your focuses. So traditionally in the past, there was kind of this chart at the end that held the goals. And with the formation of this Neighborhood Plans Goals website this year, in coordination with your efforts, these last 2 plans are kind of shifting that focus to be this, you know, have this website be that living goals document for tracking these goals. for the neighborhoods. And so we've got those kind of reminder of what that looks like. And those goals are in those categories, those major 5 categories. And then a 6th kind of accomplished goals page where we can track kind of what, what the efforts have been to achieve these goals. These advisory committees, advisory committees from all of these plans from the last 5 years have tirelessly worked towards, spent extra time of their time coming to these meetings and really showing their passion for their neighborhood and their care for their neighborhood and for the City of Orem. And so just in conclusion, again, just we've got the public hearing July 15th and Planning Commission, City Council meeting August 11th. The working drafts are available for review on our orem.org/neighborhoodplanning Plans website, and we've got some comments from our meeting last week that we're going to tweak the plans a little bit. And then we're just waiting to get some final finalized up-to-date information from a couple departments to put in there. And I think we should have a draft ready for review following the planning commission. So any questions for from any of you?

This is Jeff. I have a question. Thank you for, for this information. If there were some citizens that weren't aware or weren't able to attend their neighborhood meeting, and you just mentioned that the, the information is on that website, Yes. Are they still able to go on and perhaps voice questions or concerns Or is there a better way for them to do that?

Most definitely. And also what we've made available is the Zoom meeting was recorded. And so if they weren't able to attend it, that same page, orem.org/neighborhoodplans, has a link to a YouTube recording of that meeting where I kind of go through a little more in depth what is in the plan. Similar kind of— some of the slides are similar from what I presented to you as far as the process and the time, you know, the meetings, etc. But yeah, they can go there, watch the recording, the drafts are there as well, and then we've got some information how they can reach out and submit comments on the plans. Most of the goals, because we spent so much time with the advisory committee developing those, we're welcoming extra, you know, concerns and comments, But most of the goals are pretty finalized in terms of those were formed with the advisory committee. But we're welcoming, yeah, definitely comments and feedback on those plans. If they, you know, as they live in those neighborhoods, they have a stake in voicing how they feel about the plan as well.

Awesome, thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other comments? Well, if not, we want to thank you, Grant, for Working on the neighborhood plan and appreciate your input, Jason. And we'll move on to an agenda preview. Excuse me.

Bless you.

Thank you. So for this evening, our invocation and our pledge are both going to be given by Debbie Luray, is that correct?

Debbie?

Okay, and then we'll have personal appearance time. We have 3 consent items. One, to approve the meeting minutes of the City Council meeting of June 16th, 2020. 2, to approve the assignment of Mayor Pro Tem to Councilmember Terry Peterson. And 3, a resolution approval of the City of Orem Recreation Department and Library Department retention schedule. Are all the council members okay with those 3 items? Okay, I'll take that as a yes. We'll move on to our scheduled items. The first one is a public hearing for an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2019-2020 budget. Brandon Nelson is our presenter. Brandon, any comments?

Oh, so there we go.

Got it.

Just that this will be, as mentioned, probably the first of many to come.

Sure, and hopefully everybody's read through it. Anyway, okay, appreciate that. The next is a resolution. I, I would like to Restate that, that it is not a public hearing. It is a resolution for a conditional use permit approval of the commercial daycare Smiling Faces located at 410 South Main Street in the R-8 zone. Our presenter is Jason Bench.

Jason. So, Mayor, thank you. This is, like you said, a conditional use. It's proposed to have 100 children with 8 employees. We'll go over the criteria during our presentation. The Planning Commission recommended approval with 7 conditions, which we'll review those as well. So of course, as we've learned, that the City Council can come up with other conditions if they so desire as we go through the process, but we'll present more at the meeting. Okay.

All right, thank you.

Jason, I have a question.

Sure, Debbie, go ahead.

When it says 100 kids, do we know how many families that represent? Because when I had children in daycare, I had 2 or 3 at a time. Is that 100 individual families, or is that just children?

I believe that's—

go ahead.

I don't think it's 100 families. I think in the Planning Commission meeting, he indicated that there are brothers and sisters that are part of the daycare process. So I don't think it's 100 families, but it is Does represent 100 children.

So did he give you the idea of 30, 40 families, did he say?

He did not. That's something you probably want to ask them, but it's probably, you know, maybe more than that. They're, you know, twos and threes, maybe brothers, sisters, but there's, you know, up to 100 children. So it could be—

Debbie, this is Terry. In the Planning Commission meeting, he said an average of about 2 children per family.

So that'd be about 50?

Yeah, that's what he said.

Okay, thank you.

So Jason, a question, is he going to be available as an applicant to be on our Zoom meeting?

Yes, he will be available as well as his transportation engineer that did the traffic study will also be online.

Okay, all right. I did notice, and I have a bunch of comments I want to bring up, but I did notice that he provided a list of his current clientele, which is 60 students and did show the timing of when those students came to the childcare facility. And I know one neighbor said, well, this is going to be a lot like Noah Webster, and it really isn't. Noah Webster has a set time that the students come to class, and the childcare has multiple times Throughout the morning when people are dropped off as their parents go to work. So it's very different.

He's been at his existing facility on State Street for about 3 years, which he can give you a background, but it's been working okay with those 70 kids with 10 total parking stalls there. So that's something that he could discuss as well.

And one question I have is he has about 14 parking stalls in this new facility. Do we have any requirements as to how many parking stalls he has to have?

So when the facility was constructed, that was the number that was done for the facility that was built. With this conditional use process, as you recall, in the section that outlines 13 conditions that they need to meet in order to even get to this point, one of those is it does allow visitors, it allows the teachers there or the owners actually park on the street that's in front of the facility. So those actually do count as part of that parking requirement. So the 13 offsite would be used for specifically dropping off the children. The teachers and others would park on the street in front of the facility.

Sure. So one of the neighbors— I'm sure we've all had calls and emails— but one of the neighbors said that Main Street was not wide enough and should not be used. But in fact, Main Street has a bike lane and a striped-off parking lane on the side, as does 4th South. So there is plenty of room for parking for staff out on the street, allowing that parking area between the 2 buildings to be used for drop-off and pickup.

Correct. We have a map that would show that as well.

Okay. All right. Let's go on to the next one, which is a resolution on an annexation petition. Is it Cache Park Addition?

It is.

Okay, 1526 South, 1250 West. And Jason, you're the presenter.

Yeah, they are simply as part of the state requirements. The city council has the obligation within 14 days of their application to actually accept the petition or deny the petition. So tonight is, is that portion where you're simply accepting the petition. If you do that, then it moves forward through the 30 days of acceptance through the city and the county, and then there's a 30-day protest period. And so it moves forward. This is just the beginning of the process.

Sure. Okay, and again, I want to bring up that as we go through the agenda, not every item is a public hearing. So this again is a resolution. So there'll be no public comment on it. The next one is also an ordinance but not a public hearing, and that is amending Section 23-4-87B and Section 23-2-1 of the Orem City Code to require certain developments to prevent the off-site discharge of precipitation from all rainfall events less than or equal to the 80th percentile rainfall event, and I believe this has been precipitated by a new state code. Chris Shirkey is the presenter. Chris, are you there?

Yes, I'm here.

Okay, any thoughts or comments?

Well, first of all, I'd like to say I really liked your pun. This has been precipitated by state changes, right? So, yes, comments? No, there's— this is pretty straightforward. This is Requirement in accordance with the new state law or state rule to require all new developments to retain stormwater equal to or less than the 80th percentile rain event. That's been determined to be a half an inch or 0.5 inches of rain. And so this is— this also allows for provisions for the developer to receive credits for onsite low-impact developments, improvements such as drainage swales, infiltration areas, and so forth where they can obtain credit. So I think this will be very straightforward. I don't anticipate many questions, but I'm prepared to answer.

Okay. Any questions or comments? All right, thanks, Chris. We'll move on. The next one also is a resolution approving the interlocal cooperation agreement between Utah County and the City of Orem for disbursement from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. And Jamie is our presenter.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. This is simply acknowledgement of the money that the county is looking to forward to us from the federal CARES Act. It's $6.978 million. As you know, we were working with the county to try and improve the interlocal cooperation agreement. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the amendments we were seeking after. And as a result, we are going to accept this interlocal agreement as drafted. and hope that we can continue in good faith to work with the county in the allocation of these dollars. There are a few concerns that we have with the agreement, specifically as related to the question of, well, what happens in the event we have an opportunity to receive additional CARES, or I guess you could say COVID-19 monies? Where does that— where is that money in relation to this money? There are, for example, there's a provision within this interlocal that potentially requires us to reimburse this CARES money if we receive money elsewhere. In addition to that, there's a termination clause that is very vague, as well as some auditing language in the agreement. That is not specific to the point where we truly understand by what standard we will be held to in the expenditure of this money. And so really, on the part of staff, our focus is on spending this money and allocating this money consistent with U.S. Department of Treasury guidelines that we have been receiving. And that are being updated. So that is the benchmark that we will meet, and we will continue to work with the county in obviously asserting that our intent is to spend this money consistent with the U.S. Department of Treasury guidelines. And tomorrow, once you set— once the mayor signs this agreement tomorrow, then we will, by wire transfer, get this $9.6 million— or $6.9 million.

And the resolution is to approve this agreement and to allow myself to sign the agreement?

Correct.

One thing I also wanted to mention is the timing of it has been moved up, so all this money has to be allocated and spent by the first week of November. Otherwise, it has to be returned to the county. So that's only 5 months. So, you know, we're looking at, I don't know, 20 weeks?

Yeah, we have 16 weeks, 4 months to get on this money. As I've represented to the mayor, we have a committee internally within the city already in place that is that has gotten and reached out to departments and sought specific COVID-related needs and improvements. In addition to that, we're working on everything from rental assistance, utility assistance, business assistance programs, and trying to develop criteria and work with agencies who can help us facilitate the distribution of these dollars.

I apologize, not 22 weeks, 16 weeks. So that's going to be really tight. Anything else, Jamie, that you have in regards to our agenda this evening?

Yeah, I do have a number of items, but Mayor, I'll be happy to go through them at your convenience.

So—

Okay. I mean, we You could take 10 minutes if you want, or we could do it this evening in our meeting.

I can take care of that in less than 10 minutes. Okay, just first of all, thank you to those who came out today and participated in our wall signing event at the new fitness center. I hope you have gained— are gaining an appreciation for the excitement that's building around this project. This is going to be a great, great facility. And appreciate your support in coming and touring the facility and seeing what the future holds for Yoram Family Fitness Center. We obviously have a skeleton of a building. We have a lot to do before the end of— or actually before the beginning of February next year. But we're really excited about that. Very appreciative of Ryan, Carl, and others who have been working on this nonstop for the last—

2 years.

Jamie, one quick question. The date on the pool opening.

So we continue to struggle with the pool. Ryan is on this call. He can maybe speak more to the specifics, but we are running into some concerns, I think, with some equipment. And I can't remember, Ryan, specifically what piece of equipment we're, we're struggling to get that will allow us to open.

Yeah, Jamie, there's a couple things that have come up in the last week.

The number one concern right now is the availability of a crane. They were scheduled to tilt the concrete walls into place last Wednesday, and the crane availability has not been there, and they currently are trying their best to get a crane there to get those walls installed. That right now is affecting schedule more than anything. And then we ran into some issues with the new pool equipment being connected into the new building. Apparently between the 2 different— the pool contractor and the mechanical team designing the building, there was a communication gap on who was supposed to design that final leg of connecting the Plumbing and power together. Plans were completed as of the 25th last week, and they're getting pricing on that right now. And we don't know how that will affect schedule, but it could affect a week or two. So we're hopeful the middle of August, but right now we're waiting on the crane and getting that equipment hooked up. Those are the 2 big delays.

For those of you that weren't able to attend today, if you would like to take a tour of the facility, I know Ryan or Carl or myself, very interested in working with you to find a time where we can walk you through that facility and show you the work that's been done to this point. And even hopefully provide you an opportunity to sign the wall if you haven't signed it already. We were talking, I was talking briefly about the CARES Act. I mentioned to you that we already have a city team that is working on identifying projects and equipment that we can and are hoping to purchase with this CARES money. Everything from equipment in our public safety fire department to essentially automatic doors to obviously personal protective equipment and and many other things that are tied to COVID-19 response. Also had a meeting this morning with Hillcrest, or with the Alpine School District about Hillcrest Elementary. I thought it was a very productive meeting. We were able to get with the administrator, Rob Smith, with the school district and talk specifically about moving forward in the purchase of the property and to get a number. And I'm happy to report that that purchase number is south of $6 million. So it is on the low end of what— obviously what was presented to us by way of the district, who was anticipating that highest and best use was commercial. And as a result, it was probably a number that was in proximity to $8 million based on the discussions and, and obviously the way the law is written. We got down to a number that is less than $6 million, and so we are working through that now. The challenge then becomes trying to figure out how to assemble the financing necessary to purchase that property, but I thought it was Obviously productive time spent with with the Alpine School District in the discussion of the property. The one hard and firm requirement of the county, of the school district in this deal, is they want it to be a cash deal. So they are very much interested in taking the proceeds of this sale and rolling it into other school construction. construction projects that they have in the district. I specifically asked about, is it possible for us to develop some sort of payment plan to pay you over time for this property? And their response was a hard no. And then they went on to qualify the reason behind that hard no is they want to take those dollars and directly roll that money into another school project that they have in process. in the northern part of the district. We are getting obviously to the point now where individuals have been given time to essentially complete the census on their own, and in a few weeks we are actually going to transition from that self-declaration, that self-response to a census effort that is going to involve census takers who will be going throughout the community collecting data and information. We have had kind of a fun contest in recent weeks. It's been kind of a north versus the south, Salt Lake County and West Valley City— or Salt Lake City and West Valley City versus Provo City and Orem City in terms of getting our census reporting numbers up. I'm happy to report that we are in the lead. Today is the last day of the contest, and to this point we have collected 68%. The collection rate to this point is 68%, which is better than any of the cities that we have participating in this contest, and in, in close proximity to where we were in 2010 where we had a 74% overall response rate. So appreciate Mayor Brunst. You've probably seen online a number of fun videos that he's been doing promoting this contest, promoting people completing the census, and it's been a fun way to encourage people to engage in this effort that is really important to us. when it comes to the allocation of federal dollars and access obviously to monies that are tied to who we are on a population basis. In addition to that, you probably saw the announcement just a few hours ago that Major League Baseball in cooperation with Minor League Baseball has announced that there will not be a minor league baseball season in 2020. So unfortunately, our Orem Owls will not be in play this summer as a result of COVID-19. And I appreciate those who responded to me yesterday regarding the other discussion point I shared with you regarding minor league baseball. But that is not going to be something that's going to be part of our summer this year. In addition to that, we have received notice from Rocky Mountain Power that they, within the next 12 months, are going to be in the process of reconductoring power lines along 1600 North. So what that means is they are actually going to be in the process of upsizing the line that runs down 1600 North. and connects to their, I guess you could say, their overall transmission network throughout the state. Right now they have a 46-kilovolt line that is running down 1600 North and is attached to large wooden poles on the north side of 1600 North. As they move through that effort, they are going to be upgrading those lines to 138 kilovolt lines. So essentially 1.5 or 2.5 times what the current power that they have running down those lines. What that means is potentially they're going to be replacing the poles with different poles, taller poles, beefier poles to accommodate a thicker gauge wire. That will be put in place to accommodate the additional power loads that will run down 1600 North. This is an effort that they have really yet to get underway. They've notified us that it's going to happen, and they are— they have yet to award a contract to a contractor to do this work. And as part of that contract, they will have a public engagement effort underway To educate and help individuals along the corridor understand what they are doing. We have sent to them a series of questions as to what does this mean for traffic, what does this mean for residents along the corridor, is it possible for you to bury those lines rather than run new overhead lines, and we have received feedback on all of those. Questions. Really, the biggest question that is outstanding, and you might be the most curious about, is the burial of those lines is a cost that is approximately $5 million more a mile than overhead lines. And per Utah law, if the city would be interested in burying those lines along 1600 North, then they— meaning the city— we would be responsible for the difference in cost. So it's not looking, at least from a financial perspective, like it would be economically feasible to bury those lines. We will continue to work with Rocky Mountain Power in making sure that that effort is one that will minimize, obviously, the disruption to businesses and to residents along that corridor. But obviously transmission power lines are an important and essential part of the power grid. And as people obviously use more power, we need to develop infrastructure to accommodate the additional loads that are necessary to power the world. So I wanted to let you know that's happening as well. Today is obviously the last day of our fiscal year, so we bid farewell to FY 2020 and start tomorrow morning in FY 21. And our new budget, which you adopted several weeks ago, will essentially go into operation tomorrow morning. And finally, I've represented to you that our new fire chief, Chief Sanderson that we had a number of outstanding issues to work through as part of the onboarding process—a background check, a physical, a drug test—all requirements as part of our onboarding process in the city. And I'm happy to report that just as of about a couple of hours ago, we received confirmation that all of that. has been cleared, and Mark is anxious to get started with the city, and he will actually be in the office tomorrow morning and at work. And I know that you are anxious to put together a swearing-in ceremony for him, and we will get to that ASAP, and very much look forward to welcoming him on board. Beginning tomorrow morning. So those are all of the things that I have to share with you this evening.

Okay, thank you, Jamie. Appreciate it. I just wanted to make sure that everyone saw the ID number and the password number of the council members for our closed-door meeting for city manager evaluation. after our regular agenda. And would ask that each member of the council be in a room where they can close the door and make it private. With no other items coming up, let's go ahead and close our meeting and adjourn, and we will start back up again at 6:00 PM for our City Council meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, my name is— sorry, my name is Germán Pardo from Smiling Faces.

Thank you.

All right, we would like to welcome everyone out to our City Council meeting this evening and would like to read a notice prior to starting. To minimize the potential spread of COVID-19, as authorized by Utah Governor Gary Herbert's March 18th 2020 executive order, the Orem City Council meeting on June 30th, 2020 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no public access to the Orem City Council chambers. Those desiring to view or participate in the meeting must do so electronically. Those wishing to make comments should submit them through orem.org/comments. Or to citycouncilpubliccomments@orem.org. Comments will be accepted before and during the meeting. All comments received will be read into the record during the live meeting. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed to additional comments. The live meeting event may be streamed at orem.org/meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you for your cooperation and patience during this challenge, during these challenging times. We now would like to call this meeting to order and would like to ask Debbie Luray to give us an invocation and then lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Happy to do so. Our Father in heaven, we're grateful for the opportunity we have to gather this evening as a City Council and Mayor to discuss the pertinent business of the city. We're grateful for those who serve the cities, from first responders to the rest of the city employees. We're grateful for their great work and the hard work that they— especially during this pandemic— that they have illustrated. We're grateful for the opportunity we have to govern this city. We ask that we'll be wise and we'll be good listeners and we'll be able to make good decisions that will help move the work of the city forward. We're grateful for this country, and we ask these favors and blessings in thy holy name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen. Amen.

Amen.

All right, we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance now.

I brought my flag.

Okay.

Please join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Well, thank you, Miss Liberty. You look great.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, we now have a personal appearance time. I would like to read a statement in regards to our personal appearance time. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not scheduled As public hearings on the agenda. Could I also ask that everyone mute their computer so we don't have any background noise? Those wishing to speak are encouraged to show respect for those who serve the city. Comments should focus on issues concerning the city. Those wishing to speak should have signed in before the beginning of the meeting. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. Or less. So the personal appearance time is for comments, as I mentioned, that are not items that are not on the agenda. Steve, do we have anyone who's sent in the personal appearance comments?

We do have 4 comments.

Okay, would you like to read them, please?

I would.

Okay, we got it.

Pete's going to read these in.

All right, the first one is from Michelle Jensen. First off, thanks for the presentation by Chief Giles before he retired. Thank you, Councilmember Larray, for proactively asking questions about mental health officers to get a discussion going. He addressed a lot of concerns on the minds of a lot of citizens right now, but I'd like to continue that conversation as I still have requests that the council address with the process of hiring a new police chief, there's a lot to be considered and a lot of input the public would like to weigh in on. I would like to request the council to start the process of organizing such a civilian citizen oversight board that can not only in the future help with internal reviews but can also be part of the hiring process of the new chief. In addition to the immediate need of a developed citizen review board, I'd like to request the council review and address solutions below as soon as possible, and these will be attached— her suggestions will be attached in the, in the minutes. Chief Giles went over some of these and mentioned that some of them are state laws, but there are some with quite a lot of room for exceptions. My request would be that we locally explicitly unauthorized many of the things without exceptions. There is so much preventive work here we can address with a citizens review board to save us from expensive lawsuits and investigations, and I would love to be able to prevent unnecessary death and financial stress whenever possible. Please let me know who will be on the board to move forward in the next steps of creating a system such as a board to begin to tackle some of these aforementioned issues. I would like to request the council begin the process to consider to adopt as many of the policies within this attachment. Thank you so much for all of your work. And that's the end of Michelle's comment.

Okay.

The next one is from Jim Hadlock. What is the city going to do to prevent an incident like what happened to George What has or will the city do to know if any of its police officers have such violent tendencies as Derek Chauvin? Does the city know now if there is any such officers? Will the city consider reducing the budget of the police and spend more on programs that help reduce poverty and provide training for people to obtain better jobs, thus reducing 2 of the main causes of crime? The next one is from— we don't have a name, just from Austin, Texas. Says, apologies, unsure which agenda item will be the police chief's comments in this meeting. I want to express strongly as a new citizen of Orem that I want to see a reallocation of police department funds into social work and community building departments. I want to see specific resolutions banning brutality and unlawful warrants. I want a citizen-driven review board for reviewing incidents of police violence. I want the police department to decommission any or the vast majority of tactical gear. I want police patrols to be minimally armed, as has been the case in 4 of other very peaceful countries I've lived in in my life. I'm enraged at a culture that trains people to escalate at the drop of a hat and spends their days looking for excuses to arrest citizens. I want this to change now. You have an opportunity to be leaders, forward thinkers. Take that opportunity. Don't prolong the problems. And that's the end of that comment. The next one is from Michael Whitting. It is time for the city Council to discuss budgeting for universal body camera use and the establishment of a civilian review board for all police complaints and incidents. The next one is from Catherine Elslinger. Recently, Orem High School softball fields were vandalized by graffiti attacking people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals. While the graffiti can be removed, the sense of fear and intimidation that hateful acts like this create in students and the rest of the community can I urge the council to not let this incident be forgotten now that the graffiti has been cleaned up. Continuing the investigation of this crime and focusing on restorative justice would benefit the spirit of community in Orem and be an example to the rest of Utah County. It is unacceptable to allow vandals and bullies to intimidate people in our community. I know Orem wants to be a place where everyone feels safe and included, and I hope we can all work toward making that dream a reality.

Thank you.

All right, and this last one is from Chad Sumption. I own the property directly east of the property seeking to receive this conditional use permit. I believe a daycare would be an appropriate use of these existing buildings, and it would be great to have them occupied and cared for again. After participating in the Planning Commission meeting, however, I'm wondering if the thinking is backwards for how parking would be used and how drop-off and pickup is being planned. Currently, the plan is to have an on-site parking configured and safe for the drop-off and pickup of children and for the employees too when they park only on the street. Since the employees are there all day long during business hours, this will cause the maximization of the amount of street parking being generated. Plus, I'm betting when temperatures are warm, parking will creep southward on Main Street to use the tree shade provided by neighborhood properties. On the other hand, parents will be there for very short durations as they come and go. If they were to park on the curb adjacent to the property, it would It would seem that the street parking would be greatly reduced overall and parents would not have to back up to get out of the parking stalls onsite, which seems like an improvement in traffic flow. This is just a thought that I thought you'd like to hear discussed and commented on. Thank you, Chad Sumption. And that is the end of the public comments.

All right, thank you, appreciate it. We'll now go ahead and close the personal appearance portion of our meeting and move on to our consent items. First one is the approval of meeting minutes of June 16th, The second is the approval of mayor pro tem assignment to Councilmember Terry Pierson for July through December 2020. The third is a resolution, the approval of the City of Orem Recreation Department and Library Department retention schedule. Would anyone, staff or on council, want to put this on one of our scheduled items? All right, if not, I would like to move that our consent items be accepted. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and go through and vote. We'll start with Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Brent Sumner. Brent, you unmuted?

Aye.

Okay. Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

And I, as Mayor Brunstad, vote aye as well. Our consent items pass. We'll move on to our scheduled items. The first one is a public hearing for an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2019 2020 budget, and our presenter is Brandon Nelson. Brandon, we'll turn the time over to you.

Great, thank you. Okay, let's see. What I wanted to do was touch first on— so I'm going to just, uh, on these budget amendments, I'm going to I'll talk about each of the items in the notes here. Obviously, some of these items, particularly item note number 1, has multiple items related to it. So if there are questions in relation to any of those items within each of the notes, please feel free to ask at, quite honestly, any point in relation to those. So for number 1, These are a large group of different, primarily grants and donations that the city receives on a regular— has received on a regular basis. I've kind of listed a couple, but as you saw within the, um, the— up here, you can— all the items noted as number 1, we have large number of those, and, and those are the majority. As we usually do from each budget amendment that we do. In relation to number 2, as we've done before, the monies from the general obligation bonds for the construction of the library and the fitness center, those funds are sitting in a public treasurer's investment fund account and earn interest And as we do each budget amendment, any interest that we have not already done a budget amendment for to add to those available funds, we add that interest so that it becomes part of those projects. And that's what item number 2 is. Let's see, right there, kind of near the bottom of the screen under the capital improvement project fund. Item number 3 is related to the— our IT division. As part of the switchover from Microsoft to Google suite of products, there's some need to use some of the IT internal service fund surplus money to accommodate being able to get that project on its way. As well as there was a, you know, a battery backup over at Public Safety that's kind of an important battery backup, and so we needed— had an emergency need to replace that UPS unit. And so again, they also used some surplus funds to be able to accommodate that. And let's see, that is kind of again near the bottom under the Information Technology Fund. That's appropriating the surplus for those items. And then item number 4, the big kahuna. So from fiscal year 2019, after our audit is completed, we calculate based on state law. We are limited to an amount that we can hold within our So Brandon, we're losing you for some reason. Yeah, I, uh, there's an echo, and so I was just kind of trying to let the echo end. Um, so at the end of fiscal year '19, we calculate how much we are over, and obviously we're not always over, but here in the last number of years we have been over the state allowed maximum, a component. So that is item number 4, as you see, the $4.6 million. And that is approximately just a little over $2.6 million of that is the amount that we are over the state maximum. So that those funds are required by the state auditor and state law to be either used, in essence appropriated, or we can move those funds, and then which is what we are doing here, we're moving those to our capital outlay capital improvement project fund. And then as part of the, the city, we have targeted a 15%. So 25% is the state maximum, and we have targeted approximately a 15% reserve balance as a city. And so the remaining $2 million targets us to, or gets us to, that target. And that, just so you know, the calculations of those 2 things are subtly different. So that's— but just so you know, that's what the 2 components that make up the $4.6 million are. And so what happens is the general fund transfers the $4.6 million to the capital improvement projects fund, and then projects, capital outlay type projects are identified, and the $4.6 million is then taken and targeted to each one of those projects as they are identified. Are there questions before I move on? Are there questions specifically to that transfer?

Yes.

Great.

So this is Terry Peterson. So Are there restrictions on what we can do on that extra $2 million?

There are no restrictions on the $4.6 million whatsoever.

Thank you. Keep going, Brandon.

Okay, so was that, you know, no more questions there? Okay, great. So item number 5 has to do with— you'll recall that we had bonds for the Northgate Village Special Improvement District, which is up where the WinCo is.

And we—

not we, but the property owner was able to sell the final piece of property up in that area and be able to send the money to us to complete the amount of money that was due so that we could pay off the remaining amount of those Northgate Village SID bonds. That occurred in June of 2019, so obviously that was a little too late in the fiscal year to be able to accommodate a budget amendment at the time that occurred, and the bond payment wasn't due until November 1st, 2019, so it just flowed into the next fiscal year. So those funds basically fell to reserves, to surplus, and obviously now the bond payment needed to be— was made, and we just need to appropriate the funds to, you know, in essence, to show that we were using appropriated reserves to pay for those bonds using the money we had received in the prior fiscal year to pay those bond— that bond payment. And the last item, item number 6, which is near the bottom there, has to do with Metropolitan Water District of Orem. They periodically provide us with excess funds that they have in order to do various water projects within the city. And this year they were able to provide us with $1.5 million to go towards the water reuse project down in the lakes, you know, lakeside area. And so it's that item number 6 is accommodating, showing that those funds were received and that those funds were then added, um, as, uh, to that project. So those are the main items I wanted to talk about, um, in relation to the budget amendments. Are there any questions about any of the items, um, that are in here?

Okay, uh, Brandon, this is a public hearing, so let's, uh, Go ahead and open it up to the public for any public comments. We will open it up for 1 minute and then wait to hear if anyone comes on, and that starts right now. Okay, our 1 minute is up. Steve or Pete, have we received any public comments on this item?

No comments, Mayor.

Okay, so we'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any comments or questions? All right.

This is Terry.

I have a comment.

Yes, Terry.

So I think it's just a good reminder that the excess money that we have It is not ours, it's taxpayers. So instead of us always trying to figure out ways to spend it, it's still, I like the idea of maybe giving some back since it's not ours. But just a thought. I mean, I know we get caught up in all the things we can do with it, but it means we got more money than what we needed as a city.

Okay, any other comments? All right, I would like to make a motion that the City Council amend the fiscal year 2019-2020 budget as presented. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and vote. We'll start out with Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

And I, Mayor Brunson, vote aye as well. The ordinance passes. Thank you, Brandon. We appreciate that. We will now move to item number 9.2, which is a resolution, not a public hearing, on a conditional use permit, approval of the commercial daycare Smiling Faces Located at 410 South Main Street in the R-8 zone. Jason Bench is our presenter. And Jason, is the applicant there where they can participate on our Zoom call?

Yes, the applicant should be online.

And what is the applicant's name?

Herman.

Okay. Herman, are you there?

I am here, but I don't know if you can hear me.

We can hear you just fine. All right, Jason, if you want to go ahead and move forward with your presentation.

Sure. So, Mayor, members of the council, this is a presentation— excuse me— an application for conditional use permit for a commercial daycare, 400 South Main Street. As you may recall, these were built back in 2009. era for an assisted living facility. There are 2 buildings there. The applicant is requesting that a daycare go into both of these facilities with a maximum of 100 children. Everybody hear me okay?

Yes, keep going, Jason. Can everybody mute their computer until they want to ask a question, please?

So the facility is located in a residential zone. It's an R-8 zone. A couple years ago, the city actually petitioned the city to rezone it back to an R-8 zone. That was in a different zone to limit the number of uses that could go there because that business, the assisted living, went out of business. We did change it to R-8, so it does limit the type of uses that could go there. So that one of the uses is a commercial daycare facility. The ordinance does require up to 13— well, there are 13 conditions associated with a commercial daycare, which I'll review here in a minute. Part of the requirements is that they have to provide a traffic study for this, and it has been reviewed by our transportation engineer along with Sam Kelly, our city engineer, and Sam should be on the line to address any traffic questions. But part of the requirement does allow them to count parking that's on this public street in front of their facility. So basically their property runs along 4th South and then goes south on Main Street to this location here. So as you can see, I've outlined the vehicles that could potentially be allowed to be parked legally based on the 20-foot stall length. And the length of the property that could be proposed along that. You can see the bike lane on 4th South ends there, so the parking begins there and then goes there. So 7 stalls could be legally parked in front of their property. If you look on Main Street, 4 can be parked here, meeting the minimum setback off of the intersection, and then 2 stalls— it just barely was too short to get the 3 stalls, so they could do 2 stalls Stalls in this location, and then they have 13 on-site stalls for a total of 26. Based on their traffic study and the engineer that prepared it from the private company, basically based on ITE standards, so International Transportation Engineers Manual, basically calculates there's a formula that Sam can address if I botch this up, but basically allows based on the number of children in a daycare. require a certain number of vehicles. 24 was the minimum. They're providing 26. Just to give you some views of the street. So this is the on-street parking that would be on 400 South. This is looking west.

Jason, when you're looking at that, you, as you mentioned, you do have a bike lane that is striped off and then closest to the sidewalk. Is a parking lane striped off from the main body of the street?

Correct. Yes. This is looking at that same street looking due west on the street. This is from the corner, you can see the 2 buildings there. The entrance to the end of the parking lot, which was developed and meets the standard when it was originally built as an assisted living. This is the portion that's north on the north end of the main street. from 400 South, south. And then this is looking at the full street. You can see the city vehicle, the white vehicle down there, is parked in that parking area that could be used as on-street parking. You can see the bike lane picks up at that location. One thing I do want to show is that— or address— is that the bike lane itself drops off here and picks up down here. And this area here, because this is a vehicle turn lane, a decel lane and turn, The bikes and vehicles at this point share the road, so there is no distinction between the lane for vehicles and the lane for bikes. They do share the lane until they pick up the bike lanes in either direction on those streets. So it definitely drops off, and that's the purpose for that, is that they need to realize that both vehicle and bikes need to share that as they go around that corner.

So Jason, if you go back to another picture there, the one you were just on. that shows the red markings for the, the—

This one?

Like, no, one, one that has the cars on it right there. So if you go to the bottom right where it says 2 stalls, if you actually go below that, there's room for another 4 cars next to the vegetation on the other side of the tennis court where they're not blocking an ingress or egress. to the tennis court by a car, and that is striped off for parking.

That is true. The way the ordinance is read, we basically marked it off because it needed to be, even though they could legally park there. We've just shown what was within their property.

No, no, I understand. I'm just saying that that area is open. The road is in fact wide enough because it is striped for parking. And you have the full length of the tennis court that is just vegetation.

Correct.

Park on the side of the road.

Yep, yep. That is true. So let me just go to a couple more slides. So this, this is the existing operations that they have on State Street, and Armand can, when he gets his opportunity to present, he can kind of talk through this. But this is kind of the timeline that the transportation engineer reviewed as he Basically reviewed his existing operations. And you can see the timelines where you have the number of vehicles from 6 AM all throughout the day when they were dropped off. And so the maximum that they— you see on this chart was from 9 to 9:15 where they had 10 vehicles at a time. 8:30 to 8:45, there were 9. So it just depends on the time of day, but overall, not all of them are showing up at the same time. They're scattered throughout the day. The next chart indicates the proposed drop-off based on the children themselves. So they're assigned a specific drop-off time and pickup time based on the schedule of the children, based on what classes they're going to, whether it's daycare, whether it's preschool. And so he's basically assigned them a time, and that's the time that they need to, to drop their children off and pick them up, and that helps in the scheduling and helps to alleviate some of the congestion. I think some of the issues that maybe some of the neighbors think that they're going to have 50 cars at one time, and that's not been their way that they've gone through, at least their project that they've had for the last 3 years. This is the type of schedule that they've used with their existing project. The Planning Commission did review— this is the requirements, and I won't go through each of them. Basically, there are Minimum standards that they have to comply with. Based on our review, they comply with all of these other than there's a sign requirement and that they would have to do that in the future. There's no drop-off before 5:30 AM, no drop-off after— or no use after 9 PM. So there are some stipulations within the ordinance that basically gives them the 13 minimum requirements that they have to meet in order to at least qualify to go forward with a conditional use. They did that based on staff's review. We presented to the Planning Commission the top 5 conditions that we listed here, that all visitors, employees, and other persons— this is number 1— who arrive at the facility in connection with a daycare facility be legally parked on the on-street parking lot or that part of the street that's abutting the site. So that's condition number 1. Condition number 2, that the signage be provided into the internal parking lot. To clearly indicate that that's where the pickup and drop-off stalls are located. Number 3 is that one stall in the parking lot be used for actual backup area. So basically losing one stall so it's a little more easier to be able to maneuver and back up and not have a congestion. If somebody does pull in and there's no parking available, they can use that to pull in and back out. Number 4 is that the facility be limited to a maximum occupancy of 100 children. For both buildings, so 50 each would be the max. And then the 2 ADA stalls we provided in the parking lot. So those are the 5 we presented to the Planning Commission during our public hearing process. The Planning Commission came up with 2 additional conditions. Number 6, that all children must be picked up and dropped off within the existing parking lot. There were, there were a lot of concerns that they didn't want parents dropping off their kids at the street. The requirement of the daycare is that they actually physically bring them into the facility. Not just drop them off and let them run across the grass or whatever. They do have to park, get out, and take their children in. So number six was basically that that be done within the parking lot and the street on street parking be for any visitor that doesn't have a child, for any teacher or any other visitor that's visiting there that doesn't have a child to drop off. And number seven is that no more than ten pickup drop off vehicles be allowed within the ten minute time period. And based on the applicant's chart of how they do that. There is no more than 10, and that's been working for them for the last 3 years. So with these 7 conditions, the Planning Commission did make a recommendation that the council consider this and actually approve it based on these conditions. Be glad to address any questions. I know the council is aware that they can, if they choose, to add additional conditions. So this is not necessarily set in stone, or, you know, this is the only conditions, but These are the conditions that the Planning Commission presented to be, be able to resolve some of the concerns that the neighbors had. I'd be glad to address any questions you may have.

So Jason, a couple of comments. If you can leave that screen up for a minute.

You got this one?

Yes, the one you have on there with the red on it. So the entrance and the exit from this area is wide enough for 2 cars actually to go by each other, one coming out, one coming in, where you do not have to wait for the one to come in for the other one to get out. It is— it's made wide enough to do that.

It meets the city standard of 24 feet wide, which is a 2-way traffic, yes.

Yes. So I think that's important to realize. Second of all, if he has to have 8 staff members there, and if he were going to park 8 staff members' cars. He could park 7 up on 400 South, and he could park 4 on Main Street. That would be 11, so that in fact the stalls inside between the 2 buildings can be open for people to come in and pull into the stall and let their people out, let the kids out, and then pull back out again. Or in fact, on the south side where there's 5 stalls, and I know that you've got a requirement, but if those stalls aren't there, you can actually make a round turn and come back out. Now, it's my understanding with daycares that typically 3 and 4-year-olds have to actually have someone take them in the building and sign in, but 5-year-olds are allowed to get out of their car and walk in on their own. And so I had a question for Herman as to what the ratio is of his business, and does he run it that way that the 3- and 4-year-olds have to have a parent walk them in and sign them in, and the 5-year-olds can go in on their own? So Herman, if you—

Yes. Yeah. Um, where did we just get—

I'm sorry, we can't hear you. Are you there? Ramon? Uh, can you hear us?

Mayor, my name is David Besant.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

I'm the civil engineer that prepared the traffic plan for her mom.

Okay.

Um, I did interview him to talk about his operation and how he was planning to operate. And they do require each child to be brought in and signed in by a parent. They don't have anyone Dropped off and come in on their own.

So regardless of age. So if that were the case, if you have those 13 stalls and the workers park out on the street in the stalls listed, then you have plenty of room for people to come in because you're only doing, you know, 10 every 15 minutes max. But you have plenty of room for them to come in and park, get out, take their child in, Come back out and move their car and go back out onto the street. Is that how you see it?

Yeah. Yes, we— there's access parking for that. I've done another study recently. So one of the things that— sorry, I'm an educator a little bit. I apologize if this is more information than you want, but the rates that we use are national rates, and a lot of the locations that they're based on Are like Montessori schools back east, and they where they have a large quantity of kids coming all at the same time. So it's a little heavy with how many cells it's requiring. I did a study for a site up in Ogden that's a daycare preschool. They had 130 kids enrolled in their school, and we were able because they they signed them in electronically. to know electronically how many people were in the parking lot within a 5-minute window over 6 months, and the most they ever got was 8 in a, you know, in the 5-minute window there together. So, and that's, that's with a higher population than what we're planning here. So I do feel like they have excess parking for what they need there.

And one question is, you've got 2 buildings, so Are the buildings divided up by age groups or times, or how is that going to work?

I'm not sure exactly how Herman's going to use different buildings, but I'm sure he'll have different classes and different things going on in each of them. I don't know if that answers your question.

Not really.

I'm sorry, I don't know.

That's okay. Then the area to the west of the north building, uh, that actually has nice grass on it, uh, is that going to be used as the play area? And will the other one to the south be used as a play area and be fenced off accordingly?

I believe the property is already fenced. That is a requirement for the daycare, is that they have it be fenced in for the children not to be able to To get in the road. So yeah, that is the plan. The kids are outside to be kept inside of a gated area.

Okay. Any further questions from the council? I've got a question. Okay, one at a time. Debbie, you want to go ahead?

Yeah, um, so I don't know if you know, but with 100 kids, do you have any idea how many families that would represent?

Often there are multiple kids from the same families. Um, I don't know, you know, how many that would represent exactly. Um, a lot of times they do have more than one child being dropped off with a single vehicle.

Okay, something represented as maybe My other question is, with us wanting 10 cars at once, will someone be monitoring that 10-car max? Or you said in Ogden they only had 8, but we're not quite sure how that will be monitored.

So Hermann had a schedule that Jason showed you on the— that is his current plan. A certain number to be dropped off at a certain time. So that's how that will be maintained.

What if someone's running late or has an emergency? Is it just—

Um, so again, it's like, you know, I don't know, I guess with going to school you do have emergencies where your kids are late, but they're paying for that time if they're late. And parents, I mean, I like— I don't like paying for things I'm not taking advantage of. So there's, there's some motivation for them to be on time to pick up their kids and to drop off their kids at a certain time. Yeah, the plan is for them to be there together at a certain time, and they're really good at doing that. They've actually been working for a while at their current facility doing this. They're really constrained in their current location. They share their parking with a restaurant and and a bunch of other businesses, and they are really constrained on how many people they can have there at one time in the parking lot. And so they've already been helped.

I don't know.

This is already the process they have established with their clients.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Sumner, do you have a question?

Yeah, I have a couple. Maybe Jason, Are you there, Jason?

I am, yep.

Okay, on the, uh, where the— on 4 South where their parking ends over to where it begins on Main Street, will that be redlined there?

Uh, maybe Sam can address that as well, but typically I don't think they red curb every corner. It's just assumed that you don't park within a certain distance, but that's definitely Something that we need to— probably Sam needs to address on that. You're talking right here.

Yeah, right there and clear up the other one. Yeah.

I don't see that that would be an issue why we couldn't red curb that if that was a condition.

Well, it's done another intersection. I've looked around in that area and they've done another section, so I think that would be important.

I think that could be done.

Yeah.

Okay, on the I've been over there a couple of times and I'm concerned about the, uh, the drop-off. Maybe the applicant could say only 10 cars in 10 minutes or what, how that— it doesn't seem like that's functional. But anyway, on the, on the turning around of cars or exiting, exiting the facility.

I'm sorry.

The backup lane or the backup space, why is that clear over there? Because that doesn't really do anybody any good. I, I— let me, let me just suggest something and you can give me your thoughts. Keep your 8 stalls there and the 5 stalls on the other side, eliminate that and use that as those other cars backing up so they can exit the facility in a safe manner. I think you're in such tight confinement there, no one's going to use that backup lane, at least my opinion, at the end there, that one space. I think that you have to figure out more room in there for backup space. And then one more, one more thing. I'd like to hear from the applicant the safety plan I didn't see it in the packet at all on the kids, the staff, and the automobiles in there, if there's some kind of, you know, safety plan or organization. Those are 3 I have right now, questions.

So just to answer the one, this stall could be relocated anywhere in the site. If it made more sense to be over here or over here, we could definitely do that based on council's direction. It's not necessarily required to be here.

Can we put a conditional use in there for the 5 stalls to eliminate those, and then they can back into there and then exit out in an orderly fashion?

They could. I mean, this is— just to clarify, this is a typical parking lot that you'll see anywhere, in a Target, anywhere. And people are able to back out. That's why this is 24 feet wide. They'll easily be able to back out and maneuver out without having these as backup. So it's a typical parking lot that you'd see anywhere in any retail establishment. There's nothing different here.

But, but, but these other retail establishments don't have the small space and the congestion that could possibly be here. I'm looking at ways to To have a safety plan here that there's no auto wrecks or anything like that.

Right.

So Brent, maybe I could jump in for just a second. If these cars are coming in and parking, they are going to have to get out of their car and walk their child in and sign in. So it's not where you could bring your cars in and do a circle. and just drop them off and head back out. The parents are actually going to have to get out of the car and take the child in.

I understand that, Mayor, but the 8 stalls, they could park there, and then when they come out to leave, they could back and have space to exit if you eliminate those 5 stalls on the south end.

So you're comfortable with eliminating— just have the 8 and eliminating the 5, is that what you're saying?

Eliminate the 5. So what I'm, what I'm suggesting, I, I'm just trying to make it safe. And, uh, you know, maybe there's a safety plan in place for this, but, uh—

Oh, I like that.

I like that idea. But would it mess up the amount of stalls that this facility has to have according to the Planning Commission?

Well, it would— well, the amount of students they could have, because it is based on the number of stalls that are provided.

Well, would the applicant consider a few less students? What would that drop it to?

Hello?

Hello? You can't hear me?

Yes, we can, Armand.

I can't hear anybody.

Armand, are you there?

You can hear me now?

Yes.

Hello.

Okay, we can hear you. Okay, um, well, we submitted this application and for, for, for these, uh, facilities on February 14th. We've been, uh, working back and forth with the Planning Commission for 4 months, and honestly, I cannot believe that we're still in this discussion because that's why we have a Engineering, you know, looking for, for, for, uh, for the technical and all. We following all the requirements from the city. Uh, I don't— this is not the only daycare I think that you guys have approved. Uh, we have, uh, on the other side of the Stage 3, a building with less parking, even less parking than this, and a lot more students. So I can't frustrate it right now because Reducing fire staff, for me, doesn't make sense. And getting one space for backup, that makes sense. We've been in business for 8 years. We'll be working with the Child Care License Department to follow all the safety requirements for the kids. In 8 years, in the previous location and the actual location, Because we started this business at home and run for 5 years, and the location on Stage 3, we've been running for 3 years. Uh, it's even more dangerous, this parking. If you look on your map, 439 South and Stage 3, it's only 11 stalls over there, in which share with another 2 businesses. In Stage 3, the traffic is not even The traffic over here is not even close to the State Street traffic. So I understand the concern for the neighbors, the parking, the, you know, the traffic flow. And we will be— we are working on this. We're planning to have the employees to park outside. We have 8 employees currently. The maximum that we're going to have is 10. According with the Utah Child Care License Department, I have a copy of the they already made into the buildings. The buildings have a capacity for 200 kids. So when the Orange City Planning Department reduced drastically to 50% and said we can have only 100 kids, I say, okay, that's fine. We're not doing this only for money. We're doing this because we want to offer a service to the community. And my wife has been doing this for—

20 years.

probably 20, 25 years. So besides that, due to the concern that the planning commission and the neighbors, uh, we don't offer transportation to, to, to the parents. We started— we have a meeting, uh, last Monday with some parents and, and figure out how many they, they want the transportation. We have families, they have 3 and 4 kids. And if we have family, they say we have 2 kids over here and now we— because we don't take in children or infants at this time. So we're planning moving to that building to start opening care for infants. And so we have parents already asking for a space. Because that's the service that we offer. So I apologize if I sound a little bit frustrated, but I don't know for how long more we have to discuss this. Our first concern is the safety of the kids. And that's why we don't have any complaints on the Utah Child Care License Department.

So, Herman, I've looked up your business And looked up reviews, and you have a very long list of great reviews from families who find your service to be very acceptable. I think those 5 stalls on the south, I think you can actually back out of those and move forward to go out, as, as well as the 8 stalls above that you can back out and go out without running into each other. I think there's enough room. I've done it over there. I've, I've gone into the stalls and backed out on both north and south. So I think the way it's configured would work and allow them to have those.

Hey, Mayor.

Yeah.

On page 64 of the packet you guys received for this meeting, I don't know if y'all have that, but there's a graphic on there about a— it's a big truck. It's not a small passenger car. It's actually like a 20-foot truck coming into that parking lot and doing a, like, a 3-point turn to get out. And it's showing I'm not even using the stalls to be able to do that. So backing up and going out is— there's plenty of space to do that safely.

Can you show that page 64 on this common screen?

You know, I don't have access to that. Jason, do you have that?

I think someone else is handling it right now.

Hold on one second here.

But that, but that, that's the only vehicle in the lot. Is that what you're saying? To turn around?

No, I'm saying not using a stall at all, not using any of the stalls, there's room to turn around in that center portion doing a 3-point turn.

Can you see this screen?

I'm pulling in, backing up, and going out.

You can see the screen.

I can see the screen, but I don't see anything different other than the parking that was initially put up there.

Let's see here.

Sorry.

But I think from your drawing, it shows— if you can go back to that drawing real quick that you just had the big vehicle on. Now the 3-point turn with the big vehicle. That one right there. I think you can see there's enough room for people to come out of the stalls and back up and then leave without running into each other. I think there's plenty of room for both.

Exactly, exactly.

I have a question.

Yes, sir.

Going on that previous picture about the backup stall, they're all backup stalls. Every car is pulling in there, correct?

They are, yes.

Correct.

Why, why does, why does that say backup space?

Don't—

if you're parking your car, you're taking your child into the building, you're all backing out.

What the city engineer determined was that if, if they pull in and that parking lot is full, rather than having them to reverse directly out onto Main Street, pull in that stall and then back out and get out. So they have one available all the time. In the case that it's full, they could back out without causing an issue with backing directly out onto Main Street. That's the purpose of that stall, not some turnaround for the 8 or 5. It's simply to be able to get out without having to cause an issue if they— if there's no stall available. That's the purpose of this, though.

Correct.

So any of you that have had Children attend elementary schools. You have to smile at this because how many parents follow the rules as far as where you're supposed to drop your child off, what time you're supposed to drop them off, and where you're supposed to drive? As kids are getting out in the middle of the street and running across the road, as parents are 15 minutes late or 15 minutes early. I have a lot of concerns about this, the safety of the children, and especially on Main Street, which is just, you know, a very narrow street anyway. And to say we're going to put— we're going to let everybody park out on Main Street and on 4th South, and then let the parents pull in here with 100 kids being dropped off. Oh my goodness. In that little area. I'm not sure I can picture that.

Mayor, I got a question.

Yes, go ahead, Dave.

So, so I have 3 concerns here about this parking. So for one, if you're, if you're dropping your kid off, you're pulling in and you're going to pull out of the parking lot and you're going to turn left, you've got 4 cars blocking your view of cars. So you're gonna have to sneak out, and that can be dangerous. Also heading north on Main Street, If you're going to turn left in there, that's going to back up traffic on Main Street. And then if you're going out on Main Street, going to turn left on 4th South, you're going to have to each— you're going to have to get way out in the middle of the intersection to be able to see around those cars. I did it yesterday. So I think we're opening up a can of worms on safety for sure, even though his traffic study says this. I, I've lived it and I, I think it's not I don't think it's safe, in my opinion. I don't think it's safe at all. If you have those cars parked on 4th South, you cannot, you cannot see down going west to see what cars are coming. You can't even see the cyclists coming. So I don't know, I think you're just, you're opening up a can of worms and people are going to get killed. So I don't like it.

Any other comments?

Yeah, I have one, Mayor, if I may. The first of all, Steve, at some point, or Greg, maybe ought to review what our limitations are on a conditional use. But I do have a question for Jason.

Was this—

did this have the normal kind of neighborhood discussions prior to this meeting? Normally we get a little bit of a pulse, and regrettably I've only started getting the pulse in the last few days as The neighborhood has, you know, frankly activated themselves to call various members of us to tell or email us and say they weren't excited about it. And then we have one who read in comments earlier that they like the idea. So they want the place, you know, cared for again, lawns green, et cetera, et cetera. So I guess that's a multiple-part question. How did the neighborhood meetings go? And 2, were any of the neighbors at the Planning Commission when this was discussed? And just give us a little feedback there. And then I'd like a legal review on what we're allowed and structured to do here.

Sure.

So they did at the Planning Commission meeting, they did have several questions that were entered into the record through online forum, whether that was email or, you know, the process to do the same with the City Council. Some of their concerns were the same as Mr. Peterson indicated with traffic, parking on the streets, things like that. I'll let the applicant explain the neighborhood meeting. They did hold a neighborhood meeting. I don't think there was a lot of people that attended when they held it, so I don't know if it was, you know, due to the COVID or what, but they did have a neighborhood meeting. I'll let the applicant explain that part, and then we can have Steve address the legal concerns.

Yeah, you can hear me?

Yes, go ahead, Herman.

Well, I took the time with my wife And we went knocking doors, you know, on the west side of the building. There's a curbside. We went right, not to all the neighbors, but to the neighbors they close on S-Dorn with daycare. Same thing with the south side and the east side. So the concern that I hear is— They, they, they don't want many traffic or vehicles coming at the same time. That's as I explained to them that we've been working on. And also, nobody complained about the fence. And all I offered, I say, we're planning to double our budget to run a fence because the property is already fenced, but we're planning to run a second fence of vinyl for the safety of the kids because the actual fence is a kind of wood and it's scratchy and have holes and the kids, they can get hurt. That duplicated our budget for fence, but that's what we're planning to do and offer to their neighbors, the next-door neighbors that might be more affected because maybe somebody don't like the kids kicking the ball and punching the fence. But to the traffic, I asked the neighbors on the back, and they say they have 3 or 4 kids. They happy to have a daycare over there. And the other side of the street, I spoke— I think it's her mom. Nobody else was in that home. I think it's, uh, it's like, uh, Swenson. Uh, Swenson. Uh, I spoke with, I think, I guess, his mom. And I spoke with the son of Darlene Bandelsman. And he say his father wasn't there, but They, they don't have any complaints. So honestly, uh, this is— I can say from the, from the neighbors, uh, I didn't go far away. I, I just went around the, the, the, the properties, the, the very close to the, this building, and most of them say they happy to have somebody there because this property has been empty for a couple years.

So, Herman, I did have one of the neighbors speak to me that borders your proposed property, and he did say that the neighborhood would love to have children there and to have a daycare. Their only concern were traffic issues. So, Jeff Lampson, have you got a question?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. So, I guess a question for Jason. When was the traffic study done for this?

Let me find the date here. Whoops, sorry.

I think it's 2 years old, but I could be wrong.

No, it's relative. They've been working. So May 29th, 2020.

Okay.

There was one done 2 years ago as well.

So it's been an ongoing process with our engineers to update. They've, you know, as Armand said, we've been working with them for a few months to try to get this traffic study to where the engineering division was satisfied with the results. And so it's been an ongoing issue, but the latest one was submitted in May of 2020.

Okay, so my concern is with COVID-19, without UVU traffic, without Orem Elementary traffic, without no Webster Academy traffic and several other points of increased traffic that's been decreased because of COVID-19. It seems to me that the traffic patterns would be influenced and we would have lesser of a true vision of what that actually would be like during the day when you have parents taking kids to to, again, Orem Elementary, just to the west, UVU, students going to UVU throughout the day, and then another new building being built at Midtown that also would increase the traffic flow through that area.

Mayor, this is Steve Earle. If I can address that point.

Sure, Steve.

So just looking at the traffic study under Section 2 of the traffic flow, if I'm reading this I believe they took their traffic counts. They said their PM peak hour traffic counts were taken for a weekday in November of 2018, and their AM peak hour traffic counts were taken from a weekday in August 2015. So they— I don't think they were looking at 2000. I mean, the traffic study is dated May 29, 2020, but I think the traffic Counts that they were relying on were actually from these numbers of 2018 or 2015. Perhaps their engineer can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

And that was what I— when I was looking at that, I noticed those dates, and my thought was, my goodness, I think our traffic's increased significantly since 2015 and 2018. But hearing that it was— thinking that it might have been later, then we have this other situation, but I just feel like our traffic has probably increased quite a bit since then.

So we actually—

our own engineer can address that question. I think Sam Kelly's on the line, may have some comment on that.

Yeah, I mean, that the data that we received, that's probably data that we gave them as Avenue helped with our data management collection project we had here a year ago, and I mean understanding that there's traffic, understanding that there's improvements, but they're not looking to improve the intersection. They're not looking to do much. They're looking at what they can do as far as parking and trips. Understanding that traffic has increased, probably maybe not very much. This part of Main Street. Isn't traveled a lot just because it really doesn't go anywhere. So I mean, you can look at some of that data there. You're looking at 25 lefts and 49, and then versus 48 and 85. I mean, it's just kind of an odd place to have anything as far as, you know, you're looking at your traffic, understanding that there is Noah Webster and Midtown 360 and UVU. But this part of Main Street and 4th South, I mean, the Main Street portion is— it's not traveled very heavily. So we really weren't looking at the actual numbers as far as the traffic. We were more concerned about making sure that they could park and then looking at trips and then looking at that schedule to see how it would work.

Okay. Steve, did you want to mention anything on the Legal side in response to Tom's question?

Yeah, sure. So basically just the standard on reviewing a conditional use permit. You know, Utah Code Section 10-9A-507 says that a land use authority shall approve a conditional use if reasonable conditions are proposed or can be imposed to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use. So the 2 main detrimental effects or questions regarding possible detrimental effects that I've heard have to do with potentially clear vision issues. I think as you come out of the property onto Main Street and then possibly as if you're traveling north on Main Street looking to make a left turn on 400 South, And again, maybe that's something that Sam can address as to whether if those vehicles are parked on the street, whether clear vision might be an issue. And if it is an issue, if it is a safety issue, is there anything that can be done to mitigate that situation? Then the other detrimental effect or concern about a detrimental effect that I've heard is the question about being able to, you know, go into that On-site parking lot, back out, come back out onto Main Street safely. And again, I think that's a question for a traffic engineer. Is that site— is that parking lot configured to allow for safe entry and egress out of that parking lot? So again, maybe that's a question for Sam or their— or the applicant's engineer as well.

Sam, any comments?

Um, and Dave— Councilman Spencer brought up a good point about the left turn or the right turn on Main Street onto 4th South. Unfortunately, when you look at this image, you can see that that intersection is offset a little bit. So understanding that there is probably some potential clear vision issues there, but the way that's set up, it is wider on the east side than it would be on the west, so it wouldn't be too uncommon for a car to stop at the stop bar and then go ahead and ease on forward till they could actually see what that eastbound traffic was, where it was at, and then they could go ahead and execute that turn. Coming out of the actual facility itself, yes, I would agree. In the traffic study, the way they had them drawn in there, it didn't look like there was going to be an issue, but it looks like, yeah, they could possibly lose at least one stall if this is actually drawn correctly and to scale. But, you know, if you're coming southbound on Main Street to turn in, I could see where that one stall there is is a little bit too close and that would be somewhat of a detriment. And like, I mean, and you got to realize we've gone through this, like Herman said, for months because we had to make sure that he could park it as per code and then making sure that all these movements were safe. And in looking at it, they could possibly lose possibly 2 there on Main Street. And even so, They're showing that they have 26. It still puts them down to 24, and and and that would still be safe as far as ingress and egress out of the site. It's not an ideal site, but it can work. I mean, and that's why we wanted to have that one backup space. So if a car did pull in and it was full, then they had a spot to go ahead and back out and go find a spot on on street to park. It's just a— and it's a tough site. If it was anything else, if it was some sort of a professional office, if it was a dental office or anything like that, we'd still be looking at some sort of on-street employee parking. So I hope I answered your guys' questions.

One thing to remember is that the city has lined off on 4 South there area for parking. And so legally and according to code, that is all within the jurisdiction of what is allowed on that road for parking.

You're right.

On Main Street, from the middle to the south, you have 2 stalls, but you actually have room for another 4 stalls down there along the tennis court. And I know you're not including that, but that actually is available. As far as egress and ingress to the site, it is wide enough for 2 cars to come in and out. They have been doing it for 9 years that the former businesses were in operation. So legally, I don't know that You could sit there and say that the places for parking for the staff are improper or not allowed. They are allowed by code.

So—

Mayor—

There is enough room inside the facility, again, to back out of the 5 stalls and the 8 stalls and not run into each other, as was exhibited earlier by that large truck.

Right.

Steve Earl here. If I could ask a question of Sam again. So asking Sam Kelly, our city engineer, could the concerns about clear vision coming out of the parking lot onto Main Street and/or making a left turn onto 400 South, could they be adequately mitigated by, say, red curbing a certain distance, whether that's 25 or 35 feet or something You know, from, from the intersection of the parking lot access and Main Street and also the intersection of 400 South and Main Street?

Yes, yes. And I mean, yeah, exactly. We could go ahead and do that.

That would help with that.

How many would you lose?

I mean, right now, the way I see it and the way I look at it, and I haven't put any pencil paper and looked at what's going on. I would easily see 2 probably along Main Street. Looking and understanding that someone could park there, it makes sense. It just wouldn't be comfortable because if you're at the furthest north, you go ahead and park there, but then you go ahead and try and get out there, there's a car coming left. It just wouldn't feel right. And then same with the one right next to the the entrance, I would see that those 2 would probably at least have to probably be gone. There would have to be red curbing in there, but I think those other 2 would probably work.

You talking about these 2 in the middle, Sam?

Yeah.

Then on 4th, on 4th South, even when you turn left and right, those 2 cars, all those cars block your vision, so you have to inch way out on both. I think it's a safety issue.

And yes, there, there is a concern there, but you also have that buffer of that bike lane, and it's not uncommon for a stop bar to be placed way far back of an intersection to allow the crosswalk. And then once you stop, you go ahead and proceed with caution until you can see. This, this type of a scenario is actually quite common all along Carterville Road and other spots within the city, because if you were to look just to the further west there at that home, that's— the address is 412. There could be cars parked along that person's side lot, you know, they're visiting. And if you're trying to pull out of here, you know, you stopped at that stop bar as it's shown there, you wouldn't be able to see either. So that's when you stop.

But the 412, that's not very long compared to what you're on the side of the building. I mean, side of that property goes all the way down. I don't know. That's my—

Right.

Hey, Sam. Yeah, this is David Beeson with Avenue. Hey, one of the things we did also do with our— in our preparation of the parking for that area is we did review the Utah traffic code, the state law that manages or mitigates where people can park.

Legally parked.

And so we— all the parking stalls that are shown on that figure are actually within the law of where they can park. Now we can put red curbing to help people not to park in certain areas, but those— all those parking stalls are legal parking stalls per the Utah State Code.

Okay.

So just one comment. You mentioned about like Carterville Road as you're comparing it to this. The difference is 100 children. The difference is 100 children that's going to be running in and out of cars. And you said they can go on electronically and sign in, or— that's the concern, is this narrow road with a lot of traffic on it and 100 children running out of cars into the building. That's a whole different situation than Carterville Road. That's not a fair comparison.

Well, and if I may piggyback your comment there, Terry, the mayor's comments that previous owners got by with the number of parking ignores the fact that there are 100 little children versus 30 or 40 senior citizens who don't come and go multiple times a day. I mean, we have 100 children who will come and leave every day. And that's concerning to me. And I understand the applicant's frustration for the lengthy process, and I'm sorry. But I'm also concerned, as all of us have been, about the safety of the children, which dwarfs the concerns of the neighbors. But the neighbors have not been won over on this, clearly. And it is— I echo the Main Street narrow road and the coming and going of a lot of little people that—

Thank you.

We're paid to protect.

So Jeff Lampson has a question. Jeff, you want to go ahead?

Yeah, just another comment. I have relationships with people that are crossing guards, and they, you know, every day during the school year are helping people get across the street. But even in, even in those situations where you have an adult with a stop sign and children who are older than what we're talking about here. I hear stories constantly of kids darting out even though they've been told time and time again not to do that. Kids are kids and sometimes they do stupid things. And I've heard stories of children just running out right into the street and near misses and I just, yeah, I'm really concerned about the safety here.

All right, one comment I'd like to make is that we do have elementary schools throughout the city, we have childcare throughout the city, and the drop-off and pickup is all within a confined space. They're not going to be going across the road. They're going to be able to be taken in by a parent walked into the building and signed in. And then when they're picked up, they come back out and they go into the car. You don't have 100 children arriving all at the same time. You have 10 within a 10-minute period. Actually, as I looked and went through it, it appeared that there is about 10 every 15 minutes. And the reality is it is an enclosed-off area, which I think speaks to the safety of the children. And the fact that this business requires the child to be walked in with the parent, I think speaks to the safety as well. So I feel good about it. And I feel like this is a business that Orem needs. We have a lot of Hispanic families that need good childcare, and this facility is providing it on State Street, and I'd much rather have it over here on Main Street than continuing to grow on State Street. And this, I think, would be a good location. The neighbors do like the children. They just want to make sure that the parking is done properly. When I talked to a few of them, the idea was they thought the children were being dropped off on Main Street. They're in fact being dropped off An enclosed area with 15— I mean, 13 stalls. Plus, legally, if we turn this down, which we can do, but if we turn it down, I don't think we have a basis to do it legally, and we could have a problem. But my biggest concern is the safety of the children, and I think this will actually be a help to them where they're being dropped off in an enclosed area. And with that, Jeff, Jeff, did you have another comment? No.

Okay.

Sure, I do have a comment. Can I, can I make a comment?

Let's let Herman speak and then we'll go to you. Herman?

Yes, thank you for, for giving me the opportunity to, to explain my point of view. Um, we supply, you know, to the Orange City. We bring the information attached to the traffic flow and the parking plan. But I feel that somebody there does not believe what I say, or it's another interest. I don't know what's going on. I'm very honest because that's the way I grew up. Uh, I've been feeling some opposition. I don't know. I went to the property yesterday and I saw 4 or 5 people. I don't recognize the people looking at the place, looking at the street, looking. And I say, this is not Orange City, there's no engineering. So I don't recognize them because I went and talked to the neighbors. So hopefully I might be wrong. I feel that somebody has a personal interest in this property. Like I say, I've been working for the past 4 months, and the only reason I keep going this and doing this is because I believe in my wife. And she, she's been running— she started a daycare 8 years ago at home. 3 years ago, almost 4 years ago, she opened a commercial property, commercial daycare. And you can see our records and we never have safety issues with the childcare license because having childcare is not many people can do it because you have to have 3 or 4 different licenses to have a daycare. Many people have a home and think this is an easy business. I know over maintenance and a manager of maintenance in a pharmaceutical company and I've been considering, I'm 57, I've been considering to be full-time in this business because I saw the love that my wife has for the kids. It's not only to make money, it's not only to get a big resource or income, it's because she likes to do that. And she has 8 employees. All the employees went to UVU under her program, all licensed and CDA and taking care of kids. So when I say, when We attach information to the planning traffic and the parking plan. We, we give specific names to specific areas of the people or the kids that come in. Now we're jumping from 70 to 100. We're not jumping to the double or triple. And we split and we're very specific working with the partners. all the time. Things can happen. Somebody asking, oh, what happened if somebody runs 15 minutes late? I don't think 10 people is going to run 15 minutes late at the same time. So that's why I feel some opposition. I feel that somebody, I don't know, is making this thing worse than they're supposed to do. I think in the past 4 months, that's what I told my wife, we did our part. We submit all the information. The Orange City required the Planning Commission. I'm very grateful for them because I learned a lot in this process for the safety of the kids. And my main concern now is the neighbors. And I went and talked to each of them. They're close to the property because that's the sole goal. We know, we know, going to do a business and we might be able to find a commercial property and not go through all this stuff, you know. But we, we want to bring a business to our area. They close to where we at is— this is the main reason we're looking for that building, because we are 2 blocks or 3 blocks away from that property. And we are in State Street, and I hope the people, they making comments that this place is not safe, go to State Street one day and see what's going on there. State Street, 4, 3 nights out. In a property, there's access to parking, trailers, parking lot. It's 3 businesses over there to 11 spots, or 11 stalls to share with 3 businesses. Where the people at when this property was approved to be a daycare over there? I'm sorry, I feel so frustrated, but I try to be honest. And I don't think that we need to go through all this stuff at this last minute.

Thank you, Ramon. Brent, did you want to make a comment?

Yeah, first I've got a quick 3 questions. First for Sam, a vehicle coming or going north on the right side of the street, he's turning into the daycare. And then there's cars coming, going south, and there's 2 or 3 in line there to go in. How does that traffic flow work? I mean, the car going north is going to have backup there of cars way behind him. And then, Jason, I've got a question on the, the off-site street slots parking. Is that marked in any way for the daycare center, or can I go park there? Or, you know, is that just open parking and it's just considered in this application? And then one for the applicant, would you consider at all eliminating those 5 stalls inside to give more turnaround?

I guess I'll address the first one, Brent. I mean, yeah, if there is, as part of these conditions that Hermanna is going to do based upon the potential approval, is that he's only going to be able to have— what is it, a maximum of 10 in 10 minutes? So there is a chance.

So there is a chance.

Go ahead.

Okay, go ahead.

So I mean, if there is someone heading northbound to turn left, And there's someone coming southbound to turn right, yeah, that they are going to have to wait. And I don't know if— I mean, it seemed like when I looked at that schedule, there was— it seemed to be in the morning, it was around 9:00 AM. I mean, there is a chance that there's going to be a backup for a few seconds for those cars to pull in. You have the 8 stalls on the north and you have the 5 on the south. And part of the conditions of approval are that in order to do pickup and drop-off, it's got to be on site. And if he's showing that he's going to have 10 and we're providing 13, I would think that they're going to be stalled for maybe a few seconds, 5 or 10, then they'll go ahead and pull in and they'll pull out and they'll be on their way. I mean, yeah, I think there's going to be a chance to have these little small instances where there's going to be a backup, but I mean, I don't know. I mean, yeah, I would think it would just be like most other business where there's going to be someone pulling in and someone pulling out and you got lefts and rights. And but I would hope, and looking at this, it seems like it's typically at an off-peak time that it shouldn't be too much of an issue. And if so, I mean, you're going to have those people pull out around on Main Street and they should be— shouldn't be that big of a safety concern. That's really not much of a— I mean, that whole Ingress to the site isn't as much of a concern to me as making sure that it's a safe movement, you know, coming off of 4th South, turning left, as well as, as well as the folks on Main Street trying to access 4th South.

Okay, thank you.

In addressing the on-street parking, that it is a public street, they are— they wouldn't be signed specifically for this business. The ordinance does allow them to count them Toward meeting the requirement, but anybody could go and park there during, you know, during the day. So it's not going to be specifically for them.

Now, Jason, when I met with you, correct me if I'm wrong, but that soft street parking only applies to daycare. Sam said it applies to some other businesses, and I'm confused there.

I'm not aware of very many ordinances that allow for that. Some city center district requirements do allow— if they do an office building itself only without residential, we do allow in some instances to count off-street or on-street parking to count towards meeting some of that requirement. But generally, we do not allow them to count it. It is a public street. They can use it for parking, but it doesn't count in their calculations of meeting, you know, the required stalls are not counted on the street. In this case, it is specifically in the ordinance that does allow us to count them in front of their property to count in meeting the requirements. But in most instances, that is not the case.

Okay, thank you. Uh, then just a question for the applicant on the eliminating some of those stalls and moving the backup lane or backup space. Is that a possibility?

Hello?

Well, yeah, you can hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, I will follow any, any of your instructions or directions, because I think you guys have better knowledge than I do. You guys have a crew of engineers, and I will be able to hear any suggestions and suggestions. Since we are able to, to comply with the regulations, you know, uh, we've been working on this for months. Like I say, I will do anything that you guys want me to do.

So, if I may—

Sure, go ahead.

Well, I was just going to say—

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

If those stalls are removed, it does reduce the number of students that would be allowed to be put into this facility. That was something we discussed a little bit earlier about how those stalls, well, number one, there's room to turn around in there with those stalls. already. And so it's— you're not, you're not going to be using that area to back up. It's beyond where you would need to back up to turn around, those 5 stalls.

So what, what's the ratio if— just say if you did eliminate those 5, could you still have this 60 or 50 or whatever he wants?

It would be less than what he currently has with 11 stalls that he's sharing with 3 businesses.

Mayor, can I say something?

Sure, go ahead, Debbie.

So I've actually been a working mom, and I've had my children in daycare for years and years and years. And yes, I too am concerned about the safety, but I hear passion in Hassan's name, and I mean in his voice and in his wife's. These seem like caring individuals, and I feel satisfied. Now, I'm happy to, if you want to do some redlining for vision like Councilman Spencer, but these are good people. And I can tell you right now, the thought of having them care for children puts me at peace because I've done this, and I have looked for opportunities And I paid childcare for years and years and years. I worked 13 or 17 years at BYU and had children in daycare the whole time. So I am satisfied. I think they are going to be very sensitive to safety. And I feel like they've worked in good faith. And so I'm comfortable. When I first, you know, was looking at this, safety was a concern, but I feel good. And like I said, if the sight line is a concern, I could certainly redline. That on 400 South and Main Street, if that would get us to where we need to go. But I just want to say, as a working parent, I appreciate their passion, and these are good people, and we— good daycare is a very difficult thing to find.

So Debbie, I would just like to echo what you said as well. And the reality on the stalls, when you pull in, He is requiring that every student is walked into the class and signed off. Other daycares don't require that. Other ones only require that 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds are signed off, and 5-year-olds are allowed to walk in on their own. So I believe safety-wise, where every student is going to have to be walked in holding a parent's hand. and signed off and coming out of the car in a protected stall within sight of those 2 buildings, I believe speaks to the safety for the children of this area. And I too have looked into the reputation and what this business is about. And there is one, a great need for it for our Hispanic community, for those that have to work, both parents. And, and 2, they need a good safe place for their kids to go during the day. And this, from what I can tell, is in fact that place. So I think it would be beneficial.

Mayor, in the daycares that my children have gone to, I would only say 2 of them had me walk in and sign them in. And so I appreciate the precaution. That's not typical.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

Mayor, this is Steven.

I know it's not a public hearing, but I did want you to know that there are 2 comments that came in. Whether you want to hear them or not, they are— those did come in during this discussion.

Well, it is not a public hearing. So I think I'll probably pass at this point. But one thing I wanted to bring up again is just the fact that Orem needs good daycare and our Hispanic community needs good safe daycare.

Thank you.

I feel like this could be that.

Mayor, I think—

I would like to, if there's no further comments—

No, I have a comment, Mayor. In the past, in the past, you have allowed some to make a comment even though it hasn't been a public hearing, and I'd like to see if 3 other councilmen would like to hear those comments, because I would.

Yes.

I would like to hear what they have to say.

All right, go ahead, Steve, and read them.

Okay, the first one is from Adam Lewis, um, from Thayne, Wyoming. I grew up on the property just south of the proposed daycare. My parents still own the property. By the time children are escorted into or out of the building, that parking spot is tied up for 3 to 5 minutes per car. I would think if 100 children are coming, you can imagine how far the cars will stack up on Main Street and 400 South in both directions, making it very difficult to get in and out of our homes. I don't think it's realistic to expect all the parents dropping kids off to arrange exactly— to arrive exactly on time for their scheduled time. Many other schools in the neighborhood struggle with the same problem regardless of scheduled drop-off times. Lines of waiting cars in the streets with engines running is a safety concern, a health hazard for us and our neighbors, and And an unpleasant residential experience. Consider the close proximity of 3 popular intersections at 400 South, Main Street, Orem Boulevard, and State Street. Consider that Main Street is fairly narrow. There will be a traffic nightmare not only for the neighborhood, but for the parents using the daycare center. The amount of travel— the amount of traffic traveling east on 400 South will also be increasing steadily due to Vineyard residents coming to Orem. The space within the complex is not sufficient to have cars pulling in, dropping kids off, then turning around again to exit. I believe there will be congestion on both 400 South and Main Street because of this difficulty. I have spoken with multiple neighbors who live near the complex, and many have expressed concerns. I am surprised that the applicant has said there are no concerns from the neighbors. I understand the parking is lined off on the roads and was code approved, but that does not mean that this site is prepared for large quantities of cars to arrive in a small window of time. The previous business hardly ever had cars coming and going. It is a very different business. Mayor, that's the first comment, again from Adam Lewis.

Okay.

The second comment is from Darren Van de Vos out of American Fork, Utah. What neighborhood meeting? I was never invited to a neighborhood meeting. He dropped off a basket at my house after he said In the Planning Commission that he talked to all of us, and I wasn't even home when he dropped off the gift basket. He never asked my son for my number, and he never came back. He has not communicated like he thinks he has. The play area is rather small. Does the owner feel that it is large enough to accommodate the group sizes that will use it? Also, it, it is not completely enclosed. There is no fence between the yard and the parking lot. Does he plan to build one? And that is the end of Darren's comment.

Any other comments?

Mayor, I just got a text. May I read that?

Sure, go ahead.

This is from a Karen Bartholomew. She says, I live behind the daycare that is being discussed right now. My concern is the play area. It doesn't appear like it would accommodate that many children. So she is concerned about the play area.

Okay, any other comments? All right, if there's no other comments, let's go ahead and take it to a vote.

Um, okay, before we take it to a vote, weren't we going to see if there were legitimate, um, concerns we could raise that would allow us to discuss this without a legal challenge? I think Steve was going to maybe suggest some.

All I heard was talking about redlining, unless Steve's got something else. Steve Earle, are you there?

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead. Tom wants another legal opinion.

Well, maybe, maybe Tom could rephrase his question. I wasn't sure I fully understood it.

Well, if I understand correctly, if we are going to vote nay on this, we have to have legitimate reasons. And I've heard a lot of suggestions, but nothing codified into please do this, this, or this. We need to have realistic expectations. Obviously, it'd be great for us if it was still a seniors facility. I think it would be more quiet. But if we don't approve this, it could be a recovery house. It could be a lot of things that are licensed to go into this area. And one can re-guess whether or not they zoned this correctly or made a exception and allowance here, whenever that was, back in whatever you think, a decade ago or so. But that's really not the point now. The point is, if we say no, we have to have legitimate reasons. And I wondered if you could help make sense out of what everyone has said.

Well, you know, like I said before, it sounds like the 2 main issues that I've heard are concerns about Whether the parking lot is adequate to allow people to go in, park, and then be able to back out and exit. And also whether the access or the intersection of the access and Main Street has adequate visibility, as well as the intersection at Main Street and 400 South has adequate visibility. If I'm missing something, maybe someone else can chime in.

Is there a concern also? I mean, the neighbors, it feels to me like the neighbors are not very keen on this because of all of the things that we've already talked about. But it also feels like the neighbors feel like they have not been involved in the process based on the statements that we just heard. One saying what meeting and then another one, you know, saying we didn't— we haven't— they haven't talked to us.

Yeah, so, you know, the only question there is whether the applicant has complied with the city requirements in terms of neighborhood meeting and notices. If they have, then I don't think, you know, specific neighbor concerns or complaints that they weren't contacted or didn't know about this. I don't think that's a basis for denial.

Steve, real quick, I do know that we sent out notices throughout the surrounding area to all of the residents talking about, you know, the Planning Commission meeting, etc.

So—

Right.

So you guys said—

So you're very—

The notice and the neighborhood meeting requirements have been complied with. And if they have, then, you know, that requirement is satisfied. And, you know, it happens very often that, that people would like more notice or they claim they didn't get the notice. You know, that happens all the time. And that, that those complaints aren't a valid basis for denial. If the city ordinance requirements have been complied with.

Jason, did we send out the flyers?

We did.

And actually, we actually met with, I think, 5 or 6 neighbors in our conference room to discuss this and other issues of the neighborhood. So we have been in contact. Now, obviously, we didn't do it the way that Hermano was supposed to do it. And I think he accomplished that based on my understanding. There's no issue with noticing as far as on our end. Planning Commission noticing all that stuff, City Council was done according to the regulations.

So I would have no problem including that the intersection be redlined so that we take care of that.

And Mayor, if I can suggest something on that.

Sure.

Maybe, maybe again Sam Kelly can chime in on this, but I believe that there are You know, there are traffic standard guidelines that— and our ordinance has some guidelines as well that determine how far back from the intersection it might need to be redlined in order to provide adequate clear vision. And I think that, you know, Mr. Kelly could provide those. And, you know, those might result in the elimination of some stalls, and the elimination of some stalls might reduce the allowable capacity for that building by, by some amount. I guess it just depends on how many stalls would be eliminated.

So can I address that real quick? This is Jason.

Sure.

So according to Brady, who's the transportation engineer, this line that is the representation of the required setback here, according to Sam, which he talked about this evening, is potentially this stall being eliminated and this stall being eliminated. And allowing the red curbing to come here and then allowing the red curbing to come all the way down here and keep these 2 on Main Street. So I think with the elimination of these 2 stalls down to 24, he could still have the 100 students.

But that still doesn't answer the question on 4 South where you're talking about parking on 4 South.

So the red curb could go all the way to this point here.

You're still, you're still blocking the vision.

Well, and according to Sam, I mean, this is the stop bar. But you can legally inch out and see traffic. That's not against the law to do that.

And that's like Sam was saying, that is a legal intersection right now, forgetting about the daycare.

But you're gonna, you're gonna inch out. I mean, to get past that first car for the vision, you're gonna have to be out in the middle of the intersection. We can—

with regard to that point, I would just suggest that that would probably be a determination that's best made by our traffic engineer as to, you know, whether that red curbing needs to go to that red line or whether it needs to go further to the west. You know, again, based on nationally or statewide recognized traffic standards, I mean, there are legally recognizable standards that we can rely on as to determine what that proper distance is.

So was not the line in put in according to traffic code and regulations for allowing cars to park there on 4th South. I mean, forgetting about the daycare, this intersection has already been in place with the city and like that for many years. So, you know, I don't know why we can't accept it now, so.

Because nobody's parked there.

But legally you're allowed to park there, and supposedly there's enough access and visibility that that's allowed. That's why that stripe is there.

And Jason, I got a question on who enforces the, the things that were stipulations for this thing we're doing, because across the street, Mr. Sampson, I think he's the one that wrote that email, the neighbors have to call him to cut his weeds down every year. So the city's not enforcing anything, and that's the problem I have a concern with. Who's going to hold him liable for what he's supposed to be doing when we can't even do the weed abatement? So I don't know. I've given my 2 cents.

I don't like the the parking.

I don't like the vision coming out of the place, and I don't like the turning on the right and left on 4th South. It's just, to me, it's a safety. And if a kid gets killed or somebody gets killed because of it, you know, it's just not right in my opinion.

So— I can address the conditional use process. There is a revocation requirement that if they don't meet the conditions of approval— so let's say you grant 7 or 9 or whatever conditions If for whatever reason over the year or whenever that we get complaints that he's not following and we can, you know, get evidence of that fact, we can bring it back to the council and the council can revoke the conditional use permit. We don't have a whole lot of conditional use permits. Jason, that is not accurate.

So, Jason, have you ever—

Jason, I was just going to ask Jason, have you ever revoked a conditional use permit? conditional use permit?

Well, like I said, we only have a very minimum number of conditional uses. Like Steve was saying in the pre-meeting, we basically eliminated a lot of conditional uses. The only one that comes to my mind right now is the helicopter up at the Losi Studios. That is a conditional use. They have followed the requirements of the City Council that was approved probably 10 years ago. So I mean, there are conditional uses that we have that we have not brought forward because they are complying with the conditions. So I mean, it's not uncommon that we wouldn't do it, but we don't have any that are, you know, constantly a nuisance or things that we would interpret or bring forward back to the council for that. So there's not a whole lot. I mean, yeah, there's only a handful that we've done over the years that I'm aware of.

And can I ask one more question? I'm still going back to those 5 stalls. How much would that reduce the I mean, we all know we need a daycare facility, Sonoran, and I agree totally with that. But I'm concerned about some of the things that's been said. But the 5 stalls, what would that put the number of children down to if you eliminated those?

I think it's about 4 kids per stall.

I believe one of those 5 stalls is an ADA, so you'd have to add another ADA on the 8 stalls.

Is that correct?

Well, the one backup space could be converted to the ADA, I guess. So it'd be around 80 or so students is what they would be if they lost the 5 stalls. Plus you're talking about 2 on the street, so you're looking at 7 stalls total.

So would the applicant consider that, or what?

I guess I don't—

Well, let me, let me tell you something. I have 70 kids with 11 staff right now. 11 staff that I share with 3— with 2 other businesses. I am in Stage 3, so relocating my facilities From where we are right now, and 2,400 square foot to a 14,000 square foot and pay 3 times whatever I pay right now for lease to have 18 more students, it doesn't make sense. And I would like to invite all the person or the people, they have really concerns about safety, to go and see my place and see if I have any violations of the safety of the kids and how I got approved for the Orange City, how I got a license I hold for the past 3 or 4 years. So it doesn't make any sense. I don't know how the rules that work. I don't— at this point, I think somebody is— because I speak Spanish and I have an accent, is making all this big deal against me. Why are you guys doing this? 4 months dealing and bringing papers, pay engineering, and do all that you guys asked me to do, and you came at last minute of concern about safety? That does not make any sense for me. I don't know for you guys.

So, Ramon, we appreciate your business and On State Street, we appreciate your desire to expand, and you run a great business, and I'm confident that safety is a main concern. Like I say, other daycares I've been to do not require all of their students to be walked in and checked in. And this is occurring in an enclosed area that there is in fact enough room For all the cars to come in and back out and drive out. We do have city intersections that have already been approved and have been used for years. So I feel like that this would be beneficial, and I think that this would be a real help to our Hispanic community and to the children. And this looks like, I think, could be a good win-win, and I believe that there— the safety is number one. So I would like to make a motion if there's no more comments. I would like to move that we approve the conditional use permit of the commercial daycare Smiling Faces located at 410 South Main Street in the R-8 zone with the further condition that we redline the 2 stalls on Main Street, the north and the south, just to the west of the North Building, and that we approve it as such. And is there a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and take a vote.

Steve Earl here.

Could I interject real quick? I'm not sure if you included all the conditions that were recommended by the Planning Commission, your motion?

Yes, I'm including all of those in there. Do you want me to read all those off?

No, if you just refer to it that your motion includes all those conditions, that's fine.

7 conditions are included together with the 8th condition of redlining the north and south car on the east side of the north building on Main Street, thus eliminating 2 stalls. So we will go ahead. Tom McDonald?

Present.

Are you voting yea or nay?

I'm voting present.

So I take that as a nay.

You can take it however you want to, but I'm voting present. There's precedence for that.

Councilmember Spencer?

Nay.

Councilmember Sumner?

There's a need for daycare, but I would just like to discuss this further. But nay for now.

Councilmember Larey?

Aye.

Councilmember Pedersen?

Nay.

Councilmember Lamson?

Present.

Okay, Mayor Brunstad, and I vote aye. The conditional use resolution does not pass. There are not 4 ayes, and so we will move on. Sorry.

Mayor, sorry.

Yes.

So I think we probably— we've got to have a motion that passes. So if the motion that you made fails, we would have to have a motion to deny. Let me suggest one other possibility though before we go to that.

So let me ask you a question. If we're doing a resolution and we don't get 4 aye votes, it automatically doesn't go forward?

You're—

the motion that you made fails.

Correct.

That doesn't mean there could not be another motion that would actually pass.

So do we want to ask for another motion? Is that what you're saying?

I think so, but let me make one other suggestion first if I could, and maybe this will help. Alleviate some of the concerns. I have seen in some other instances where a conditional use permit has been granted on sort of a short-term basis and to be reviewed after, say, a period of a year to see if the conditions that were imposed adequately mitigate the feared negative impacts. That that might be a possibility here that maybe we would grant a conditional use permit. for, say, a 1-year period, and that it would be then reviewed to see if it would be extended or terminated at that time if, in fact, the feared negative impacts come to pass.

So, Steve, the only issue that I have with that is Herman is a businessman and he's buying the property. So he can't buy the property and then put a mortgage on it and then 1 year later have this stipulation That we as a council can then revoke his license to use this as the business intended.

Yeah, I understand, I understand that's not an ideal option. And I didn't know he was buying the property, but I thought maybe he was—

I don't think we can, you know, tell him to go ahead and buy the property and have a mortgage company say, well, you know, are you allowed to have this business? And he said, yeah, for 1 year and that's it.

Well, maybe we can ask him if that's something he's willing to entertain, and if not, then it's dead, I guess.

Well, I've been working for the, for the past 4 months, and I wasn't expecting, you know, to get to this point and hear a lot of people concerned about safety after your engineers, you know, from the Orange City Department review and check this and asking me for a lot of requirements for the past 4 months. So it's— I don't think it's fair, but you guys have to do your job. But I don't think that's right because if the engineers, your engineers tell me at the beginning of a month or 2 months later I started submitting my application, Hey, you don't complete or you don't make the regulations. I understand. I say, might be all right. At this point, I spent around $10,000 in all the paperwork and all the things that you had to get down. I changed a check backflow valve. They charged me $1,600 to replace it and came to this point and you guys say that, you know. Honestly, I don't want to go deeper on this, but I'm going to get a legal assistant because I don't think that's fair. I don't feel that you guys send invitations to the neighbors and you guys base your decision on the neighbors' concern on a street that's already set for many years, and it's a business running there for many years.

Thank you.

And now you say, oh, 100 students coming and going around. No, always tell me how they care that 100 students came at the same time. Show me one. So I feel once again that somebody has a conflict of personal interest in this property because this started not from now. From the— from months, you know, they've been dealing with this. Definitely, for me, it's no— it's no good business to move from the actual location to that location and spend 3 times the money because we don't lease it. We're not renting. We try to buy the property. We try to pay taxes for a property that's been empty, try to bring a business to that neighborhood. And I understand the positions of some people. Like the, the person behind on the business, Mr. Sunshin, because that property had been empty for 2 years. The first time I was there, the police were there, a police officer from the Orange City, because somebody broke in the property. So if the property is sold and, and I pay the money they're asking for, I had the, the banker, the loan officer just waiting for you guys' decision. And at this point, after months working with the bank and working with you guys, you guys say, oh, it's no sale. Oh, because the neighbors say this. These people, they don't understand that the property itself, they're going to improve the price of the property. I don't need— I don't rent it. I try to buy. But anyway, you guys made a decision. I appreciate your time. But once again, I'm going to find, uh, um, an advice on this because I, I think something happens against me due to this decision.

Well, thank you, German, and thank you for being here. I believe that you have a good business model. I would have liked to have seen it go in there. The vote did not go that direction, and so we will then move on in our agenda. Unless, Steve, somebody else wants to make another motion.

I just—

I have—

this is Jeff. I have a question. Is there an opportunity to maybe do a little more? I appreciate the city and everything that staff has done, all of the hours and everything that's gone into this. Would there be an opportunity for us, and maybe I'm not wanting to kick the can down the road, but is there an opportunity for us to do a little more research, maybe on the part of the City Council.

So Steve, we could continue this, right?

Yeah, absolutely.

So my question is, I don't know whether that's what the council wants to do, but would someone want to make a motion to continue this?

Mayor, this is Ryan Clark.

Can I make a quick comment? Sure.

I believe the applicant has a deadline with his financing for this project. So if you do continue it, you may want to inquire if that will impact his ability to acquire the loan for this property.

So the continuation would probably be for 2 weeks. Herman, are you open to that or not really?

Well, when I, when I submit my, my offer, I asked for 120 days window to get this process done. That's 120 days. Well done. I, I, I, that expired almost a month ago. So I request 30 days. I request a 30-day extension and then going to expire on July 10th. So I have one more week. I just spoke with the loan officer this morning, and I told him that I have a very sure that I'm going to be approved because I received in the previous meeting 7 votes for approval of this motion. And now I don't know what he's going to say to the loan officer. I don't know what he's going to do with the parents that I already told them that we're looking and we have a location that we're supposed to move. That's it. The people, they bought the negative, they don't think it. They just thinking and seeing that they really concerned about safety at this point, 120 days later, before— after I submit my application. So that's the best way to improve the business in Orange City? I don't think so. I'm so sorry, I'm so clear, and I spoke my mind. But I don't think— think and put your hand on your heart and see how many families you guys are affecting. Not only me as a businessman, because I told you guys I'm over maintenance in a company, but it's affecting my wife's business and many people that we already told them that because we don't have a spot right now, they're on the waiting list to move to that location. And we told them, oh, we're going to open in June. we're going to open in July. Now we're going to say, oh no, we have to wait another month, or maybe we won't open.

Okay, thank you, Armand. We're gonna have to move forward here. Does anyone care to make a motion to continue to July 14th?

Okay, I would make a motion to continue until July 14th.

Okay, is there a second?

I'll second that. This is Debbie.

Okay. Let's go ahead and take another vote then. Let's go ahead and start.

Tom?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the motion. Could you repeat it?

So the motion is to continue this decision until July 14th.

Yeah, I— yeah, that's fine. I hope— but aye, that's all you really need.

Aye.

That's all I really need. Okay, Dave Spencer. Dave, are you there? Okay, we'll come back.

Nay.

What?

Nay.

Okay, uh, we'll go to Brent Sumner.

Uh, nay.

Okay, we'll go to Debbie Laree.

Aye.

Okay, we'll go to Terry Peterson.

Nay.

Okay, we'll go to Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

Okay, so the motion passes and we will continue this until July 14th. Ramon, I guess you'll just have to talk to your finance people and see if they'll give you 5 more days.

Yeah, I will talk to them and I'm very sure they might be able to open to to work this because that building has been empty for a while. And I don't understand the business mind of some people in this county. I'm sorry for speaking my mind, but I'm very respectful for you guys. I appreciate your hard work and helping the community, you know, to grow.

Okay. Thank you. So this is continued for 2 weeks. So we'll now move on to Resolution 9.3, which is annexation petition for Cache Park Addition, 1526 South, 1250 West. And our presenter is Jason Bench.

Thank you. Everybody can see my screen okay?

Yes.

Okay, the proposed— it's 1.83 acres of property, or 86, excuse me. You can see this is the city boundary line currently. This property is in the city. The owner of this property has partnered with a developer to come in and actually annex this portion as well. So this is the section that we're proposing to annex. It does meet the requirement of meeting, you know, it's adjacent to the city boundary. And so they are proposing to annex. This is simply an acceptance of the petition. It has nothing to do with actually annexing the property. This will come back at another future meeting. towards the fall to where it would actually be annexed into the city itself. They have to go through several steps of processing to do that. So this is simply before you tonight to accept the petition to move forward. Any questions that I can address?

Any comments from the council? Okay, seeing none, this is a resolution, not a public hearing. So I would like to move that the annexation petition for Cache Park Addition, 1526 South 1250 West, be accepted. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Councilmember McDonald.

Aye.

Okay, Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad? I vote aye as well. The resolution passes. Thank you, Jason.

You're welcome.

Now move on to 9.4, which is an ordinance amending Section 23-4-87.B and Section 23-4-87.I 2-1 of the Orem City Code to require certain developments to prevent the off-site discharge of precipitation from all rainfall events less than or equal to the 80th percentile rainfall event. And our presenter is Chris Shirkin.

Mayor and City Council, it's a privilege to be with you tonight. I have the, the amendment Before you, you should have a copy of that in your packet. I do not have a formal presentation, but 2 weeks ago we did have a presentation and entertained some questions regarding the changes that are proposed and required now by the US EPA, as well as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and Division of Water Quality. Uh, What this requires is a code amendment or change for the City of Orem to change our requirements to allow for developers to develop but require them to retain the 80th percentile rainfall amount on their site. That equates to a half an inch of rain that would fall on their site, they would be required to retain. They could treat that via stormwater retention or allow for exfiltration to occur or evapotranspiration or other forms of low-impact designs on their development. Last time we met 2 weeks ago, I mentioned there are several options for them to consider. There are also guidelines and documents that have been adopted by the state DWQ that they can refer to. The City of Orem also has a stormwater management plan that also provides guidelines for developments and developers to consider. The actual code changes specifically refer to a definition in 23-2-1 The definition, I'll read that for you. It says, the 80th percentile rain event is the rainfall event occurring in a defined geographic area where the daily rainfall total is less than or equal to 80% of all daily rainfall events over an extended period of record. We've done some research. We have obtained 2 data points in the city of Orem that are managed by NOAA, which is the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, and those 2 locations have led us to this recommendation of the half inch of rain for that 80th percentile retention requirement. Are there any questions regarding that so far, that definition?

No.

Okay, moving on to the next bit of code. This is referring to 23487. Minimum control requirements. This is a wholesale replacement of what was previously in the code, and what now is being recommended is consistent with these requirements. It allows— it provides direction for developers. For new development, they're required to have the 80th percentile rainfall amount retained on site. For redevelopment sites, so in other words, for a site that's already developed, if their disturbance of their property equates to a 10% increase for impervious surface area, they will also be required to retain to the 80th percentile rainfall event. Subpoint number 3, implementation. They are required, the developer and the owner, and the developer is required to implement structural and nonstructural controls that will incorporate infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvesting, and reusing of that water. It identifies also the low-impact design approaches and gives many examples and so forth and references to those examples. It also allows for the developer or the owner of the property to determine whether or not what's being required is feasible. And they would be required to hire an engineer to provide a counterproposal. And then it does offer dispute resolution as defined in subsection 4 of that chapter as outlined.

I have—

if you have any questions, I'd be willing to entertain them at this point. Otherwise, my presentation is complete.

Any questions or comments from the council? All right, I will go ahead and make a motion that the city council amend Section 23-4-8 and Section 23-2-1 of the Orem City Code to require certain developments to prevent the off-site discharge of precipitation from all rainfall events less than or equal to The 80th percentile rainfall event. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Okay. We'll start with Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Dave Spencer.

Aye.

Brent Sumner.

Aye.

Debbie Luray.

Aye.

Terry Peterson. Terry, you there? Jeff Lampson.

Aye.

Terry?

He's on mute.

Okay, Terry, any way you can unmute and vote? Okay, well, we have enough votes anyway to pass this, so the ordinance does pass and we will move forward. Thank you, Chris. To 9.5, which is a resolution. This is approving the interlocal cooperation agreement between Utah County and the City of Orem for disbursement from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Jamie Davidson is our presenter. Jamie, we'll turn the time over to you.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. A copy of the proposed interlocal agreement is included in your packet this evening. As we discussed in our work session earlier this evening, the purpose of this interlocal agreement is to memorialize the appropriation of money from Utah County to the City of Orem as part of the CARES stimulus COVID-19 response effort. We as a city, in signing this local interlocal agreement, agree to the terms of the interlocal, which include that we will expend these dollars between now and November 1st. of this year. In addition to that, we will subject ourselves to audit requirements as set by the Federal Department of the Treasury, as well as the State of Utah and Utah County. It also includes specific provisions that relate to the termination of the agreement, as well as indemnification provisions within the agreement that essentially obligate the City of Orem in the event Some of this money is inappropriately spent, then the City of Orem would be responsible to reimburse the federal government for those inappropriate expenditures.

Okay, any comments or questions? All right, I will go ahead and make a motion that by resolution the City Council approve the interlocal cooperation Agreement between Utah County and the City of Orem for disbursement from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with Jeff Lamson.

Aye.

Okay, Terry Peterson.

Aye.

Debbie Larray.

Aye.

Brent Sumner. Brent? Are you there?

He's on mute.

Aye.

Okay. Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Tom McDonald?

Aye.

Mayor Brunstad? I vote aye as well. The resolution passes. Thank you. Jamie, do you have any city manager information items?

I don't.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I move that the city council adjourn to a closed-door meeting to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual pursuant to Utah Code Section 52-4-205, and that this meeting will be an all-electronic meeting. Is there a second?

Can we take a 5-minute break before we do that?

Sure, we'll do that, but let's adjourn first.

Second or aye, whatever you're looking for. Sorry.

So I'm looking for a second. That's Tom. We'll start with Jeff Lampson. Jeff?

Aye.

Terry?

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

Dave Spencer?

Aye.

Tom McDonald?

Aye.

And Mayor Brunstad, I vote aye as well. And we will start that meeting if we can at About 8:25. 9 minutes be enough for everybody?

Mayor, are we signing on to a different web— different Zoom?

Yes.

And everybody should have that. If you go to your email, it's on there.

Yeah, okay.

So everybody's signed up.

If you have any problems, just let me know and I will resend the link.

It was from you then, Jamie?

Yes, it was.

Okay.

So this meeting is adjourned and we should all sign off. And leave the meeting.