City Council · 2022-01-25

All right, we're ready to go. You know what I mean? Like, all right, we're streaming, so whenever you're ready.

Okay. Everyone, welcome this afternoon to the work session. I guess we just go right into the first item of discussion. First item of discussion is the Utah Lake Authority. We've given them up to 20 minutes to make a presentation.

Thank you.

My name is Matt Taylor. I'm one of the senior planners on staff. I also am the staff liaison to the Natural Resources Stewardship Committee, RSC. The title of the presentation is a little bit longer because there's a bit of background. Actually, why it's not on the agenda is that it is related to the Utah Lake Authority, which is just up today as House Bill 232. So that's the legislature, it's been filed. I don't think it's been heard by any committee as of this point. And as these things go, likely go through a few iterations before there's a final bill considered. But, um, if you don't know or haven't read the headlines, there is a proposal to restore Utah Lake. It's put forward by a private group of partners, entity called Lake Restoration Solutions, Inc. They've had this proposal online, I think, for about 3 or 4 years now. This proposal is dated 2018. If you go to their website, it's very brief, but if you click on the link, there's about a 243-page report, which— well, not necessarily report, but proposal on their plan to restore Utah Lake. That plan includes things such as dredging and deepening the lake to improve the boating and water quality. In clarity. Technically, that's called turbidity, and the more turbidity you have, the more murky the water is. You may have heard complaints about the lake being a dark and murky lake and not clear. They would propose the creation of islands for new migratory bird and fish habitat, estuaries, which also help with the turbidity. Issues in slowing down wind— well, not necessarily wind, but the results of wind and waves, which churns up the water. Island creation would also create area about 10,000 acres for development. They claim that this proposal will save approximately 30 billion gallons of water annually from evaporation. Because of the large surface and shallow depth of the lake, it evaporates quicker than a deep lake. They propose the restoration of native plants and animals, recreation islands, public beaches, camping trails, waterfront property for public and private use, cleaner, healthier, and more vibrant lake, and they plan on functioning without any taxes over 30 years. And in the presentation, we have sources linked back to those statements there.

Who governs Utah Lake?

So the Utah Lake is a complicated question, or answer to that question. There is the Utah Lake Commission, which provides oversight on Utah Lake issues as a whole. I believe Orem has a representative on the commission, as well as most other cities in Utah County, as it's I think it's a 15-member governing board, and they have an executive director, Eric Ellis, which I'll mention a little bit down the road. But there are other entities that govern the lake, such as Utah Department of Fish and Wildlife. I'll brush this whole list.

Matt, it's under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Fire and State Lands. Forestry, Fire, and State Lands.

That sounds right.

Yeah, so which is a division of the Department of Natural Resources.

Yep, and there's a lot of other agencies that have vested interests in Utah Lake, everything from other state agencies to the Environmental Protection Agency and, you know, Army Corps of Engineers and wetland issues. And so a lot of different players involved with Utah Lake. They propose that this nearly $6 billion project will be paid for through the development of their central series of islands, or the 10,000 acres of island that would be devoted to development. Their proposal outlines about nearly 200,000 units in housing and commercial, in addition to commercial and other uses, on about, well, I think about 2/3 of the land here.

It comes out to be—

So 200,000 units?

Units, which is slightly more than the 2020 census count Wow. Okay, now they're taking into account things like our estimated population in the county nearly tripling in the next 40 years as being a supply for a lot of that interest. Now, many— there's a lot of headlines and other issues— not issues, a lot of discussion and talk right now about this proposal. But they're at the very beginning of the proposal, really. I had a conversation with Eric Ellis today, Utah Lake Commission Director, stating that they're just really getting started with some of the, some of the processes to go determine whether this, this proposal is valid and if it would really result in the outcomes that they propose. This process will involve this list of agencies plus others, I'm assuming. I don't have a full list today. But one reason I say in the forefront of the discussion is proposed legislation at the state level, which we'll talk about momentarily. Like I said, there's been a lot of discussion. I'm not going to go into the detailed concerns of the public because there's about as many opinions as there are people. If you want to get a good sampling, just Google Utah Lake restoration on Google News or something.

You'll get a lot of spectrum of opinions on this.

This came up in our Natural Resources Stewardship Committee in our planning workshop on January 4th as something of interest for discussion. Because the legislature started, they didn't have a chance to formally vote on it because of the timeline the legislature requested that you would consider at least a work session discussion before they could give you a formal recommendation at their next meeting to consider this. They learned of this Provo City resolution, which is very concerned about the proposal. Just some takeaways from the resolution— I will provide a link to that resolution in an email later— but it asserts that past and current efforts for remediation restoration demonstrate the lake is the not irreparably damaged or in need of lake-wide dredging and is unnecessarily ecologically risky, highly expensive, and any islands will deface the lake, harming aesthetic and recreational values. The resolution asserts that the lake's current configuration is essential to climate and nutrient regulation and maintaining oxygen levels during algal blooms and to businesses and other individual water rights. And it calls upon the state legislature to be prudent and continue and not undermine existing efforts to restore the lake and to ensure future actions are based in rigorous scientific and ecological understanding and responsive to a robust and transparent public process. It calls for legislation providing additional protections against any proposals putting the lake's ecological health at risk. The full version I'll provide a link to after this meeting. I mentioned that first because I came out first. Subsequently, as I mentioned, the committee met and asked for this discussion to happen so you can consider if Orem City Council would consider a similar resolution to approve a city. Following that meeting on January 14th, Utah Lake Commission provided a resolution, and I'll just— this is the main The final paragraph of their resolution is sort of the main takeaway. They support the process that it's on, the process and policies set up by Utah legislature and these other agencies, which combined with sound scientific review can successfully guide and vet current and future projects and proposals on Utah Lake. And as I discussed with Eric Ellis of the commission, They have faith that this process is what very well-established technical processes for review will develop sound and well-principled answers to what should be done, rather than jumping into saying, no, we shouldn't even talk about this. Let's stay the course. So there's Obviously, there's some different takes from these 2 agencies on this discussion, which brings us to what's actually on the agenda, the Utah Lake Authority. Another extremely brief summary, and I say that because I am no expert in these things. I'll suggest how to overcome that momentarily. So this just came out today, and my very cursory review of this And this article from the Tribune, which helped. It sounds as if, as of current, the legislation proposes a 15-member board that will include a representative from OREM, as we currently do, to control land use, improvement, and rehabilitation of the lake. It's not intended to have a part in the Title I of the lake restoration proposal. It does clarify and consolidate decision-making for the lake to advance restoration as amenity and economic driver. It would be a taxing authority, a limited purpose— what do they call it, Jamie? A political subdivision.

Yeah. Uh, that would be one more line on our property tax bill for everyone within this area.

No, from what I understand, Councilmember McDonald, the boundary of this lake authority goes to the shoreline. So it's everything from the shoreline into the lake, not—

Or does it abut the shore?

No, we do. Okay, we do, but it goes to a specific elevation. It's defined within the bill as a specific elevation, so we wouldn't specifically be taxed as Orem, but those, for example, that could potentially one day be within the boundary could be taxed.

Gotcha.

But there are additional discussions as to how those that are outside that boundary could be and should be responsible for the remediation of what has happened to the lake, because effectively many, if not all, communities within Utah Valley and beyond, actually up into the Heber Valley, we discharge into Utah Lake by way of our storm drain processes, but also by way of our water reclamation or wastewater treatment. All of that ultimately ends up in Utah Lake.

Is that where Orem touches Utah Lake, down by the golf course?

Yeah, Powell Slough, that area, yes.

Yeah, so it could be a taxing authority. I think one of the benefits that they proposed that would solve is that they could then levy taxes through the issuance of bonds to pay for some of these improvements rather than just relying upon grants and other sources of revenue that they have to beg for, uh, to advance the restoration projects. And those that would pay for—

what's that, Mayor?

Sorry, so who are the taxing executives? There's nobody on the lake.

Well, probably future residents if there's an eventual population living On the lake.

So if I may, so if we go back X number of slides and we, we talk about the realization of some of what this group is talking about, then they would potentially be the ones who would develop taxable value along in the lake, and then the proceeds from those taxes by way of a tax increment arrangement could be essentially reinvested in the property and they could go to pay for improvements within the defined boundaries of the lake.

Yeah, so yeah, they wouldn't need snowplows, right? No. Well, I mean, let's just cover it in ice.

Yeah, I don't think that the idea is the growth and development that would occur within the boundaries of the lake would be the groups that are taxed to pay for the infrastructure.

So, thank you.

So now this resolution, if we were to put forth like provo, would it make a difference? And it might— would it just show that—

Yeah, so both these resolutions I believe are being transmitted to members of the House and state legislature bodies, and so the influence is as much as each member of those bodies gives it credibility. And so certainly it's in your prerogative to decide whether you would like to send that message formally for their consideration.

So probably our Utah County delegation would probably appreciate that the forum is weighing in, but maybe the rest of the state would—

may or may not.

It depends on— I think it probably— your answer depends as much as upon every legislator up there. You know, some may care outside of this Utah Lake because we have more vested interests.

Okay, so what's Kevin Stratton's opinion of this?

I, I do not know anybody's opinion on this other than Representative Waterman.

I see that Brady's sponsoring that.

Yeah, other than he's the sponsor, I don't know anyone's opinion.

So there, if I may, Councilmember Peterson, there's a, there's a number of thoughts associated with this. Part of the discussion relates to the water, water users and the water lobby. Obviously, they're very concerned about any authority or any structure that would potentially jeopardize the water rights that they hold. So, for example, some of the conversations that I have been party to have involved individuals from Salt Lake City, because Salt Lake City actually has water that they they have come out of—

that comes out of each lake, goes along the Jordan River, goes up to Salt Lake City.

There are other interests. Last year, Representative Grammer and others approached cities and said, well, what do you think about this? We had some reservations, in part because the taxing authority would extend beyond the boundaries of the lake, and so we essentially said no, we're not comfortable with that. There was some discussion about potential zoning alternatives along the shorelines. We were not comfortable about that. And so over the interim last year, Representative Brammer kind of asked all of these diverse groups to come together— not come together, but to identify what their concerns are and then bring them back in for discussion. And I believe that Representative Brammer has incorporated many of the concerns and the issues that came out of last year's legislation, proposed legislation, into this year's legislation.

That sounds like he has.

Now, the—

I think the biggest concern right now is there is a growing concern amongst the environmental community as it relates to Not the creation of the authority, but if we do in fact create an authority, how that might impact the future development of the lake. And, you know, who has jurisdiction over that development and so on and so forth. So to some degree, I think the issues are being addressed as it relates to water, taxing authority, and the like, but at the same time, it's kind of creating some other concerns, i.e., the environmental aspects of it. I think all of us would agree, as all of us as cities have agreed, that we share in responsibility as a caretaker of the lake, and we should play some role in the improvement and the preservation of the lake. Now, does it happen by way of the Utah Lake Commission, or does it happen by way of the Utah Lake Authority? The Lake Authority is, like Matt is talking about, a separate jurisdiction. It's a taxing entity. Utah Lake Commission is not. We, through the commission, have been relying predominantly on money from the state and through grants and as well through local contributions. So we as a city, we pay, I think, Jeff, $16,000 a year to be a part of that. But this would create something very much like the inland port. and the Point of the Mountain Agency, where it would be essentially a super jurisdiction potentially that would have exclusive jurisdiction over the lake and would be required to work with all of us as jurisdictions, governmental jurisdictions around.

Yeah.

I have another question. The Wakara Way project that was funded, was that last year?

Is this affected, or is that still going full steam? Do you know?

I just met with that working group today, and they are still moving forward. We're still in the planning phases, determining the final alignments of the trail, but it's funded, and whether the northern or the southern part happens first is still a matter of debate, but it's moving forward.

And that is happening by way of the Utah Lake Commission, correct?

Well, just a few final comments. I want to acknowledge Sarah Bateman. She's one of our longstanding members of the Natural Resources Stewardship Committee.

She's extraordinary.

She's available to answer any questions as well. I think what I would suggest, if you're interested in further discussion— I kept this intentionally brief because I'm not the expert on these issues— That if you want to discuss this or study this at a deeper level, that we could obtain resources such as Mr. Ellis or the actual proposer, proposer of the project, Lake Restoration Solutions, and other guests from the conservation community as appropriate, if you'd like to continue to study this issue before you decide on whether it is appropriate to make a resolution to to the—

to that—

to a certain effect or not.

Question.

I have a real question. First, Jeff, you're on this Utah Lake thing, maybe you can give us some insight. But I have a real question whether our little resolution will mean diddly squat. And if it doesn't mean anything, why should we spend the time and energy to make a resolution that no one cares about? So just my 2 cents worth, you know, I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on TV, but from what I read on both of the resolutions Um, it felt like it was basically saying that we're saying that we support the process of going through and finding out. So it—

to me, it felt like—

and maybe Heather or Steve would have a different opinion— but it felt like there wasn't really anything there other than saying that we support the process and moving forward to find out.

No, in fact, I had a brief text back and forth with Isaac Paxman I thought Provo said no. With the mayor's office today, and he suggested that they are— in fact, I'll tell you exactly what he said. He said Provo City and the mayor was— the administration has taken a supportive posture towards the bill overall. So they haven't necessarily committed, but what they've said is, much to Councilmember Lamson's point, is, hey, we're comfortable allowing and being part of the process.

So my question, if we mimic something similar to Provo, that wouldn't take too much time, right?

Be easy to draft a resolution and fine-tune that to a particular way that you'd like to say.

I mean, I think there are some provisions within— this is just me as I look at it and I've seen it, you know, you're talking about some pointed sentences here in throughout it. For example, Utah Lake is not irreparably damaged, nor in need of lake-wide dredging. Dredging Utah Lake is unnecessary, ecologically risky, highly expensive. So I mean, you are taking some positions that I don't know. I don't know if it's going to be highly expensive. I don't know if it's ecologically necessary. I don't know if it's risky. Those are things that are yet to be determined.

My takeaway from the discussion— I listened to a portion of the discussion with Provo Council, and certainly they're highly concerned with, with the messing around with the lake, and I think that resolution reflects that. I think the mayor and administration are supportive of the process more than certain members of the Provo Council, and I think the Utah Lake Commission resolution supports a process to determine the right answers rather than saying no, let's just not do anything. So again, I think if you want to put forth a resolution, it could take a couple different approaches.

Can I just make a comment? I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here because I haven't had the involvement you have, but I read through the bill itself and the main thing I was concerned about is that the constitution of the board, it seems to vest authority in this Utah commission primarily or largely in people who live outside of Utah County, whereas the Utah Lake Commission right now is primarily representatives of the city and of the county. And so I'm not sure that those people, as constituted under this bill, would necessarily have Utah County's best interests at heart in making decisions for the lake. That's my biggest concern.

And I think that's a very good point. In a conversation we had last year about this very bill. I was—

I too was concerned about it.

I said, well, I use the Salt Lake International Airport all the time, but Orem doesn't get a seat at the Salt Lake International Airport board, but you want to see the Utah Lake Commission. So I do think Steve's comments are very, very relevant.

Well, one of the things that I find ironic too is that they call it the Utah Lake Restoration Project, and yet That doesn't look like restoration to me. That looks like the building had developed.

And so, I don't know, I mean, just my two cents.

I think Utah Lake is, you know, some call it murky and ugly. It's also a great place for recreation.

Yeah.

I don't know, I think it's one of our— one of the jewels of the valley. And so I worry about, you know, people that want to come in and develop islands in the middle of the lake. You know, we don't know what that's going to do to the ecosystem. We don't know what that's going to do to water. I mean, it's— there's a lot of unknowns there. Just to follow up a comment, you know, I don't have it in front of me. Sorry, I made some notes before that I don't have in front of me, but I know that some of the representatives of this authority are actually appointed by, for example, the Speaker of the House. the president of the Senate. We know that their representation is largely developer, right? So we kind of know what their interests are going to be, and not, again, not necessarily interests of people who actually live here, whose interests I think are largely, you know, recreation and scenic views and that sort of thing.

And many of the others outside the valley are water-driven, so they have an interest in water that's in the lake. not necessarily what happens around.

Yeah, I think those are great points.

I mean, as far as sort of outside people—

Sorry, I, I just wanted to share just a couple things just for scope. I could talk a lot about this, but I won't. It's not part of, um, I'm not on the agenda, but just, um, for scope, uh, uh, a professor, Ben Abbott, at— he teaches ecosystem ecology at BYU, and he's got a lot to say about this. But when he compares this project with other similar dredging projects and artificial islands projects, the largest artificial island so far is in— is the Osaka Airport in Japan, and this project would be 8 times the size of the current existing largest project. And then as far as on the dredging side in freshwater, the, the current largest dredging project in a similar freshwater is— this project would be 370 times the size of the current existing project. So just kind of gives you a sense of the scale.

Compared to existing You know, that's incredible.

That was actually the question I had, is this— are we patterning this after some somewhere, or is there a successful version of this? But you're saying this is massive compared to anything that's out there.

Sarah, I know that when we met with the Natural Resources, they, they wanted to have us consider— if you remember the retreat, I brought it up during my council time. Do you remember what intent that they wanted? It was just that— was it the process? Was it to come out against something? I'm trying to remember. Well, just what we were talking about on the committee. The committee was interested in learning more about the science behind it. And I, you know, we felt that that was kind of missing, you know, in a lot of these beautiful glossy pictures that are provided by Utah Lake Restoration. There are a lot of really exciting things that they're proposing there, but we do have some skepticism about the deep science. And because this is, you know, a jewel of our county, and we want to be good stewards and responsible in that relationship.

So I think we're going to have to wrap up unless Anybody's got anything else? But as far as the next step, so I mean, from what I'm hearing here, this is— I mean, the lake is a big part of Orem. We are this, you know, right there with Provo as far as in terms of size of a city that should weigh in on this. Um, I think we just kind of turn our back on it would be a little bit irresponsible. Um, so it seems like we should we should come to some sort of an understanding of what we want to do and what we want to say on this. And, uh, and we don't have enough information to really make a decision like that, uh, but it would be interesting to gather that information, then come up with something based on that going forward. Because it's, I mean, a 200,000-unit development that is equivalent of all the, all the units in Utah County.

I mean, we're talking something massive.

So anyway, and it seems like there's a lot of, there's a lot of unknown science about how that all works.

But anyway, and I think part of the intent of the committee was, you know, we have this Utah Lake Authority bill before the legislature potentially, but this is a multi-year project before they get any preliminary approval. So really 2 timelines we're talking about. One is just respond to your general ideas about whether this authority should be created or not. Another is the bigger question of should any development happen in the lake, which is going to be a much longer process than this legislative session.

So yeah, well, and to the point about should this taxing authority be created, I mean, not if it doesn't have representation from this area, right? So anyway, where do you want to go from here?

Well, I mean, Matt talked about distributing Provost proposed ordinance, or excuse me, resolution for you to review. I'm happy, we are happy to forward that to you, and obviously Mr. Riddle as well, for his additional review and research. I don't think we as staff feel in any way married to what Provost has noted.

I think it just serves as a template potentially to start off of. Correct.

And could be, Could clearly reflect your concerns.

And I can hear it. I can forward the Utility Committee Commission's resolution as well.

I have that.

Okay, you've got those.

So I'll share that with the same information I forward on.

So would that be appropriate, Mayor, to forward it to Mr.

Riddle and to forward it to all of you, that at least the provost resolution is a starting point if you were interested?

Yeah, I think that'd be great. What is our timeline that it would make a difference?

I think if you want to just at least weigh on the Utah Lake Authority issue, I mean, the sooner the better. Yeah, as far as whether development should happen in the lake or not, that's going to be a multi-year process, so you have more time to study that issue.

So, sorry, sorry, but if you create the Utah Lake Authority, aren't you losing control of whether the development happens then?

Because they are vested with the authority to develop. So you're giving up that decision if you create this.

So it seems like our statement should be more aligned with whether we want that authority or not, right?

Yeah.

And given the legislative, legislative session ends the 4th of March and this bill has just been released today, I think the sooner the better, probably the next 2 weeks to have a resolution developed and potentially before you the next council meeting so you can forward that to your— to our local delegation, for example.

I think I could work with Mr. Davidson, Brian, Jason here, come up with a draft resolution as well that you could massage into something you would want.

Okay.

I think the Natural Resource Committee meets the first Wednesday or Thursday of the month, is that correct? So they could also weigh in, you know, Do you have something preliminary to give them?

I could have a draft ready for their review and I can make recommendations on that as well.

Okay, that'd be great.

So that would be—

we would bring it back to you for consideration on the 8th of February.

Right, ideally we'd get it like at least a week before that.

Yeah, it sounds like the Natural Resource Stewardship Committee would see it and we could forward a copy to them.

I mean, that's a good path, I think. Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, next presentation will be Jason Bench.

It's called, uh, Sounds like it. So tonight I just want to review 2 items that are coming next meeting on the 8th, that were reviewed by the Planning Commission last week. One is Indie Studios, which is a 40— I think it's 40— or whatever you call them, office-type facility up in Pinehurst Plaza. They're located in this office suite location. They're proposing that the tattoo and body piercings be permitted in the C-3 zone. That whole area outlined in red is a C-3 zone. What's the address? Can you blow it up? It's 800 North—

Is that Sonic right there on the right?

How many tattoos and piercing sites do we have? Uh, I would say there's probably tattoo— like you would think of a tattoo— but there's probably 4 or 5. So stage 3, that's probably the same. C3, 0 right now. So it's probably been 10 years now that the city council actually allowed tattooing. It was not prior to that, it wasn't allowed. Since then, we haven't had a run on tattoo parlors, but there are several. These guys, and they'll explain, like they explained that Mr. Peterson— Oh, you were there as well. They explained it's more of a— how do you describe it? It's not one of those really colorful tattoos, it's more of a You got the eyebrows, you've got the lip liner probably, and you got maybe some small tattoos if ladies at least want that type of tattoo.

That's more permanent makeup tattooing.

Well, I don't know that she said that. Did she say they were doing cosmetic makeup, or it sounded like they were— they showed that.

So they do that, and then they also do the hair stuff, but there's no differentiation, right? So the cosmetic— and the reason that we're before you, and they're proposing is the county health department doesn't distinguish between 1 or 2 needle tattoo versus a, you know, 10 or 15 needle tattoo where they do all the multicolors and things like that. So they're proposing they have a couple tenants in their space that want to do that type of smaller tattoos. I don't know if you've probably seen them, right? There's a small one-color monotone type of thing. That's the kind of their proposing to do. Their clientele is not what you typically see in a tattoo parlor. They're more of ladies and men, I'm assuming, as well, coming to get the beauty things that they have, right? Whether it's fingernails, all that, the whole gamut of beauty is in that thing. And part of that is right now that's not permitted, so that they're trying to do that. So they have a few clients, a few customers, a few business tenants that want to do it. A few in that area. So there's 40, uh, spaces. So they have a few that are requesting that they have that ability, and they're, they're licensed with the state of Utah. It's not like they're not— whatever that was, the anesthetist, cosmetologist. So they're licensed as a cosmetologist. They're not typically—

What's that salon that they want to be in? What is it licensed It's a salon.

So we distinguish between— because tattoos is separately designated, lump that into a salon.

This would apply to all C-3 zones?

All C-3. Right now, this is the only C-3 we have. Obviously, we're gonna talk about tonight, the Smith's area will be proposed to be taken back to the C-3. So there'll be 2 2 zones, one the Shopko-Smith area, and then this area, Miner's Plaza. Those are the only 2 we have currently.

So the strip mall, the Smith's, do you mean does it go up to the strip mall where Siegel Book is, the pet store, all of that could also be in the whole corner from Shopko?

So do you have any major concerns about this? Um, I mean, permanent cosmetics is a very big thing. I mean, I've even considered getting permanent eyeliner or whatever, so it's not as shady as some, but I'm just wondering what are our major concerns about it. I'm just asking you.

I mean, do we have too many tattoo parlors? Do you think we— It's that you're allowing tattoo parlors in the C-3 zone. Yes, even though this is specialized to what they do, you're opening up a C-3 zone to body art and tattoos.

So it's only allowed in C-2s right now?

It's only allowed in C-2s.

So really, you can either go here or the Smith area, what we're saying.

No, it's permitted in C-2. That's what I'm saying.

Yeah. So body piercings, things like that.

Do we have a restriction on how far apart they have to be? Or—

and it actually includes body piercings and everything else, right?

Correct. So, you know, ear piercing, all that would be considered body piercing. So that's like the mall or other places like that have those types of things. So they're not lumped together.

So is that currently allowed in all the C-2 zones?

So yes, all C-2. And we, you know, there's plenty of earring places or things that kind of tattoo or pierce somebody's ears, right? But there's only a few that are actually where you go in there and you get your whole arm tattooed. There's only a few of those in the city. I'd have to double-check. There's not that many. Yeah, so that's our proposal, changing it from not permitted to permitted. They're located in the office building that's right off 8th North. Planning Commission did make a recommendation council consider.

So Jason, can I just ask you, so why— what's differentiation then between C-2 and C-3? Why were those created? Why was the C-3 created?

Uh, see, well, and I wasn't here at the time, but I'm assuming the main purpose was because it had a pretty decent border along the north. So there is some differentiation between the height of the building and then the landscape required between that 10 feet, similar like at the I guess target— it's not a C-3, but they're kind of built into some standards that were required to buffer, to kind of buffer the homes. So that was really the only distinction, some height issues. So it was just that created a commercial zone that was kind of similar to what the C-2 allows as far as uses.

And this, when this was first put in, the C-2 zones, was it, was it added to the C-2 zones like the process we're talking about right now?

Yeah, it was about 10 years ago, right? But it was—

were C-2 zones originally with that?

Did not allow them.

No, they did not. And so they passed an ordinance that allowed them, just like what we're talking about.

We had a tattoo artist come in and say, I want to do a tattoo shop. He went through this process, made an application, presented it to the Planning Commission, City Council, and we gave it up.

So what was the— 10 years ago, what was the reason to only put it in C-2 and not in C-2NS?

They only apply for the C-2. They had location in C-2. As a city, we were assuming—

I guess, I mean, did we change the ordinance to then make it permitted in C-2 for someone, and then it was throughout the city in C-2 so others could come in and do tattoo shops in those areas? Yeah, and that's why we did a C— that's why you approved it, or we approved it for C-2 versus just looking at it and doing a C-2 and C-3.

Same time, right?

Certain uses.

I mean, as a staff, somebody makes an application and they want a specific thing, we're not going to necessarily talk to them and say, hey, you should widen it out to the whole city. We're going to focus on their application and say, that's what you want, that's what we can do. Not necessarily allow another. Now, we do that on occasion. If it's a use that we think would make sense in other locations, we will expand that application.

But if, if you said, okay, you want it in this location, this Is a C-2, we're going to now permit it in the C-2. It can go throughout the whole city wherever there is a C-2. It's not exclusive to just where they want it.

And that's something we make sure the council is aware of. It's not just this property, it's anywhere a C-2 zone is. And that's what this C-3— we add it in the C-3, it will be allowed over here as well.

And is Smith the only one that will be turned back to C-3? Yes.

And this one?

Yeah, this is current.

So would this business be like more discreet? What I mean by that, like right now we have Tattoo Parlor on State Street, right?

And you can use big tattoos, but this one looks like it's in a building, would be on a higher floor, so it wouldn't be as blatant, I guess, is the question I'm asking you.

Would it be a little more, um, discreet?

Discreet is the word, I guess.

In this particular instance, yes, but it doesn't prohibit somebody else from coming in. Over here or whatever, but it would be over—

it would have to be one of those empty— an empty place on Smith is what we're saying.

Well, I'm not sure it's going to open the floodgate necessarily because we have a 5-mile corridor and we only have 3 or 4. So you only have 2 C-3s, but the entire corridor is C-2. So right now there are currently 8 business licenses under tattoos and body piercing. 4 of those are 2 locations. So within one, there's a tattoo parlor and a body piercing together in one location. So that are 2 separate licenses in one location. So there's— it looks like 5. So this would expand it.

So right now, 8 companies play by the rules.

They're in a C-2, and they, they say, there's where I can go, and this is what I'm going to do, and they're current their licenses. So this one group that does tattoos by piercings would like to go to a different zone and have the whole city change the zoning to C-3 so that everybody can come to C-3 now because they prefer to be in this location, where everybody else says, okay, if it's C-2, I'll put my business in C-2. Isn't that kind of what—

Well, they're currently operating right now, right? They have 40 and they're just not doing tattoos, so they do other cosmetology stuff currently now in that office. As soon as we have a limit of so many per 1,000, is 8 our max? We don't grow. I thought we passed something.

That was a baby.

Oh baby, you're right.

Another, another one.

Another—

we do that, we limit it to—

And just for clarification, we have 5 because some of these businesses have both a body piercing license and a tattoo license.

So we have 5 or 6, just Quickly counting physical location addresses, but we—

that would be another option. We could limit that.

We could check cashing limited to $10,000.

Yeah, you know, yeah, we have done that in the past.

You know, it's not really a favored way of doing things, you know, especially if you were, for example, to say we're only going to allow one C3 zone, then it looks like you're sort of conferring a special privilege on somebody, right? Right. I mean, yeah, you could do it, but it just— I don't know, the optics of it aren't necessarily the best.

So if this individual who wants to— I mean, basically, what I understood, it was an individual who wants to rent a space within this salon to do the tattooing that she does, she specializes in. So if she wanted to go to another salon, say, whatever the one is by Macy's Seasons or whatever, it would be within licensing, able to happen within that zone, because that's a C-2 zone, within a salon within a C-2 zone, right?

But I, I do think one of the, uh, things that makes it more objectionable with tattoo parlors is just the signage. Yeah, you know, it doesn't add to the beautification of the state street and that sort of thing. So I think that, that should, uh, Anyway, is there anything else?

Do you have a recommendation, Jason? Are you neutral on this? Just saying, what do you want to do? Well, I'm just presenting what's coming. Okay, 2 weeks, right? Planning Commission's made a recommendation.

Do you remember what their discussion was?

Were they concerned about—

slightly?

Actually, it was a 7-0 vote. I don't know.

They were surprised that it was a neutral recommendation from Development Services also.

To be honest, the applicant was very sympathetic, kind of an appealing, you know, applicant. You know, they were very well spoken. You know, they told their story about how tattoos have changed their lives for the better and how good— what a great thing it was and that sort of thing. And they were very respectable, and so it came across very well, you know.

Well, I do have a niece who does like reparative work that's tattooing, like if you had breast cancer. I mean, it's kind of a Fine art. So there is a, there is a way that's nice, but that's what I'm trying to figure out, if it's cosmetic or it's restorative.

Right now it's just—

I called the county health department and asked about it so I could understand this better, and basically there seems to be no appetite to differentiate because a lot on the state level, they've tried for a number of years and they can't agree on anything. So right now, anything piercing, gauging, tattooing, body art, You know, could we, could we differentiate?

And honestly, you know, the applicant, they, you know, I think Renee was there, she showed one of her tattoos. I mean, I couldn't tell you what the difference was between, you know, a place on State Street that would have done that or this place. Honestly, it was a tattoo, you know.

Well, like Steve's saying, it's, do we really want to get into the situation where we're judging what's appropriate and not on somebody's body? Yeah.

So I think we say C-2 is this and C-3 is this.

And, you know, because my Hells Angel tattoo, I might think it's cute, you might think it's repulsive, but, you know, whatever.

I just remember when we did the pediatric rehab and we were changing that zoning and kind of concerned to keep that very centered on that particular change because it could spill over into all the R-6-5 zones throughout the city, you know. You know, that was tailored very carefully to not—

It's still a potential. That's still out there. It wasn't so tight that we wouldn't see that again.

I think we can move on, right?

Yeah, I mean, one thing you could do if you wanted to say, you know, instead of saying like only one in the C-3, you could say no more than a certain number in the whole city. Now that doesn't look maybe quite as bad. We've done that with vape shops and with the check cashing, things like that.

So that would apply to all zones, right?

And like I said, if we're trying to beautify State Street and our streets, the most objectionable thing is the big tattoo signs.

Yeah.

The way they look, right? And so I don't know if that's a potential solution too, as far as doing something with that to keep that looking— film away, but people would still be allowed to go where they want to go if they want to get tattooed, and then limiting the number of total numbers in the city. I don't know if you can do those things.

You know, I think differentiating signage is going to be difficult to accomplish just because then you're starting to get into First Amendment issues, right? You know, speech, and then, you know, the legal standards.

So I'm just saying, if you were having a debate, that's what a lot of people don't like. Sure.

No, you're absolutely right.

But I'm just saying, trying to think about it, that just becomes difficult.

Okay.

Anything else?

So I got 2 more items, right?

I mean, you've got more.

Yeah.

So the next one is updating the PD-21 zone from parking at 0.65 up to 1 stall per unit. So what we're proposing is, this is the— what was recently Parkway Crossing. This is now Wolverine Crossing. This is Parkway Lofts, and this is a vacant piece right now. This is the Holiday Inn, with the gas station on the corner. So that's excluded. This entire thing is PD-21. We're proposing to change it so whenever this developer comes in, they're going to have to do 1-to-1 parking, basically per person. 1 parking per person? So it's per occupancy unit is what it helps refer to in the ordinance. And an occupancy unit basically is a bed. So if it's a— if the room, for example, in a student housing project is 110 square feet or less, Usually they're only going to fit one person because it's too small. That's over 110 square feet, they're probably gonna have double occupancy and we'll count it as 2. So pretty much per bedroom or per bed is how we're going to calculate it. So if they come in and have X amount of doors but they have X amount of beds, we're going to make them have the parking equal to the number of beds, not the number of doors. So right now it's at 0.65 and 0.62. We want to change that to 0.1 just because of the issues that we're having.

Jason, remind me, was this the one that they thought they were going to have more people who just do mass transit, and so that's why they were lobbying for lower? But we've realized it didn't quite mature the way they thought.

But in these 2 projects, actually, we really haven't had a lot of issues, a lot of spillover in neighborhoods. It's the other ones to the north.

Oh, it's access.

But we don't want to— we want to fix it. We just want to fix it. We're understanding now That's just not working. Maybe we'll get there one day, but right now we just need the one-to-one. I don't think you saw a lot of pushback against that.

So Jason, can I just ask, I'm not understanding where PD21 zone is. Is that— you've got 12 zones, 33 zones, which one's the—

So this is color-coded PD21.

And it over on the other map, what does that take in?

So here's the Frontrunner train station right here. Okay, here's the Campus on the west, west side of U of D. And then so 1000 South Geneva Road, and this is University Park. So this whole corridor, excepting the gas station on the corner, the rest of that is all part of the PUD.

So does what— the person who owns this vacant lot, do they own other properties in there?

Uh, no, they just own this. They own the access. They do own the access.

So, and that's the one on the top left?

That's the one above the farther Oh, off the map. So PD-33 on the right-hand side. Okay, so yeah, here's where the access and the other one there is, and that's what we're having issues with parking and stuff. So we just basically want to prevent that from happening. Any problems with that?

Any questions? Okay, let's keep going.

Okay, so the next one is just the rezone I think you all attended our neighborhood meeting last Thursday. It was well attended, about 170 roughly sign-in sheets. Got about 35 comments. We'll get you copies of all those comments as well when they come to City Council. These are the proposed maps.

This—

these are the maps in place prior to the districts speeding up. So we're proposing that we just simply go back to those zones. So you can see the red is C-2. This one is the Smiths. Southwood.

area.

You see that's going back to C3. Target was a PD-1 prior, we're just taking it back to PD-1. P30, R8, part of the target was R8, we're going to take that back. So we're simply just proposing going back. So where's the VASA? VASA goes out this side. So VASA goes back to what? C2. That was C2 prior, it's going back to C2. And then the residential was here. Let's go back to R-8, R-65. The PD-39 is the project on 920. And then the Christensen property in North Village, that's going back, right? Then we were doing that, so we don't— we're making the application anyway. Okay. I'm sorry, does this solve the problem for that woman who wanted to go back to C-2? Yeah, because we have an application already. Yeah, but this is all— so it doesn't solve the tax issue that she has, right? Takes it back to C-2. So, um, but if we do the application, does that help her on the tax?

But there's also an interesting circumstance there too, as well, that a woman who's representing herself as in control of that property is in fact not in control.

And then the niece is actually— has the control. And they were all 3 at the meeting. And they all agree, well, the 2, including the niece, just wanted to keep it the way it was. And I told her, we're probably going to take this through anyway ourselves. So they are just— So the county tax is taxing on residential standards, because there's a home on that on the front. So they're taxing the whole thing as a residential, meaning the potential of it being developed residentially, that's where the taxes come.

How big is that parcel?

It's about 4 or 5 acres. Well, just under 5 because they can't do—

they can't do greenbelt.

They just talked about a greenbelt being passed for acre or less.

No, it was 3 acres.

Is that only in the county? Is that why they can't apply for this?

She went to the county. I think they just told her she couldn't do the greenbelt because it didn't meet.

Amelia Power was in a meeting just last Commissioner Powers, where she said they just passed something that you could have to encourage, you know, homesteading or home farms. An acre or less could qualify for Greenbelt if you were working it as an agricultural—

So that's something they could probably check. That was a couple of things.

You can go up.

You can go up here.

I'm just looking at this other C-3 that's up here. I'm just wondering what this is.

That's tied into the Pinehurst.

This is the one that you're talking about, Matt?

So that, yeah, that was originally connected as part of C-3.

Pioneers development will expand to C-3. C-3 will expand to C-3.

So Pioneers ends here. That portion was C-3, so it'll go back to C-3. Neither is owned by Pioneers. It's not owned by the Pioneers. That's owned by Target First. comments or questions on this? What's the reason they want to do Smiths in a C-3 versus C-2? That's the way it was.

That's not what it was.

It was way before my time. I know you were. Frank's gone. We don't have— I think Tom's older, so you can pass. Okay, sorry. So these are just the outlines of things that we talked about as far as changing. I know it's hard to see, but I'll just So we talked about the cross-section of 15 feet planter strip, 8-foot sidewalk, and then 15 foot behind. That's representing that change. It was kind of confusing, and we made some changes while we were watching just to make it look more beautiful. This 4-star, people were getting confused, but this actually applies to all of that. We're actually deleting that, moving it over here, meaning that it has to be equal to the height. So if you look down at number 4, basically outlining people to the height of property residential. We're also adding in the— making the C-3 48 feet instead of 60. I know we didn't specifically talk about that, but we thought we'd just change that while we're here. And then having the maximum 100-foot setback at 35-foot maximum height, so that's built in there as well. We talked about shifting Required to put back a sidewalk. We talked about the 10-foot maximum height on the above to surround the penthouse, things like that. And that's limited to 30% of that roof area maximum. So that's, that's part of that change. We've taken out anything related to the Stage 2 Master Plan. Instead of a maximum setback, now there's just that setback of 15 feet. And then they can have the building either up or back depending on how they want to do that. Building access is maximum building, that was all related to Stage 3.

So over here on that one side, the bottom page, it said something about a mechanical— I can't see the height— 75 feet. Did we pull that out?

It is taken out.

Okay.

So maximum is going to be 10 feet above the 48, but it's limited to 30% of Well, it's actually 10 feet above the allowed height anywhere.

So if you had a 35-foot height, then you can go higher than 45.

So it's not—

okay.

And it's only one set height is what I'm saying. It just depends on what the maximum height is.

And the 30% would apply to that?

That applies in every case. And these are just things that we— space open to the public was was basically the space between the sidewalk if they want to go back because of the maximum setback instead of minimum. So the things that aren't applicable now to the zone, we've actually taken them out because they're related to bringing buildings up. Now they're able to do either. So question on the, you know, the mall's bought some property, they're a PD zone, but they bought some residential. So how does that affect that? So they're residential now. So I mean, this, they've got it, this wouldn't affect that because they're a PD zone. But the stuff they bought is not in the— Well, they're going to have to come back to you to have a reason or not. So they wouldn't rezone to C-2, would be part of the mall, which is a PD zone.

Well, currently it's in a residential zone.

Well, yeah, I mean, they would have to come to you.

Either, either they develop in the residential zone consistent with the residential standards, or they come in and request a rezone.

Yeah, I don't know if you guys are really familiar. I'm sure This picture had an example of the step requirement. We've taken that out because that's not applicable. And then this is just a cross-section just to show the 15-foot requirement, 8-foot sidewalk, 15-foot setback, and then they can either have parking or building. There still is that 135-foot max. There's still a 35— it's 35, you stop 35 feet off the property, but it has to step And if somebody had a heartache on the 15-foot setback from the sidewalk, they come to us and— Well, they could change it. It's hard. It's a hard rule. So they'd have to get an override. So if they change it to 10, that affects everything. Okay. So I think we decided on 15. That's fine. Jason, just to clarify, a drive-through is considered parking. So drive-through, they could do it. McDonald's or whatever and have that drive-through, but they'd have to have the 15-foot and then they can have the drive-through. That's part of it. That's what you want to put. Yes. So the one thing I just want to clarify that if anybody now under this current ordinance, I just want to be upfront that it's a 10% rule now, meaning that's the way it was back in the day. So if somebody comes in and wants to change something that's 9% of their building, want to add another 9%, they can do that without meeting this requirement. But if they come in and want to add or tear down and rebuild, they're going to have to go to the standard.

Give us more than 10%.

More than 10%.

So if somebody says, I want to add on my building, that has to be 11%. It happens to be 11%. They can keep the building where they want, but their sidewalk is going to have to move.

But you would tell them when they first came in, the 10% rule, so they could tweak it if they want, right?

Yes. Which is what it used to be, 15%, but the state street standards that we take that out, just now relying back on the existing code, which was 10%. But would it be beneficial for the business to have 15%? Do the—

well, we didn't— we bumped that to 20%. Didn't you guys bump that to 20%?

It was 15% because, because of the rule that they were— we were forcing them or requiring them building to come forward. We're not doing that now. They can keep the building where they want. add on to it, but we would require that. And we were required— you remember, we were trying to do 2 stories, you know, any new build had to be 2 stories, had to bring it up to the back sidewalk. That's why we've had a little bit higher threshold to give you 15% without complying with those. Now that we've taken those more demanding standards out, we feel it's appropriate to just go back to 10%.

So you think that's a list?

But it's 10% much? What's that? Depends on the size of the build.

Is that a less demanding standard than the 10%?

Well, if I could— well, 15% obviously gives them more leeway to do, you know, add on to their building, um, or modify their building without having to comply with these standards. So yeah, if you're a property owner, you would rather have 15 than 10 for sure.

But, but in the context of— I mean, it sounds like you're going for 15 to 10, which sounds more restrictive But then you're taking off a bunch of the other restrictions, right? So yeah, net-net, which is—

It's a major benefit, or makes it a lot easier for property owners. Yeah, the intent is to beautify stage streets, right? So by allowing them to build— still, there's an exception, 10%. Anything over that, they need to realize that it's really flipping the sidewalk, adding the landscaping, and they can build on the property.

Because the fifth thing was creating a lot of grief for different owners. So Jason, our poor, suffering guys that we all talked about for years, now he could do what he wants— not do what he wants, I mean, within— he could rebuild right where he sits.

He could, and he would have to put in the sidewalk. If he goes over 10%, he's gonna have to put that in, that cost.

Yeah, if you rebuild—

if he tears down and rebuilds, then he's got to comply with these standards. But the only standard would be the sidewalk. The rest of it, he could build where he wants to because it's not that big.

I mean, it doesn't have to go up like you're talking about.

Doesn't have to go to 2 stories, doesn't have to come to the backside. So the 1 story is taken out, maximum, minimum stories, all that is— But if you take a look at his lot, which is not very big, you make him do a 15-foot, then you have the sidewalk. Well, and again, the whole idea is, I think, beautify State, but does it push his building back?

Then he moves his drive-through for the front instead of the back.

So you may have to tweak his site a little bit.

Yeah.

And if for whatever reason a property owner just can't make it work, he could always come back and request that council consider changing it.

Yeah.

We just can't have a floating standard, it has to be consistent. That's all I have.

I do have one question.

Yeah.

So with all these changes we're making, It seemed like the PD zones in the past have been the workaround that have created a lot, you know, a lot more multifamily. Where does that sit in this whole—

So right now that's already in the ordinance. We don't allow PDs in a residential zone, that's one. And we don't allow a PD zone that contains residential within 500 feet of a major corridor. So State Street, 8th North, University Parkway, all those are prohibited within 500 feet. Once you get up 500 feet, you're going to be in a residential zone, which prohibits them as well. So right now, we really— unless it's in the M-1, M-2 zones, or a zone that isn't residential. So we'll— we have a potential to have a few PDs here and there. Creating high-density housing along State Street right now, it's not—

And the PDs have to come to us anyway for approval.

So right now, the way that the code is written, in a residential zone, let's say like the green on Capitol drive-through. We wouldn't even accept that application if it's zoned residential. The way it's written now, we don't accept an application in a residential zone, so that's prohibited outright. We wouldn't even consider it, and it wouldn't even come to you because we wouldn't accept the application. Now, we would have a potential on Geneva Road in an M1/M2 zone. They could come and request a residential PD that would come before you and for your consideration. So there are spots in the city that could do that, but on State Street 8th North Parkway, those are great.

And that was— that's the 5 or 6, that's the mortgage loan we put in 2014.

Right, we call it mortgage loan, but it's actually—

So you have to have a 3-acre minimum?

3-acre minimum still, yep. And if we, if we choose, like we talked about, like you guys talked about, if we choose to come back and allow PVs, and we want to consider maybe putting a minimum parking standard and things as a basis, So that there is a minimum people know up front, you know, exit halls. If you don't have that, don't even bother. Then they can come negotiate the other stuff. Just for point of clarification, any new PD zone you create would have to come in anyway through the zoning process, correct? So you would see it and would have a vote and voice as to whether or not you allow it. So we do have a PD in process, just so you're aware. Where the mouth of the canyon, where the one office building is across from the gas station on the south side, there's a big piece they want to develop into restaurants. And then south of that, the Porters Provo, there is a section they want to come in and do some townhomes. And we're in the process of negotiation with LPB right now, so that will probably come to you in February, March.

Okay, I'm familiar with that development. Yeah, it's a really cool development.

So that one is So we do have that PD. It's the first one we've had. Jason, just to clarify one thing though, an existing PD zone can expand? Potentially they can, if the council approves it. Right, it's still up to the council. This is still a rezone, and the council has total jurisdiction whether they say yes or no. It's not a, while you're here, I have to do it. That's not the case for PD. You can still expand, but it requires the council vote.

And you can change the parameters also? Like parking?

Potentially, yeah. Because PD is basically you're opening up that ordinance to— they want to rezone or expand, then that's potentially— you can say, well, we'll do it if you want to. Excellent.

I just have just one question about that.

On the PD zone, after, after you've got your PD zone, who regulates the things you said you're going to do? to make sure you're doing what you said? You know, if my PD zone says I have to do this much of this and this much of that, do we monitor that?

We do, as far as site plans and inspections, things like that.

Even landscaping?

Landscaping, we inspect.

Landscaping, or in the case of the mall, if it's going to be so much, uh, multiple housing, you know, just not high density, they're going to have so much of this or that, and that was in their Plan, do we— are we—

who calls them out on that?

So every, every plan that they submit from now on, they give us a big parking chart to show what they have, you know, overall, at least the parking requirements. So we make them provide all that detail to us to make sure whatever project they come in with and whatever new, they have to backtrack and tell us, you know, whatever the new diligence is, all that square footage has to be accounted for. Absolutely. You know, a lot of times with PD zones, one of the big selling points is they'll come in with some really nice elevations and show how it's going to look and how beautiful it'll be. And then when they come in and submit plans, like Chase was saying, they review that to make sure that it really does look like what they promised. And oftentimes they've told them, hey, this doesn't look like what you told us, and go back and try again. So case in point, the gas station on 2000 South Ginger Road. Remember the elevations they brought? Well, they came in and submitted something totally different. We told them, nice try. So basically, come back with a new— because we've tied it to the ordinance, and there's an agreement that goes along with it.

It was beautiful, the picture we saw.

There was a— it was attached as an exhibit, right?

Yes. Yeah, that's what we said. Here's the exhibit. This one isn't the exhibit. So, so we do, to your point, we We do our very best to try to enforce what you guys—

No changes to PRDs, still allow the 7 per acre in residential?

Yeah, I'm not proposing any changes at this time.

Okay, thanks.

I just have one quick question, uh, going back to that parking lot, or that land where you're changing from 0.65 to 1, was that something the city was able to proactively do, or did landowner request that?

We, because we're the applicant, We're in charge of the zoning code. We can make an application. We notify them that we're making this change, but the city council has the jurisdiction to change ordinances on properties.

Okay, thanks.

Whether they like it or not. I mean, property owner is notified and can come and say, I don't like that, but the council still has the ability to make that change. So they're effectively based on the feedback and some of the experiences we've been having for access apartments and some of those properties.

That was—

that's awesome.

That's why I brought up the question.

That's the direction we're going, correct?

That's great.

Any other questions, comments before we move on to the—

Thanks for all your great work. I know you put that together quickly, so kudos to the planning.

Just a quick, uh, that efficiency piece against State Street is a little over 3 acres, 3.12. They have approached the county. I think they told them no, but maybe there's a change.

Well, this just barely happened.

That might be something. Hopefully, as she said, we do really appreciate you guys diving into this.

It's been a lot of work and it's all coming very, very fast, so we appreciate you rising above and beyond.

No worries.

All right.

Josh?

Yeah, so I am thankful for the opportunity to talk for just a minute. I'm going to be short. Um, there's a whole lot to, uh, as far as the regulations and stuff we have as far as our public meetings go and so forth, but I just, um, as I was going through some, some thoughts to share, um, I was struck by how the correlation or the parallel between kind of the situations that we tend to face as the police department with what other public service places are now starting to find themselves in, where how quickly things were previously always viewed in a spirit of civility and regard and stuff are so quickly being replaced with contempt. and that almost any situation we come into, it's either— it's one of the two C's. It's either we can be civil or we're going to be contemptuous. And how do we try— and how do we all— we have literal meetings about how do we try to maintain civility in the way that we deal with people, uh, and still be able to deal with people. And the one way we could put it, you know, we will never have a problem with people if we never talk to them, but that, that certainly doesn't serve in our, in our functioning and You know, if we just go hide all day, then we never have any problems with liability issues and all that sort of stuff. So as long as we're going to do this, you know what, there's 3 pillars. And as government, I would suggest there's all sorts of issues, hot-button issues across our country, across our state right now with the legislative session. But I'm often reminded that city government, municipal government, we're the— we are the face of government. As the police department, we are literally the only entity within the United States government that has this covenant with the people that if you call us, we're actually going to answer the phone and we're going to respond. Might not be the right response, you know, but we will respond. Where so much of the other stuff is get back to you or goes through other kind of bureaucratic channels and so forth.

and so forth.

And, you know, see, the city council— from the legislative end, you're very much the same thing. This is the one place where a member of our society can come and be heard. You know, we can't dial the White House, we can't dial the state capitol and then really get anything done that way, but this is where our community can come to be heard. And as, as we go through the meetings that we have, I would hope, and it's my recommendation, that we, we focus on that, that contrast between having good conflict and good debate without it eroding into contempt for one another, contempt for points of view, and so forth. I've, as a person, as a human being, I've really tried to focus on those things in my life and, and set goals and so forth to try and be more have higher regard. We have an outward mindset towards other people, you know, and, and try and see the world from their point of view more often in my life. But I would, uh, as far as our public meetings and so forth, I would focus on, on 3 key, uh, terms, one being that civility, second one being the order, and then the third one being safety. Uh, we've shared a few thoughts again on the civility aspect of trying to have that outward mindset. And I would recommend that from a civility standpoint, it's the city council that's gonna control that. We can't— the conflict that we have frequently in our community between the police and some other people is our inability to control civility. We can't control— there's not laws and so forth that control the way people regard one another. And And that is so— that is much more of an example-based practice and something that we, you know, commit to ourselves to be that way. Um, and when that, that civility is eroded, that, that can be when order, uh, can be lost. We see that in things as big as— there's, there's amazingly large protests and so forth all across this country that can be very civil And then there can be very small ones that turn into absolute pandemonium because of the loss of order. And, um, you know, in our, in our government rules here in Orem, um, the, the mayor's job is basically to work as the marshal inside of there and call the— call a meeting to order, maintain a meeting, maintaining order within that meeting, um, that we try and keep on track, on focus, on topic. And encourage that civility, that everybody can be heard. And, you know, there's, there's several points within the ordinance about preserving order, decorum, preventing personality attack— personnel— personalities, or impugning members and their motives. And I think that stuff's very important. We do see from time to time examples of that where, again, being the face of government, being the one place where people can be heard, there can be a lot of emotion, there can be a lot of frustration and stuff that's expressed in a meeting. Most of my interactions are just like that with the community. When, when, when I talk to people, oftentimes it's because they're at that level of high frustration with, with their situations and so forth.

So I do understand very much the way people come in, not necessarily volatile, but very upset.

And as we As we do that, it's also— I feel like it's important to remind everyone to try to stay on point with what the agenda is so that we don't have eternal meetings that go, you know, 10 hours at a time and stuff like that, uh, and keep people's comments and so forth on point. Uh, the re— and, and the reason I, I feel like order is the key to all of this is, um, If we lose order in, in our public meetings, what do we do next? Um, you know, if, if we have people that are being, uh, so far out of order that, uh, a call to order and an encouragement to be in order or, or be heard in good faith is lost, what, what is it that we do as, as an organization? And, uh, for us, it We, we have an officer that's always here for our city council meetings. I'm typically here for city council meetings, but we, we've decided for us, and we're open to direction from, from the mayor, from the city council about anything different, we feel it's important to be less visible. Sometimes we look at courts, we look at places like that where there's always bailiffs, law enforcement people that, that are maintain that presence in our— when we're in law enforcement, we're taught that, you know, the, the first line of force is our mere presence. If we're there, there's force being demonstrated. And if we are there, can we be minimal in the demonstration that, you know— or that's why we typically are standing at the back of the room, sometimes even out in the hallway monitoring the situation, versus being up at the, up at the front, uh, as kind of a show of force or we're on one side or the other or anything like that. We want— we don't want to be part of anything like that. But we do have concerns about, you know, if and when at times a situation where people decide, you know, the mayor is asking somebody to be quiet or settle down, or they're venting in a way that's inappropriate for the meeting decorum. How is it that we do that? Our city ordinance allows a 2/3 vote. from the council to have somebody expelled from the meeting. So should a situation like that arise, it would be, it would be left to the mayor, to another city council person, to call for that motion and obtain that vote for somebody to be removed. And then at that point, um, we would remove them from the meeting if they can't do it themselves.

Has that ever been done?

Yeah, I know, and Golda say it never happens. Um, and, but, uh, and I was talking with Lay for a few minutes today, you know, you look at, okay, what are the, what are the unknown, uh, issues that we're going to be tackling through the years in the, in the community? Things that may arise that we haven't even— that aren't even on our horizon right now, where, you know, right now we have— things are very good in our community. There's not a lot of upset people. anything like that, to where something— a real big hot-button issue type, type of a thing— and how do we contain that?

And I—

my suggestion, my recommendations from now moving forward, that we always, uh, begin with civility, uh, begin with regarding each other as, as equals and as belonging, and that we all should and could and can be heard. And, and whether or not we agree with points or not, uh, that we can encourage to do that. So that we never are involved. That's my goal. You know, a lesson I learned a long time ago, you know, if, if we're involved in particularly ugly situations as a police department, usually there's something we can go back on and say we could have done something different. Was there a different path we could have taken or a different tactic deployed or anything like that? And, and that's where my, my suggestion is, as a a body that we are and maintain a commitment to civility number one, so that we never do that. And we don't have those types of issues where, you know, we've got 20 of us sitting in the library hall waiting just in case something goes, goes haywire or a mad scramble, or, and, or for any one of you to have to feel like you're a physical security or anything's, uh, in jeopardy. Those things are very concerning.

It's important that you feel like you're safe to mingle and be heard and have discussions and stuff.

So I don't know if Heather had anything else she wanted to add as far as the rules go.

Not as far as the rules go specifically, but I would like to touch on order and— excuse me— the importance of us keeping a record for the public when we're in that open Open meeting, making sure that people are coming to the microphone, that they can be heard, so that if issues ever do arise in the future, we actually have a record of what happened. In meetings past, we've had people yelling from the back of the room trying to make a point, and we have no record of that because we're not picking it up. So it's very important that we do that. So that's a boring point.

So if that happens, if someone's yelling from the back of the room, What's the procedure to stop them?

I would instruct them— Mayor, you, you are more than welcome to tell them to stop speaking. It's your option to recognize them or not.

So they're not recognized?

Yeah, and usually they're not recognized, right? Usually it's during the council's discussion when you've closed either a public hearing to public comment or a public meeting to public comment, right? People are just trying to engage members of the council or the presenter. But yeah, we recognize everyone who should speak. So anyone who wants to be heard needs to go up to that podium so we can get it on record.

But at appropriate times, right? During public comment or public—

Yeah, otherwise you can instruct them that they're not to speak.

My question is about clapping, because I know people get excited for an issue they're passionate about. But it's also, I mean, It's not a football game.

It's not a campaign rally.

Should there, should there be a decorum where you just listen and learn and later on you're— I'm just saying it's hard when you are trying to flesh out an issue and it may—

and you can tell that the crowd is not, it's not something that's really friendly to you, but maybe the next time it's the opposite. Maybe. Sure.

So it shouldn't just be—

yes, go ahead.

Yeah, let me say something about that. And I'm open for suggestions, but I know there was a real feeling, uh, you know, the last several years that people felt like when they came to City Council they were constantly being shut down. And so, like, to your point, people come here to be heard. So in my mind, and that's what I was trying to do last 2 weeks ago, was essentially say, you know, if there's something that you want to talk about Do it, do it in 5 seconds and do it, you know, politely. And no catcalls, no yelling, but just a 5-minute and out clap.

Just—

or if that's not the solution, if there's some way that people can feel like they're being heard, because the only ones that are heard are the people at the podiums or people are allowed to make the public comment. And there's a lot of people there that don't ever make a public comment.

So, so yeah, I think that's a difficult issue. I think you've got to determine as a mayor and a city council the type of conduct that is acceptable and not acceptable in your meetings, right?

And, um, if you allow for one, do you allow for—

yeah, so that now everybody gets to clap or boo or whatever?

Well, there should be in turn. My deal would be there would be no booing, there'd be no catcalls, there'd be nothing. But if there was something that they wanted to support, they'd have 5 seconds to clap and stuff.

You can try to do that.

Yeah.

But again, anytime you relinquish control to the, to the people out there, they're going to take as much as you're going to give them.

I mean, if I were giving a suggestion, it just seemed like in the past meetings, more spent time lecturing people not to clap than there was actually.

Yeah. And you know, I mean, Mayor, there are other ways to address that, right? If there are more people who want to speak on a particular issue and want to be heard, we can extend the period for personal appearances. If they want to speak to something specific that is set as a scheduled item, enlarge the time for them to participate. I just think that the Council of the Mayor maintaining control over who is speaking and how they're speaking is really important because we don't want a sense of, we don't want to hear you, we only want to hear one side. We want to make sure that everybody feels feels comfortable and able. It sounds like we've had issues in the past where people don't feel like they've been able to express what they want to express. Again, I don't want you guys to be here all night, all the time either. So, you know, encouraging constituents to meet with you beforehand, you know, communicate ideas, you know, outside of the city council realm is also very helpful for that. Sorry, Tom.

Mr. Mayor, I think if you just say thank you, they'll respect that. if you follow it up with a childhood lesson, they won't respect that, you know, with a naughty, naughty, naughty. You said thank you, could we stop that? I think most will respect you. I don't think you have to give the lecture. I think they'll respect it. And if they don't, then you can determine. But I think as a rule, they'll respect that you're wearing— you're running your honeymoon period. They'll respect that. And I think if you say thank you, could we stop? They'll do it. And then if they don't, then you have—

that's why you paid the big bucks.

You can make big decisions with that. But I believe they'll respect you. And I think the city council will support you in that.

And there was a time when Hans Anderson's wife would come during the public comment, do you remember, and basically tell us we were going to hell. And if we didn't repent, you know, she had her— and then we had to say a paragraph, I remember correctly, about be nice, be nice, this is not too Criticized.

This is right here.

Still there.

It's still printed in the 3-minute recitation.

But I don't think you have to read it. If there's a reminder needed, you could read it. It might be in the beginning, you might read it. I know Mayor Brunswick might be getting yourself centered because there are new people.

Yeah, I guess the idea is we want everyone to be heard.

We don't want—

we're trying to do what's best, right?

We all want to And that's, that's, that was my idea, if you could essentially let people know they've got 5 seconds to clap and then we're done. And it's a polite clap, there's no anything.

And if you say thank you at the end, I think they stop. Yeah, right.

So thank you.

Jesse, I was just gonna say, uh, about— I heard this morning Heather and I were changing ourselves regarding the Robert's Rules of Order, and I do agree that you need obviously to control the meeting in a courteous way. The issue with the 2/3 vote, if there's somebody very disruptive, are you even going to vote?

And some legislative bodies pick one of the council members to be the parliamentarian that can make an instant decision to say, I'm sorry, you need to be removed from the, from the chambers.

It may be more of a way to settle a person down instead of trying to have a vote while they're still being disruptive. Because hopefully you never have a disruptor.

Yeah, no, and hopefully we don't ever have that happen, but it would be good to have a policy in place. I mean, to what you're saying, Josh, I mean, maybe that is a break, because if some— like you say, we haven't had that, probably never be a problem, but in the event it was, we wouldn't have time to have a vote if somebody's going nuts in the audience.

Actually, the same rule applies to 2/3. Kick each other.

If anybody ever wants to make a motion to kick me out, I'll go quiet. Send me home.

Okay.

Anything else?

Thank you.

I mean, you know, I was concerned that I didn't see what happened the other day.

So the question is, maybe we need to make sure that Lynnae and Debbie are—

However, if I do feel threatened, I promise we will let you know.

I mean, or we'll maybe just stay back because if it's confrontational, I mean, I didn't hear it at all. So I apologize.

You know, we're strong women. And, you know, we can, we can hold our own.

But it was a little—

I'm more worried about Steve.

That's what he really meant.

He is trying to not let it get to a point where it happens, right? That's what we're trying to—

I truly believe if we focus on civility, and we support the mayor in maintaining order, that those issues won't happen in the future.

And I did not press charges against that gentleman.

You know, it's funny.

I did not. Had he touched me or spit on me, I would have.

Different story.

But the idea of why I wanted this this would be a discussion of decorum and how we treat each other. And even if you don't agree with me, you can still respect the office, right?

Absolutely.

And so none of you want to have anyone— I mean, I promise you it wasn't a pleasant experience, but I, I'm fine.

But once again, it just shouldn't happen.

Yeah, you know, I got thick skin, but honestly, none of you should ever have someone— And, and you're right, and if it's this or you touch me, then, then I will press charges. But luckily He didn't.

Okay, so thank you.

Are we good?

Any other comments?

Dinner's here. Hungry.

Hey, dinner's here. Uh, we'll adjourn. Oh wait, okay.

David Spencer. I do kindly follow the lead from the Environment and Support Sustainability Department in blessing these options for the system. And bless us with the ministry of the bodies, and just, you know, the joy of believing that good things come from eating too. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you.

Yes, they haven't given us a group yet.

Okay, so they'll just stay.

Oh no, that's how they'll be sitting. Okay, great.

Yeah, they want to achieve that. Yeah, you can keep streaming.

That's glorious.

Thank you.

Yep, now the hard work begins.

That's right.

We'd like to welcome everyone here tonight. And we'd like to call this meeting to order. We've asked Bernie Turner to give the invocation.

Amen.

Our Father in heaven, we love thee and love thy Son and are grateful for the joy the gospel brings in the area that we live in.

We're grateful, Father, for the beauty that we have, and pray they'll continue to be with us and guide and direct us in the paths that we should follow. Especially bless the council and the leaders of this city, that they might work together to be able to continue the beauty and be guided and directed by those Things that need to be done and ways to be changed or to enforce the opportunities that we have.

We love thee and are grateful for thy guidance.

Pray thy blessings upon us and guide us throughout this meeting. That we'd be able to satisfy their needs and be able to fulfill the responsibilities that they have. Forgive us of our shortcomings and help us to be worthy of thy Spirit. And help us to be in tune with thee. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you. Now we'd like to have Kathleen Turner do the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please come forward.

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

Thank you, Kathleen. The first, first item on here is we'd like to have— So we've got a report items referred by the council?

So we don't— okay, so we're good to go.

Okay, now we're good.

The next item would be the annual, annual report from the Orem Justice Court.

Good evening. You're a distinguished-looking group with important business to do. After my brief remarks, although I'm sure— I hope you can endure a couple of minutes. I'm not sure I can stick to 3 minutes, but I will be brief. But after my brief remarks, you can get back to that important work. Mayor David Young and members of the council, I thank you for this opportunity to give the annual report on the City of Orem Justice Court. It's a pleasure to be here. I would like to start by publicly thanking the wonderful support staff of the court. They work hard every day To serve those who find themselves coming to court. The court's administrator is Jody Tenno, and we have several other court clerks that carry the workload of the court. Court customers already want to be there, and they may be justifiably anxious about being in court, but they're well served by your well-trained, professional, and competent staff. Like other entities, the clerks have adapted well to the additional strain in developing and delivering the court's business during COVID restrictions. I'd like to excuse Jodi Tenno. She usually accompanies me tonight, but she's not feeling too well today. Not COVID, but just not feeling well. The court has remained open during COVID through the implementations of non-traditional methods and continues to conduct nearly all court proceedings through remote video transmission. This is in accordance to the orders provided to all courts by the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court Chief Matthew Durant. I conduct personally on average 100 hearings daily through remote video technologies. It may be interesting to know the brief history regarding the development of the court system in Utah. In January 1850, the local legislature of the proposed state of Deseret created county probate courts. In September of 1850, the U.S. Congress passed an act establishing the Utah Territory The act included a territorial Supreme Court, federal district courts, and local Justice of the Peace. I want you to remember the word Justice of the Peace. It's going to come up here in a second. The duties of the Justice of the Peace in the Utah Territory were outlined in an act passed in 1852. In 1874, the act— an act was passed to provide the base on which the justice court system stands. The Utah Constitution, ratified in 1895, provided for the office of Justice of the Peace using the basic content— concepts found in the 1874 Act. This made the Justice of the Peace office an integral part of the judicial system. On January 4th, 1896, Utah was admitted to statehood. Territorial courts transitioned to state courts with the authority provided by the Utah Constitution, Article 8. The Constitution allowed for courts not of record, Justice of the Peace courts, for example, to be established by statute. In 1896— and I want you to remember 1896, 1896 and Justice of the Peace is going to come up here in a second— in 1896, the Judicial Code dealing with Justice Courts were amended to read under Article 8, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution, quote, there is created a court not of record known as the Justice Court. In 1989, after further amendments, the name of the court system became the Justice Court System. And the judges became known as justice courts. So that's 36 years ago that justice of the peace was replaced with justice courts. Sometimes in our daily interactions, we still refer to the courts as justice of the peace. It's kind of in our, in our bringing up, but by way, it's been 36 years since justice of the peace were abolished in Utah and justice courts replaced them. Justice courts in Utah were established by counties and municipalities and have the authority to deal with Class B, Class C, and infraction crimes, violations of city ordinances, and small claims civil matters within their territorial jurisdiction. Our Justice Court has jurisdiction to handle cases of this nature which arise within our city boundaries. Some of the more common of the criminal offenses which we handle include DUI, Underage consumption of alcohol, domestic violence offenses such as assault, criminal mischief, domestic violence in the presence of a child, disorderly conduct, intoxication, possession of controlled substance, and theft seem to make up most criminal filings in the court. Each Justice Court judge is appointed in the same manner as all judges are in Utah. After a judge's initial term in office, Justice Court judges are then subject to an unopposed retention election every 6 years. The Judicial Performance Commission— the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, also known as JPEC, collects and disseminates valid information about each judge's performance so that the voters may make an informed decision about whether to vote to retain that judge in office or not. JPEC consists of 13 members and is established by the legislature in 2008. JPEC conducts multifaceted evaluations of judges. Among the materials utilized for these evaluations include juror surveys, attorney surveys, and detailed reports from trained court observers about a judge's performance. As judges stand for retention election, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission publishes the evaluation report on each judge and makes a recommendation whether a judge should be retained. or not. All Utah judges are obligated to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the Utah Supreme Court. This code conducts— this code of conduct consists of 4 general principles called canons. Each canon contains several specific rules. Canon 1 deals with judicial independence, integrity, impartiality, and impropriety. Canon 2 addresses judges' on-the-bench activities. Canon 3 addresses judges' off-bench activities. Canon 4 establishes the rules of political activities by judges.

There is none.

That's a simple one to follow. Judicial Conduct Commission, JPEC, is an 11-member independent fact-finding body established by Article 8 of the Utah Constitution. The JCC investigates allegations of misconduct by Utah judges. It cannot impose discipline, but it can recommend that the Utah Supreme Court impose discipline, which can involve reprimand, censure, suspension, removal, or involuntary retirement of a judge. You may be interested to know that the fiscal year of 2020, which is the most current year which we have statewide statistics, the justice courts in Utah had 388,000 203 case filings during that same fiscal year. The district courts had 253. So 388,000 in justice courts and 253 in district court. And the juvenile court had 22,000 filings in 2020. Nearly 60% of all cases filed in courts in Utah are filed in justice courts. The justice court handled the majority of the criminal cases in Utah. With 63,685 case filings, while the district court had 41,000 criminal filings, these numbers show that the limited jurisdiction district— correction, that the limited jurisdiction justice court handles more cases than their general jurisdiction district court counterparts. A very large number of traffic offenses, 205,458 cases, were also filed in Utah justice courts in the fiscal year 2020. Orem Justice Court, of that total, received 10,247 total case filings in 2021. This total is comprised of 1,102 criminal case filings, 356 small claims filings, and 8,789 traffic filings. There are not nearly as many criminal case filings in Justice Courts as there are traffic filings, but the criminal cases still take most of the judge's time. Proceedings in these cases are governed by the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. A defendant has their same rights under the state and federal Constitution, including the right to be represented by counsel and the right to a jury trial. Most of these criminal cases are resolved by plea agreements, similarly as they are in District Court. Many of the criminal trials are bench trials in which the judge makes the determination of guilty or not guilty, as opposed to the jury trials where the jury makes those determinations. While district court cases are generally more complex and time-consuming, the fact remains that citizens are more likely to come to the limited jurisdiction of a justice court than the general jurisdiction in district court. In large measure, our entire court system. is being experienced and evaluated by everyday citizens who interact with limited jurisdiction courts, such as Justice Courts. The Justice Court in Utah, and the City of Orem Justice Court particularly, provide a very important service to the community they serve. The quality of these courts is important to all parties involved, and to, and to the criminal justice system and the judicial system in general. Our court continues to be a leader in delivering services and implementing innovation that makes it easier to access justice. A couple of examples: this court runs what's called an intense supervision calendar, or ISC calendar, and is targeted for individuals determined by the judge, the prosecutor, and public defender. And these people typically come weekly to the court. These individuals often deal with mental health or acquired brain injury. issues, and we discuss their success, and they come to the court weekly for that emphasized intense supervision calendar. The court also continues to thirst for technology and be a leader for the courts. Our courts, with Jody Tennoe's vision and the responsive and capable IT team assembled here at Orem, continue to put forward technology initiatives to make the court more efficient and increase our ability to provide services in a professional manner. Our court has, from the day from its organization, been the most technically advanced court in the state at any court level, and we continue to hold that reputation throughout the state. Much of the state court initiatives are the result of implementations made first here in the Oronum Justice Court. The last thing we emphasize is an online Dispute Resolution, or known as ODR. In August of 2019, Orem Justice Court became the second court to test pilot a new way of resolving small claim disputes between parties. The state judiciary spent resources to develop easier ways to access justice. This technology initiates— initiative has the plaintiff, after filing their case with the court, to go online and meet up with the defendant who is also online. They are then assigned a facilitator, and efforts to communicate and resolve the case— with the case begins. We continue to see promising numbers, seeing many more cases resolved through parties with the structural process— with this structural process. As of date, most justice courts now have implemented this online dispute resolution, which the Orem Justice Court helped test pilot. In closing, I'd like to think of you— in closing, I think you may find the comments by the United States Chief Justice John G. Roberts interesting. I took a quote from his swearing-in ceremony when he took the office at the U.S. Supreme Court. I quote him, he says, judges are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure every day and everybody on every day plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire. Like the Chief Justice, I understand that my role is limited, and I try my best to call balls and strikes as I see them and to be fair and impartial.

Impartial.

I'm grateful for the opportunity I've had in serving the City of Orem Justice Court as judge. In the court, I work with some of the best people I know. I would like to end my remarks how I started them, and that is by saying that I have the greatest group of court clerks who indeed carry the workload for the court. I thank them publicly. And I thank you for your service to this community and for your support of our Justice Court. It is an honor and a privilege to serve the citizens as judge. Any questions for the judge?

Thank you, Judge Parkin. We really appreciate your comments, and, uh, Orem is very lucky to have you as our judge. You're— you've got a great reputation, and you're known, uh, throughout the state as being one of the top judges. So as far as fairness and, and the great job that you do.

Thank you, Mayor.

Kind words.

Good luck to you in your work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One other thing, if you could— you had a lot of really good data in that report. And so if we could work it somehow that that could be sent over to all the members of the City Council.

Okay, so Brandon has a copy. I'll have him forward it to the appropriate—

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good luck to you.

All right, the next item on the agenda is the chance for you as citizens to be heard. And we've got— usually we allow 15 minutes for this. We've got, I think, close to 18 people who have signed up. And generally we give 3 minutes, and we will give 3 minutes, but I would encourage you that we're only going to be able to go so far down this list because we really can't let this, this time period go more than a half hour. It's supposed to be 15 minutes. So I'll invite you up to the podium. I'd encourage you to, to try and keep your time concise, in less than 3 minutes if possible, to give more people the opportunity to be heard. And And as far as— As far as we've had conversations about this, and I want to make sure that everyone's voice is heard. And so when we're in a meeting like this, we have a real effort to be civil and to be respectful and to not attack individuals, but just kind of make our points and do it in a civil way. And so in an effort to And there's been a big controversy with this in the past as far as, can people clap? Can people not clap? Can people get carried away? Can people catcall? And, you know, most of that is not okay. And so what we're going to try and see if we can be good citizens and make happen is when you hear something, you know, or have a speaker that comes up and you really want to give your support, maybe clap for 5 seconds. and no longer. But don't shout anything.

Don't—

just make it polite. This is my support. And, and that way you can have your voice be heard. So to start with, the first person on the list, and like I said, we'll go as long as we can go in the next, what, the next half hour. But the first person on the list is John Barrick. If you'd like to come up.

Mayor and City Council, we are here to support you and thank you as Orem residents for the change that you are bringing. Don't let a few naysayers and a local— one local reporter who fails to fact-check try to dissuade you. At your last meeting, a few— a former city councilwoman and a BYU political science professor criticized your judgment regarding the Planning Commission. Do they really think that concentrating the power in the hands of one appointed city official is better than allowing that to be decided by 7 elected members of our city council and mayor? You made the right decision. These same critics criticized the hiring of legislative counsel. When would having a second opinion be a bad thing? As you know, as you well know, someone, a developer, tried to put a 6-story high-density housing project across the street from our neighborhood. To be brief, we were told, as you as the city council were also told, that there was a completed application, a vested right, and there was nothing we could do about it. And we were told this multiple times. After thousands of hours of effort, thousands of dollars spent on attorneys, hiring through hiring legal counsel and thousands of dollars spent on attorneys, We found out there was no vested right, there was no complete application, and the law was on our side. Maybe having legislative counsel could have resolved this easily without all that pain and effort we went through. These issues galvanized our neighborhood, made the State Street Master Plan the election issue in Orem last year, and the Orem residents made their wishes clear through our election. Now, I'll try to be brief. Our Planning Commission chair last year had 2 bad days. On July 21st, he voted for high-density housing next to our neighborhood, and he was allowed to do that. But at that meeting, he called us statistically insignificant, and he lied in the Provo Daily Herald today. He said it was not true. Look at the timestamp on, on July 21st, 1 hour 35 minutes and 30 seconds, where he called us statistically significant. By the way. Now, he also, he also the very next day had a bad day at the Orem, at the SWONA Meet the Candidate night in the city of Orem. He heckled one of our female city council candidates and said misogynistic things to her throughout the whole evening. Afterwards, he also campaigned for— against high-density housing in the neighborhood. He called me a name that President Biden said on a hot mic this week. I'll let you figure out what that is. Please make the right decision to remove him. He doesn't deserve the right as a liar and a misogynist to represent the city of Orem. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we've got on the agenda Johnny Sue Schlatty.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I support our new mayor, David Young. I believe the overwhelming voter support for him was a clear indication that the people of Orem were not pleased with the direction of the city continuing with high-rise, high-density housing along State Street that does not even have the infrastructure to support it. I, for one, and there are many others, Who are glad to have a successful businessman sitting as our mayor. I strongly support the 2 resolutions that were passed by the City Council at the last meeting. Number one, planning and zoning should be under the direction of elected officials, the City Council, not unelected city bureaucrats. With the end of the moratorium and the pending lawsuit just around the corner, I feel it shows wisdom to have legal representation for the City Council. I was saddened by the divisive news articles in the Daily Universe on Sunday and the Daily Herald today, but it points to just another reason why the City Council needs good legal representation. My husband and I moved from Salt Lake County about 3 years ago to Orem. And up there, the people voted against UTA running a TRAX line through our cities. Nevertheless, they did it anyway without our consent. I can't tell you how many times I've had to stop at TRAX crossings to wait for empty TRAX trains to pass by. We already have enough empty UTA buses on our streets. And isn't it interesting how UTA covers up the entire windows and sides of the buses with advertisements so that you can't see how very empty they really are. The last thing we need is dangerous at-grade, along with cars and pedestrians, tracks, trains, or buses running up and down State Street, interfering with the flow of track traffic. The people of Orem are thirsty for someone to listen to them. I want to thank Mary Young, Councilman Peterson, Councilman Lamson, Councilman Spencer, and Councilwoman Millett for finally listening to the citizens of Orem. When we first learned of the Old State Street master plan, my husband and I were going to move elsewhere, but now we feel like we and the majority of the citizens are finally being listened to and positive things are happening. In summary, when I was campaigning for Mayor Young, I talked with many of the citizens most of whom have lived here throughout their entire lives. They shared with me that they were very disappointed in the direction Orem City was moving. They felt as if the city managers were listening to the drumbeat of the developers and not the people. Now we finally have a city council that is working to protect and keep Orem as a Family City USA. Thank you so much from me and all the people who voted for you. You have a lot of support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we've got Barry Roberts.

Thank you for your time. I'll try to be quick. Just have a couple of quick points. The Planning Commission has no legislative authority. It does offer recommendations to the City Council on legislative matters, but the City Council can and sometimes does completely ignore those recommendations. For example, the Chief of Police can also offer recommendations to the Council on legislative matters. That doesn't make him a legislator. The Planning Commission does have administrative authority. The Planning Commission is in some cases the final authority on an applicant's conformity to existing city ordinances. I find it odd, to say the least, that a body described in statute as administrative and only given administrative authority has been deemed by the mayor and city council to be a legislative body in order to take over the selection process for the volunteer commissioners. My second point: last week, three members of the planning commission were informed by the new director of the Office of Legislative Counsel. that they had been removed from the Planning Commission by the mayor with advice and consent from the City Council, and they were told that their removal was effective immediately. Since this action was not voted on in any City Council meeting, this strongly implied that the mayor and council had met in private, possibly illegally, and voted on these removals. I have not seen the job description for the Director of Legislative counsel, but I would be very surprised if disseminating, disseminating information that could only be true if the mayor and city council had broken the law was one of his responsibilities. In fact, if it's anybody's job to make sure things like that don't happen, I would think it would be his. Um, my conclusion is that possibly some of the taxpayer funds are being spent unwisely on, on certain personnel.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we've got Heidi Cox.

Hi, I'm Heidi Cox, and I am here to read a statement for Marisa Bentley, who is out of town and can't be here, who is on the Planning Commission and was recently dismissed. She says, when I was interviewed for the position on the commission, I was specifically asked If I would be willing and able to commit to the full term, I obviously did. It is sad that the city, of course, meaning the new mayor and several council members, does not share the same level of commitment that they ask of those serving. I have loved being on the Planning Commission. My attendance and even my punctuality have been stellar. I have spent countless hours preparing for meetings by researching the items we were reviewing. Physically visiting sites and doing everything in my position to help keep Orem wonderful and help her progress, progress as Family City, USA. I have taken this responsibility seriously and have put my heart and soul into it. To be kicked to the curb in this manner is against everything Orem stands for. In the history of the Planning Commission, how many times have people been removed midterm without doing something Egregious. I would guess the number is very close to zero. That there are so many of us being removed in this manner makes it even worse. No one has been treated worse in this situation than Mickey, but this isn't right for any of us. I would ask the council to please let all of us stay and fulfill the commitment and term to which we agreed. And I want you to know I support Marisa and her statement. When has it ever been morally and ethically appropriate to just admit dismiss those that you don't agree with so that you can appoint those that will do what you say? When is it honest to hire or appoint members without opening the positions to the public? Do you see this, how this makes you look? How is it— how it drastically reduces any trust that citizens have in their local government? I'm disgusted at the affiliations that existed before the mayor and other council members were even elected. It made you look deceptive and very untrustworthy. If your actions tonight are indicative of how Orem will be led, I'm worried.

So we have Shawna Meekum.

Hi, I've really enjoyed volunteering my time on the Planning Commission. I respect my fellow commissioners, and especially when we disagree, I find their, their diversity of opinion and experience very helpful. When the city manager appointed me, he did so knowing that I have a background with MAG, Mountainland Association of Governments. MAG's goal is to help the communities— help communities achieve their visions in Utah Summit and Wasatch County. And our board of directors, as it were, is all the mayors in those areas. We touch on economic development, helping our senior citizens, and regional planning. Personally, I've I've prepared Cedar Hills affordable— sorry, moderate income housing plan. I've quantified the air pollution that comes from our transportation system, and I visited nearly every community in our county to discuss how to protect our citizens from natural disasters, to come up with projects and install good city code to protect us. While the opinions I express on Planning Commission are purely my own as a private citizen, I draw from a wealth of local knowledge with great regional context. I'm constantly looking at demographic projections, economic analysis, etc. And I know I'm not perfect. My notes to myself from my last— from the last Planning Commission meeting were, Shawna, you should recommend compromises instead of just saying yes or no. And just as I know that I'm a good person who is seeking more understanding and to do right by my fellow man, I believe the same of all of you, and if I might politely make a suggestion that you take a few months to get used to the responsibilities of office before making great changes to the Planning Commission or other things, I think you owe it to yourselves. I mean, who among us hasn't looked back at some decision we've made early in our careers or marriage or whatever and thought, oh my goodness, had I only known a little bit more. So I think that's a good idea.

bit more.

I'll stick around for questions if you want to ask me anything during the Planning Commission agenda item. And I'm also going to read a statement from Stephanie Lizna, who we are— we are now friends. We don't agree on everything, but here we go. So from Stephanie Lizna, she says, I support the removal of Planning Commission members for legitimate reasons, and I would hope that having an unpopular opinion is not a legitimate reason. Diversity of thought and idea promotes healthy discussion. While I haven't always agreed with some Planning Commission opinions, I appreciate that those opinions can be openly shared. It is my hope that those being appointed feel that their opinion, especially unpopular ones, can be freely shared without negative consequences. 15 seconds left.

Job.

Thank you.

Next we've got Marsha Reinhardt.

Mayor and Council, hi, I'm here to talk about our streetlights. I live in a neighborhood where the streetlights were changed over, and 6 months later they have yet to be turned on. The problem is children walking Halloween with flashlights and costumes, and praise God no one died because it was a very, very difficult time. And I would like to point out to Mayor Young that as a businessman, you would be appalled if a project that you had started and all of the infrastructure was in place took 6 months and had not yet been completed. I look at this council and I know that you are perhaps new to the position, but I want you to know that the citizens who have no streetlights and who took a long time to get them are not happy, and they're looking at new projects that you consider and are saying, if you can't do a simple thing like turn on streetlights, are you going to be able to handle all these massive new projects?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we've got Sissy Rasmussen.

Hi, I'm Sissy Rasmussen, and I've lived in Orem for 20 years, and it's because I love this city so much that I'm concerned about several issues right now. I'm concerned today about the decision to remove the independence of the Planning Commission. That should be a group of well-informed volunteers who bring diverse perspectives to the table. Creating a group of members that can be appointed or removed at will by this mayor and city council removes creativity and diversity of thought and a safe place for discussion. Today we're going to see the bad effects of that decision. This council is removing 3 members from the Planning Commission before their terms end. According to a Daily Herald article, council members pushed at least one of those volunteers to resign or be removed. Other council members in the article expressed frustration that this was being done without discussion and agreement of the whole council. This is bad form and bad precedent for our volunteer staff city commissions. Today, this— the council will also appoint new members to the Planning Commission. I see no indication that they have been through an application or vetting process. I see no transparency in their appointments. And here's what these actions look like to some Orem residents like me. It looks like authoritarianism, like It looks like creating an echo chamber. It looks like overreach. It looks unethical and unjust. The mayor and city council have a responsibility to all the residents of Orem, not just the relatively few who voted for them. Of our nearly 100,000 residents, only 16,000 voted at all in the last election, and only 9,600, less than 10%, voted for our current mayor and some of the city council members. Thank Council you. members. Now, I definitely support the election results, and I definitely believe that voter voices carry weight, but those are not the only voices that the mayor and city council should be listening to. Good responsible leaders ask for input in a variety of ways from a variety of people. Good responsible leaders do not rush in and make major changes without careful study and plenty of meetings. They survey residents, they share information, they ask for input from experienced, qualified city employees. They build on existing work rather than scrap it all. They welcome dissenting views because they know that the best ideas come from discussion and debate. I want you to be those good, responsible leaders. But right now, to be honest, I feel sorry for a lot of you. You come across as deeply fearful of any change, any progress, anything different from Fear is a bad place to govern, and it's a bad place to make decisions from. I want you to let go of the fear of change and instead embrace the great dynamic potential of this city, the diverse views and diverse needs of this city. I love Orem, and I want to see it have a successful future that can come if we keep what's great, but if we also actively seek innovation with a growth mindset. Thank you. I'll be back another day.

David Moulton.

Mayor Young and council members, my name is David Moulton. I'm a 25-year resident of Orem and a former member and chair of the Orem Planning Commission. I've learned much to my distress that this body in its last meeting gave itself the authority to dismiss and name new Planning Commission members at will. You have created a political body from something that in the past has been a volunteer citizen commission. This will have terrible consequences for Orem. Today I learned that you will be immediately exercising that newly taken power to remove some members of the current Planning Commission. I'm forced to think that if I was a current member of the Planning Commission, my neck would be on the chopping block tonight as well. I was always more interested in doing what I felt to be right rather than rubber stamping whatever council and mayor of the time wanted changed. I ask you to step back from the edge. What you have already done is unconscionable, and you are leading our local government to a dark place that I want no part of. I ask you to leave the current Planning Commission in its place and independent of your control. Thank you.

Hey, some— so, car.

My name is Haysom Sakar. I'm a resident of Orem. I've been a resident for 14 years now. I serve on the Planning Commission, and as much time as I can afford to serve on the police volunteer force. Um, I mean, there's so much I can say here about the decisions and the big numbers that we're talking about. As far as the citizens' numbers come in, when we only have 16,000 voted, I wish more would have voted, but as far as I'm concerned, the majority that voted voted for the current administration. And yes, those are the citizens we need to listen to. Same exact logic as the foregone State Street planning— why more citizens haven't showed up to voice their concern? Why haven't more citizens showed up to vote if that's— if they're concerned about the current administration? So I'm fully in support of what's happening, especially with appointing a legal counsel right now, because I have been here for long enough to see that there has been things where we needed the legal counsel to step in, especially in appointing people on the Planning Commission. I've seen Shawna and Barry be on the same page quite often in the Planning Commission, but Barry's still on the— has not— Barry was not asked to step down, which goes to show that there are reasons that I'm sure we'll find out what they are. I got heavily involved with the Planning Commission when my future in the city was heavily impacted by some of the city decision and the planning in the State Street Master Plan. And if it wasn't for the fight, we would have had quite a few businesses being legal nonconforming, where they could not have been able to sell or refinance their places. And that happened without taking votes. So without the fight, that would not— that would not have changed. And I know Councilor Spencer was involved in that, same as, um, um, Britt Sumner at the time. Uh, there, um, there has been a lot of businesses that left Orem due to the State Street Master Plan. I can give you the names if you want to talk to them. There has been some ordinances that passed, especially with changing your size and growing over— growing your footprint for more than 15%. You have to comply with the city and demolish your business and build it up front. due to the city code, which I consider very burdensome in any business to move forward in the city. There's just— this is needed to change. As far as Mickey Cochran, and due to the remarks that he made on July 21st, I was present and I saw what he said to our citizens. I did not agree with it. Same thing in the and meet the candidate for the SWANA party, where we saw that— how he treated some of our citizens, the names that he called them.

This is—

this needed to happen, and I definitely want to see it happen in a manner that is fair to everyone. And I know you guys will carry that with the best of your knowledge. And that's, I guess, all the time I have. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Carl Cook.

Good evening.

My name is Carl Cook. My wife and I have been residents of Orem for more than 40 years. I've also served 6 years on the Planning Commission and as its chairman. I see tonight that 3 men are 3 members of the Planning Commission are being removed early from their permission— from their positions. This move is unprecedented. I've never seen it before in my experience. I presume that it's because their views are not in, in line with current members of the council and mayor. Appointments to the Planning Commission should not be politically motivated or made to create a body that's simply in lockstep with the City Council. The Planning Commission has 2 major roles, neither of which is legislative. That belongs to the City Council. There were times in my tenure on the Planning Commission where the City Council voted differently than the Commission on a particular issue, and that's fine. I believe that the diverse discussion and perspective provided by the Commission were valuable to the Council to help them consider different aspects of particular issues. During my time on the Planning Commission, I served with many wonderful residents of Orem, including some of the current members of the Planning Commission. I found them to be varied in background and perspective, and although we did not always agree, I know them as men and women of integrity who had a desire to serve the residents of Orem. Diversity is good and leads to a better final decision. When a person is appointed to the Planning Commission, it should be with the anticipation that they'll be able to serve their term without concern that they— that if they sometimes vote in a manner that's contrary to the views of members of the City Council, they run the risk of being removed from the commission. If the council takes that kind of position, good people with diverse ideas will be far less likely to come forward and serve, and our community and the City Council itself will be less than well served. Thank you for your time and your service to Orem.

Thank you.

We'll take 3 more. We've got Jen or Wayne Young.

Hello, my name is Jen Young, and no, I'm not related to our new mayor, but I've been a big supporter of him. And I'd like to just say that I moved to Orem in 1986 when I moved here as a teenager from Texas. And I lived here, I went to high school here, I went to college here, moved away, lived in 2 different other counties up north from here, and then returned into I moved to Orem in 2006, and my current husband and I loved Orem. We have been concerned the last few years of seeing some of the changes going up, literally up all around us, and what that did to our streets and our traffic and the safety and the crime here in Orem. And we have 6 children. well, they're all adults now. Half of them are married with children now, and they're having to look other places to afford to live. And so the ones with children have picked Springville, which is a beautiful community as well. But we would like Orem to stay affordable. We have the next 2 youngest children that we have have not been able to find that here in Utah, or in Orem. And so they, they're forced to live with other roommates that they normally wouldn't live with. 2 of them have recently even purchased trailers as an alternative, a better alternative to live in because they want to stay close. So these are some problems that we've been noticing. My profession is I've been a teacher. I've been a teacher here in Utah County for the last 15 years. So I try to be really fair. I try to listen to both sides. I try to find solutions and not just the problem. And being here tonight, I just wanted to say, we— my husband and I, we got really involved politically here in this city just in the last year, and it's because of these concerns that we've had. And so, as far as I'm concerned, I'm hearing a lot of regret, I guess, from people who are not happy with the decision of the City Council— not the City Council, I'm sorry, the City Planning Commission being released. But if they had been doing their job and listening to the, to the members of this community, then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. So the reason why people like my husband and I have gotten more politically involved is because the people were not being listened to. And we put in— we worked hard on this campaign. And so we're really happy. We're really happy that Mayor Young and the new city council members are here now, because we put you in because you listened to us. And so thank you for doing that. Thank you for understanding that the members, of this community, their voices need to be heard more than professionals who are not elected. So thank you.

We've got Quinn Maycomb.

Thank you so much, Mayor and Council. I think many of you know how much I admire the commitment that you have to the city and, and the time and effort that you really put into making this a better place. I don't have any connection to members of the Planning Commission, and I personally have concerns with some of the things that the Planning Commission has approved in the past and sent on to the City Council. But I would like to focus my comments on the process that's taking place with the commission tonight, and I echo some of the concerns you've heard already. I really encourage you to value diverse, politically independent citizen commissions. From Lincoln on, right, the best leaders have always ensured that they're getting a wide range of advice, especially from people who are different from them. That helps to ensure that we're just not trapped in our own blind spots as we make really consequential decisions, and you have some really consequential decisions to make. A second word of encouragement: I encourage you to put a premium on transparency and to follow established processes for citizen input. I've long been discouraged by city leaders who make up their mind long before public comment is considered. And that's what's happening here tonight. The process that has led to tonight's resolution on the Planning Commission was just not transparent. It was not public, and it was decided without rigorous consultation. Third word of encouragement. It's so important for the trust in our city that our leaders value and respect citizens, especially, you know, members of city staff and especially citizens who volunteer time and dedicate their, their sweat and energy to serving the city. Removing members of an important commission like this sends a signal that you don't value their contributions, and it's just highly unusual and diminishing to end the service of members of a commission before their term is up in this way. It's certainly not fair as well to the citizens that you intend to appoint in their place. Put them in a position where they're asked to replace someone else in this manner. I personally would be horrified if I was asked to serve on a commission when someone had been unceremoniously dismissed to accommodate me. I believe that Orem citizens deserve better than this kind of treatment on all sides of the equation. We need a more transparent and open process. We need leadership that really chooses to listen before they make up their minds. And I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll have one more. Elaine Wilding. This will be the last one.

Thank you. Excuse me.

I probably represent the group of Orem citizens who don't have a lot of experience, except they can visually see what's going on, and they have concerns. And so when we see that things within our city are causing problems, then we, you know, we look towards our elected representatives in order to represent us. And so I have to say, when it comes to the Planning Commission, I want them to be accountable to the citizens. And how can they be accountable unless they have, by default, the accountability to the City Council? Now, I read the articles that were put out by the Daily Herald and the Daily Universe, and my first thought is, is I'm not sure I know myself that I saw the video where the Planning Commission— the Planning Commission, Mr. Cochran, did say that it was statistically insignificant. So I know that that's not true. What else is not true? And unfortunately, because I don't have the experience, I can't know that, except I have to trust you.

Thank you.

And so I want to say that I believe that the— this past election, in order to say that only 16,000 voted and that does not represent the whole city, well, it's 16,000 that did vote, and so it does represent their votes. And we are— those people who voted want to say that we are in support of this new administration. and its ideas, especially when it comes to these resolutions, because we realize that these weren't resolutions that were thought— they weren't anything that came just right off the top of your heads, that they were actually thought about. And so I have to trust that process until I have a reason not to. And so I'd like to say thank you for being— for having the ability and the wisdom to be bold in how you've approached this. And, and we, we applaud your actions, and we hope to see more like this to make, to keep Orem the kind of city that we want, which is Family City USA. I've lived here for over 20 years, and I would like to see it stay family-friendly. I would like to see it stay visually impactful, and I like some of the things that I saw on the at the meeting that happened last Thursday. I'm, I'm encouraged. And so I just want to say thank you.

Thank you.

So we've had a number of public comments here on, on all sides.

Would it be—

Heather, would it be okay if we have each of the City Council Members would like to just make a brief comment, say something?

It would be out of our regular practice at this point, Mayor. It's your meeting and you can make the call. I will just say we do have some items still on the agenda and then we do have to adjourn to a closed meeting. Okay, to address an issue.

But okay, thank you. We do have a closed meeting after this that we have to deal with.

Um, but I will—

Mayor, I will add though that during the scheduled items, each of you will have, if desired and if you consent, you'll have an opportunity to provide thoughts and feedback regarding the matter. So, okay, you know, if, if there is a specific scheduled item that you wish to speak to, I believe you can speak to that item.

Okay, let's do that. Thank you. All right, moving on. So we'll come back to this. We've got, we've got 2 consent items.

If you'd like, I'll make a motion.

Mayor, would you like to make a motion?

I move that we approve the consent items on the agenda.

Second.

Thank you. Can we have a vote on that? We'll start down here.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. All right, moving on. We've also got 2 appointments. We've got 2 appointments. We've got one appointment, Ashley Coleman, to the Summerfest Commission, and one appointment to the Natural Resource Stewardship Committee. Quinn Maycomb.

I'll make a motion.

Would you like to make a motion?

Comment first?

Yes.

So both of these are my areas where I'm over, and I want to appreciate Ashley, and I have worked with Quinn. He spoke this evening. He really has a passion for resources and natural stewardships, and so I feel like he— to continue with be a good, good reappointment. So both of them I think are great. And these are 2 of our great commissions.

Any other comments?

So I'll make a motion that the City Council appoint to the boards and commissions Ashley Coleman and also Quinn Meekum.

Second.

Okay, well, we start with Debbie.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. All right, moving on. Well, actually, we've got— yes, we'll just— we'll move on here. Now we'll go to scheduled or more scheduled items. We've got removal and appointments to the Planning Commission. We've got the removal, removal of planning commissioners. We'll vote on each one of these independently.

Can we have comments before then? I think this is where we could do our comments.

Sure. Tom, go ahead.

I'd be happy to go first.

First of all, I agree with the many who spoke today on multiple sides. I agree that only the voters get a voice.

voice.

So the fact that only 16,000 people voted, they're the ones whose voice we were listening to.

I—

my disappointment on this is twofold.

I regret that needed volunteers are being dismissed without due course. So while some made inappropriate actions, I think there were other ways to chasten that person. There are also other members of committees who have violated— who call for automatic renewal removal when they miss 25% of their meetings. And we give them a bye and we help them. And I think that's a kind way of doing things. Let people know where they have mistakes and give them a chance to correct. I regret that that was not followed. I also acknowledge that this vote seems to be a foregone conclusion.

My other regret is that this decision was made before public meeting was heard on this. But I think the people have spoken, the council have spoken, and I don't plan to vote in favor of it, but I don't know that we ought to have lengthy conversations before we get to the vote, so I'll be short in my comments, Mayor.

Thank you. So we've got Debbie.

So I do have concerns with Mr. Cochran because I feel like some of his comments were inappropriate, and while I appreciate direct and, and Frank discussion. I think there's ways we can be civil, and we've been talking about civil. So my my concern is that Marissa and Shawna, I don't see any egregious problems with them, and so it's very difficult for me. It kind of looks like it's a three or none, and I'm I'm not comfortable with removing people like Shawna and Marissa because I like value, and I know one is a realtor and one. works for MAG, but those have— those are voices that should be heard. So, um, while I have concerns about Mickey, I have more concerns about Miss Bentley and Miss Meekins. So I too will be voting in the negative.

Jeff, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I want to start by saying thank you to everyone here tonight. We've had a good example of what civil discourse is. We've had differing opinions on several different things that we've been talking about this evening. And not to belabor the point that Tom and Debbie have made, but I worry when we have, you know, we live in a state that is known for volunteerism. We all serve in multiple ways and in different places, and when we ask people to serve on a commission, it's a— it's an honor and a privilege to be able to do so, but it's also an honor and a privilege to have them serving the community. And so my feeling has always been that the more ideas that you can have and the more ideas that you can bring together, the better it is for all involved. And if we're going to limit people the opportunity to share their ideas because they disagree with something that, that we feel, I think civil discourse goes out the window. And again, just to refer to what we've seen this evening, I think it's important to hear from everyone, and especially those that we appoint and ask to serve in in public ways and in public places. And frankly, I'm afraid that it appears that we're afraid to hear other, other opinions, when in fact sometimes we might learn something. Something that my dad always taught me is, you know, if you spend more time listening than you do talking, you're definitely going to learn a lot more. And anyway, so I will be voting against the removal and appointment of these individuals. So anyway, that's, that's my thoughts.

Thank you, Jeff.

Terry?

Yes. You know, if I was the 3 people that are being appointed, I'd be pretty offended because it sounds like, oh, does this mean that you're not independent? Does this mean the 3 people being appointed do not have minds of their own, that they don't have any kind of credentials where they can think for themselves? I mean, I personally would say, oh, what does that make me? The 3 people being appointed, one is a longtime businessman, 30 years plus. I believe he has a CPA background. There's a lady that's been appointed who's an attorney. has practiced law. There's another younger mother. And please don't tell me that a homemaker cannot be an independent thinker. That's offensive to me. Don't tell me that. Don't go down this list and say who is and who cannot have diversity of opinion and thought. This whole issue, it's not about— the issue is We're trying to change the master plan on State Street. That's the issue. And if there's any attempt of people that don't want that, or any way to try to subvert that and not have a vote by the Planning Commission when it needs to be done on February 2nd, that's a major problem for us as a city. That's what this is about. This is not about diversity. That's a great buzzword. word, but it has nothing to do with adversity. It has everything to do with respecting the voice of the citizens of Orem, and they do not want the current master plan. They do want— they don't want high density on State Street or throughout any places in the city unless— I mean, there's very few places where it could be appropriate, but not on State Street. That's what this is about. So let's— And just another point. There were 13 applicants. Each of us as members of the City Council received all of their biographical information. Each of us could call and reach out to them and talk to them. And I had some great conversations with these applicants. There's no secret plan that was going on. Each of us could, could speak out and say who we thought would be the best candidates for the, for the positions after speaking with them. So I'm not sure— I'm confused about there any kind of secret meetings. There's no secret meetings. You reach out, you talk to them, you, you know, let the mayor know, the mayor makes the appointment. So some of these things I'm kind of scratching my head on, but, but the system works. I have no intention of badmouthing Mr. Cochran. You know, he made his own bed, he can sleep in it. But, and the other 2 people, we thank you for your service. But going forward, we have to protect the integrity of the City Council. planning on voting on the change in the master plan.

Thank you, Terry.

I just like to say appreciate the person who made the reference to fake news because we've seen some definite fake news today in the newspaper. I was quoted and on things that I had no— I didn't even say. And it's been quite disheartening today to see that happen. I'm not sure why we put a disgruntled individual's, you know, rantings in the newspaper article, but I didn't appreciate it. And I will second what Terry has said. We all of the council members received these applications last week. We had times I called everyone, every one of those applicants that I wasn't familiar with, I called and spoke with them about it. The difference here is this is that this new process is that is actually the same as the other process. When the city manager was over that, he would review the applications. And he would put forth a name to the advice and consent of the city council. That's the same thing that happened here, except for the applications were actually sent to the city council. The city council reviewed— some of us called the individuals, some other people just read the applications, and then we submitted our— the names to Mayor Young, and he presented them to the city council. So I'm not sure what fake news everybody is reading, but please come talk to me before you believe the fake news. And know that we are transparent, which is not a word I use, but evidently in the newspaper it said I did. And we will answer your questions. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Renee. Let me just make a few comments on this. I can understand from a city perspective how some of you might feel the way that you do. I can see that. And let me help you understand where we're coming from. So I was put into office January 3rd. We've got one of the most significant moratoriums we've ever had in our history coming off on February 9th. The citizens elected us overwhelmingly to deal with the State Street Master Plan. And so that's what we've been working on for the last Ever since I got in and before, we were working on coming to solutions for the State Street Master Plan. It wasn't until 3 days after I got put in that we had a retreat up in Midway, and we started to discuss with the city management, what can we do and how can we make this happen. So we had it, we had a very tight timeline, and as this went on, We had, we had the midway meeting, and then we had, you know, a 10-day limit for noticing of the next meeting, a certain time period for noticing up when the notices went out to the city, the legal notices and informational notices. We were right to the wire. So basically, when I got put in, it was Merry Christmas, good luck solving this in 4 weeks. Now there's only one we have dealt with. all kinds of issues. I mean, we've been working around the clock to get in front of this thing and work with the city that's been awesome in working with us and helping make this happen. I only say that because that's contrary to what's being put out there in the press and what's being shown, because the city's been great helping us get to where we're trying to go. There's only one way that this can be stopped, and it's by the Planning Commission. And unlike you might think, It doesn't matter how the Planning Commission votes on this item. They can vote against it, they can vote for it, but if they decided to shelve it, then that would take us out of the timeline that we have to be to hit the February 9th timeframe. And if they decided to not show up to the meeting, then we wouldn't have a quorum, and if they didn't vote, we're stuck. we're trapped and we can't move forward with everything that everyone's been working on. So as we're getting feedback through different channels, with Mickey, it was a no-brainer. I mean, he was talked about being let go back in November of last year. And that should have happened then. It didn't. So that drug out. So that was supposed to happen at the very beginning of this year that was dropped in my lap. But then we got a lot of feedback. And we don't know whether the feedback is accurate or not. But we can't have a planning commission that does anything. I mean, they can vote however they want, but they have to show up and they have to have a quorum. And because there's a question on that, we had no choice but to reset the planning commission with a planning commission that we don't care how they vote when we want their input. They're a very diverse group. They don't agree with us on a lot of things, but we just wanted a planning commission that would meet and solve that requirement. So that might help you understand better why we went down the path that we did. But that's, that's where we're at. And we're basically— the first item on our agenda as a new mayor and city council is to make certain that we get the State Street Master Plan where it needs to go. So. Thank you. All right.

Okay.

Right. And should we do all 3 removals at once or separate?

Let's do them individually, an individual motion on each person who's being considered.

Okay, I'll make the first motion. I move that we remove Mickey Cochran as a member of the Planning Commission.

Second.

Okay, let's start with Lynnae.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Nay.

Aye. Okay, the motion is— the motion passes and Mickey's released. Well, we will be released. Let's move it to the next one. The next name to be placed for removal before the City Council for their advice and consent is Marissa Bentley. Terry, would you want to start on that motion?

I make the motion that we remove Marissa Bentley as a member of the Planning Commission.

I second that.

Okay, Terry, would you start the vote?

Aye.

Nay.

Aye.

Aye. Nay. Nay.

Aye.

Okay, the motion passes. Next we have the last name that we have for removal before the City Council for their advice and consent is Sean Amekin. So I want to make a motion on that.

I'll make a motion that we remove Sean Amekin from the Planning Commission.

Okay.

Second.

Nay.

Nay.

Aye.

Aye.

Nate.

Aye. Thank you. The motion passes.

Can we appoint all 3 in one vote, Council? We have in the past.

We have in the past when it's been on the consent calendar. Um, I would prefer that we just stick with the same procedure.

Okay, thank you.

I'll make a motion that we appoint Madeline Coleman to the Planning Commission.

I'll second that.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Madeline, can you— thank you.

I make a motion that we appoint Amber Pope as a member of the Planning Commission.

Second.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes.

I'll make a motion that we appoint Murray Lowe to the Planning Commission.

Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes. Thank you. And what I'd like to do is just have each one of you that have been nominated and put into the Planning Commission, if you could come up and just give us a very short Tell us who you are, what your interest, what your background is, and why you're interested in helping on the Planning Commission. Murray, would you like to come up first?

When I applied to be on the Planning Commission this summer, this was not the circumstance I expected to be part of the Commission. And while I don't think anybody in this room is totally happy about what's happened this evening, including myself, I did want to share a couple of reasons why I originally applied. I've lived in 6 communities, very well-planned communities as an adult, 2 in Orem, 1 in Northridge, 1 in Sunset Heights. And I'm probably unique in the sense that my father and brother planned communities for decades. I moved into a community my dad Growing up on Monday nights for fit— and in our family, we would sit around naming city streets. And as a teenager, I was a rodman. I worked with an engineering company where I helped put in neighborhoods and roads and communities. What I know is decisions that were made 50 years ago make a big difference today. And so what all the decisions that happen in Planning Commission are long-term decisions. Thank you. Decisions that have a capacity to last at least a half century and maybe a century or longer. I've been a consultant and a business person. I'm very pro-business and very pro-growth. One of the things that you need to understand in business is you need to understand all perspectives to try and come up with the best decision possible. It's not always yes or no, but we need to understand before we make those decisions, and I think I'm intensely curious in making that happen. The other thing that I've done a lot in my career is a lot of conflict management and understand how to— how do you get sides together that, that can't reconcile themselves? How do you get them to, to come to a common solution? So very grateful to have this opportunity and thankful for the trust that all of you have. I will be voting my conscience, and I, as I look at communities I, I do have a little bit of a different approach. I was not born in the United States. I'm Canadian, and in Canada they believe a little more in planned communities. I've never understood the plan in Orem. I do believe we need better planning and hope to be able to provide a perspective and an insight that will be helpful to them.

Thank you, Murray. Madeline, are you here?

Mayor, Council, I'm really grateful for this opportunity. I want to be clear before I introduce myself that I applied last year. I applied last fall, and I applied because I was watching the Planning Commission meetings at home, much to my children's dismay, and I saw what was going on. what was going on on the Planning Commission, and I saw what was going on with the City Council, and there was a real disconnect. And they should be working—

not—

we shouldn't be voting for each other, we shouldn't be voting what you think we should be, but we should be working on a professional, civil level with one another. And, and to keep things— this is why I wrote my stuff, because my brain goes But we need to keep it professional as well, and we need to engender trust within the citizens of our city again. So by way of introduction, my husband, 2 daughters, and I moved to Orem almost 6 years ago. This isn't the first time I've lived in Orem, as it was where my parents lived when I was born before we moved out of state. Previous to moving here, we lived in a townhouse community in Pleasant Grove where, through 2 terms of service on the HOA, I learned firsthand many of the issues faced by high-density housing, especially when there isn't adequate parking. As our family grew and our oldest started attending a Spanish dual immersion program in Orem, we felt it was time to move closer to her school. One of the big draws for us to Orem was the single-family homes and neighborhoods that were in close proximity to retail and restaurants. We soon learned that some of the city's greatest strengths, after the wonderful people who live here, arts, parks, and library. Orem is an amazing mix of suburban and commercial retail, and the addition of Trader Joe's just made it that much more awesome. Out of state, we really love it.

We're excited.

By way of education, I went to BYU for undergrad and earned my law degree from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. As a member of the Utah— I am a member of the Utah Bar, and although I don't currently practice, I hone my mediation negotiation skills every day with my beautiful daughters. During law school, I interned for a summer in the law department for the City of Cleveland, where I focused mainly on zoning issues by choice, because that was what I got excited about. And through that experience, um, I gained a real appreciation for the municipal level of government. And I go rounds with some of my family members about how important city is and how much effect city has on each of our lives every day. During my third year of law school, I worked in the community development clinic at the law school where I represented nonprofit clients in the community. The clinic was also my first exposure to urban planning. One client I worked with was trying to redevelop and revitalize their neighborhood after many years of neglect. From this experience, I saw the power that individuals can have to shape where they live and make the place that they can be proud of. Ever since law school, I've hoped that one day I would be able to serve on the Planning Commission. It's not really the kind of ambition you go around telling everyone you have, but this desire was born out of these experiences that have shown me the power for good and bad that a city can have, but more importantly, the power citizens can have to influence their neighborhoods and cities. We've had a lot going on in Orem as of late, and no matter where you fall on the spectrum of ideas and opinions, It's time to do what we do best in Orem, and that is roll up our sleeves and work hard for the welfare of each other, our businesses, and our families. I have a passion for improving things and take to heart the adage of leaving things better than the way you found them. It is my hope that during my time on the Planning Commission that I can play a small part in helping Orem to become even better as we navigate the myriad of issues facing us today. Again, I'm grateful for this opportunity to serve on the commission, and I look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

Amber Pope, could you come up?

Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name is Amber Pope. My husband and I have 2 young children. They were the ones making all the noise at the beginning of this meeting. administration, and I currently work in accounting from my home. I've been living in Orem for the last 6 years, and my husband was raised here. We have every intention of continuing to raise our family here in Orem, which is why it is so important to us that Orem does remain Family City USA. I have loved my time living here because of the safe environment and the kind people. I love that I can walk a short distance to a neighborhood park where my kids can play, and I love that my neighbors and I can share, share the same values. I am looking forward to serving on the Planning Commission so that I can share the perspective of a young mom. I look forward to having a voice on protecting our city and our neighborhoods. It is my number one priority to keep Orem a place that is conducive to raising children. Thank you so much for this opportunity.

Thank you, each of you, for coming up and sharing that. And thank you to all of you who came tonight. I appreciate your civility and the ability for us to have this dialogue and talk through this difficult thing. We need to make now a motion.

No more, Mayor.

I would just recommend that given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we have individuals waiting for us, I'm happy to share my information by email.

Okay, great. Thank you, Jamie. We're going to have a motion to move to a closed meeting now over the public safety training room.

So moved.

Second.

Can I get a clarification on the motion for the purpose of state law? So just like to clarify that it will be held at the department training room located at 95 East Center Street for strategy, strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation as authorized by Utah Code Section 52-4-2051.

What Heather said.

So moved.

Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you, everyone.