City Council · 2023-06-27

Sorry, Dave. Take a place.

If I did, nobody's listening.

People tend not to.

Did you get that article written?

Yeah, I actually have a copy for you.

No, there was an article I read.

That's what I got this morning.

I got a prettier one.

Okay, I'd just like to welcome everyone. That'll be great. Here are some pictures too. And welcome everyone back from the tour of Hillcrest Park. They're doing an amazing job over there. It's looking really, really good. It's gonna be a phenomenal park when it's all said and done. So we're excited about that. We'll move on to our first presentation, item number 2. This is from Brandon Nelson, and it's a Questionnaire.

Same one, same score. So just as a reminder, this questionnaire comes from the Utah State Auditor.

It is part of our Utah State legal compliance each year.

So every year when I—

the auditors show up, it's one of the first things they ask for in our state legal compliance. Um, every city and town, special service district Anybody in the state who's required to report to the State Auditor completes one of these. As Dave kind of alluded to, nothing has changed from last year, same score as last year. Last year, if you recall, we jumped up from moderate to low. We added a hotline, a risk fraud hotline. number, which pushed us over the top, if you will. So some of the things that are on here, just as a commentary, that we're— these 3 of the 3 that we don't currently have. This item here, we touch on, obviously, within our employee manual, we, we do touch— do have a section on ethical behavior. However, The commit to in writing part is the part that, if you will, we fail on in this particular questionnaire. So while we have things that state that, and obviously the expectation is that we abide by those employee handbook, we don't physically have anybody sign anything.

So just to give you an idea.

This one has to do with online training. I'll be honest, I, I've looked through that training and I don't know if I feel like that's necessarily all that relevant and important to this particular organization. Just to give you an idea, this assessment originally started because of small special service districts. And because they are run by one, maybe 2 people and the board members, so they were having lots of— and then none of them, in most cases, knew anything about really accounting. So the state auditor created this assessment in the beginning to help those organizations with controls and being able to identify what things should your organization have. Well, they then took that, and of course, as we tend to do, they, they blew it up and made it a much, much bigger deal for more people. All the way up to obviously even big, big organizations like ourselves. So just to give you an idea of kind of how that this transform came into being as to how it is. So then the last slide, the internal audit function piece. We do a lot of internal audit stuff. We have our purchasing cards are audited. You have somebody that reviews those. All purchase orders are audited. They're reviewed by several different individuals. Our payment structure is all audited. The formal part is the part here that catches us. So in most organizations, when they refer to a formal audit function, they're referring to a separate person and/or group who actually performs audit functions within the organization who is independent of us who can report, and that can't be our internal— excuse me, our independent auditors. Can't be that same group. So again, we do much of that already, but we fail on the term formal. So what they would expect is we either hire another accounting firm who comes in and does specific audit functions. You know, they may look at our purchasing card, how we do purchasing cards, how that whole approval thing goes. That would qualify under internal formal internal audit function, and of course we would pay that entity to do so. So those are the 3 items, just to give you kind of a brief idea of the 3 items that we don't have. I have, just so you know, I have no concerns with where we fall in the low-risk category. And keep in mind, this is the state auditor just saying, this is what we think each one of these is worth. So the value we place on that in comparison to the total— I'm not sure that if I was doing it, I would weight it the same way, just to give you an idea. So anyway, are there any questions as to any of the items, not only the ones we've We don't have a yes on, but any of the others that you might have some concerns about.

So, so who's we? Who are we talking about? Who are we talking about? Fraud risk? This is the—

so this is the City of Orem.

So all city employees?

It's our internal audit functions. Yes, all of our accounting fraud-related type functions that help us identify and/or stop fraud from occurring.

So this is also— would include city council, mayor?

Yes.

Including anybody who receives a check from—

Yes, any— anything we do financially.

Yes.

Fairly typical about other businesses, you rate them with their risk factor, basically. Correct.

Yep.

So do you have training in conflict of interest? I mean, that's always an interesting one. And do people know what that means?

So, so conflict of interest would not be a financially related fraud item. And so per se, in relation to these particular items, although I believe there is— there's a lot right there, A to A conflict of interest in relation to— is it financial related? So if there's a financial relate, then yes, we have a policy obviously within our employee handbook related to conflict of Interest. So that's, that's why that item is marked checked with a yes, we have such a policy in relation to conflict of interest.

They only give her 5 points out of 395.

Yeah, I mean, all of these are related. Do you have a policy or a procedure in place that relates to this? And then for the most part is Is it, is it there? Does it— because you'll notice there's nothing in here that necessarily says, does it function properly? That would be for me a bigger question in relation to any of these. So, so some of this questionnaire is really a very basic level understanding of what those areas of potential concern for an organization might be. No other questions.

That being said, of course, there's maybe some of these things that we can probably incorporate into our employee trainings to make sure that there's a good understanding amongst all of our employees. And, you know, use this list as essentially an indicator that these are of particular importance.

And I think, I mean, this ethical behavior paper would take one minute If you guys ever want to prepare one, you get 20 points.

Yeah, the question is, it's all— notice it's all employees. So, oh, it's all— yeah, and so all employees and elected officials. So that's, that's a little bigger task than—

might—

could it be done? Yes, certainly. We could probably even electronically do it, right? Question is, I guess, and we could probably even argue, yes, we sent it out. Yes, we got a response from a majority, a certain majority of people, of our employees, and call that, yep, we're meeting that. We're trying our best to accomplish that. So therefore, it's done. Or do we hold ourselves to the highest standard, which is we ensure that we get 100% of them back?

Right, that would be the other, other part of that. This seems like a lot of mess. It really wouldn't change anything, like, but that is my personal opinion.

Do you want to give an example when you're talking about this is for special services districts? For what would you say? It doesn't really apply to us, but maybe give an example of what it does apply to.

So Metro Water of Warmth is a good example of a very small group of individuals running that particular special service district. So, um, they're hard— you're gonna have a much harder time in a small district with very few employees, if any. Some of these cases, some of these special service districts, for internal controls. So they want you— the state auditor would like you to identify how do I set up with few employees, how do I set up good proper internal controls? And what did those internal controls mean? These are these items, right? How do I ensure these particular things in relation to that really, really small organization? Which is difficult, which to be honest is difficult and usually requires some, sometimes even an outside, somebody you might have a volunteer, for instance, who does a certain element within here to help your organization meet some of these control criteria. It's trying to find things like that that help mitigate as much as possible the control— the fraud possibilities within an organization.

So they're— the idea is then that they're addressing that every year? Yes, they're recognizing that, at least thinking about it, right?

Yeah.

Metro of Orem, they— we just did this last week, the exact same.

And like I said, those organizations involve the city board members, and/or if it's a really small town, for instance, they're much more involved in those kinds of situations than an organization our size, right? Because we have enough employees and enough personnel that we can use those personnel to be able to meet many of these If not all of these type of things, the checks and balances.

Yeah, thank you.

No other questions? That's, that's all I needed to present to you today to meet the requirement.

So I appreciate your time.

And if you have any questions about any of these particular things, you're welcome to call me, email me, come pay me a visit.

So thanks.

Thank you, Brendan.

Next up, we've got resolution to place the renewal of the CARE tax on the ballot. Steve, you're going to present that.

Thank you, Mayor. So as I'm sure the council all knows, we are due to have the CARE tax renewal. The current CARE tax is going to expire this year, and so if we want it to continue, we'll need to place this question on the ballot once again in November for the voters to vote on whether they want to renew the CARE tax. We're anticipating currently putting— or having the City Council consider and vote on whether to do that on the August 1 meeting. Purpose of this meeting is to give you an opportunity to review what's been done in the past and see if there's any changes that you want to make to that, just so that we don't encounter any last-minute changes. And, you know, by the time we get to August 1, we all know what direction we're heading. There's no last-minute debate or anything. We're hoping to get any debate or questions resolved before our August 1 date. So this is our kind of our first opportunity to do that. I've included a draft resolution in your packet for your consideration. It's essentially the same as the resolution that was passed by the council back in 2013. Essentially, the only substantive things that have changed are the dates. So if you're good with the way we have done things in the past, there may not be a whole lot to talk about. However, if there are any changes that you want to make or consider making, this would be the time to have that discussion.

I don't myself have any suggestions, but if any of you want to raise that, then like I said, this would be time to, to talk about it. Can you just go through a high level of how the tax—

Yeah.

So as you all know, it's 0.1%, that's the amount. I guess they call it actually 1/10 of 1%, same thing, I suppose.

Could you quantify that on $100? How much is that?

On $100, that would be 1 cent, I believe, Brandon. I'm going to look at the account and make sure I'm right. That's what I've been saying.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, so basically one of the primary provisions we've had in the past is that the CARE tax is allocated 50% to recreation and 50% to cultural arts. The next thing is we have a CARE Tax Advisory Commission established that makes recommendations to council. I think you're all familiar with how that works. And then obviously the council makes the ultimate decision as to how those funds are allocated. Basically, the CARES tax amounts are available for cities.

So 1/10 of 1%, I think, would be 10 cents.

Okay.

$10. Yeah.

So 1/10 of 1% would be $1.

A tenth of that And I'm not running, so I'm glad you're correcting me.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for that clarification. Thank you.

Uh, so basically the, uh, the funds are available to, uh, fund city-owned recreational and cultural facilities. the ongoing operating expenses of city-owned recreational facilities and the ongoing operating expense of private non-cultural arts programs, but they are not available to fund private cultural arts facilities. So for CIRA, or, you know, whether it's Hale or other cultural organizations out there that have been recipients of CARES Act, it's available to help fund Their operational expenses, but not facilities or capital type expenses.

Only facilities that we own.

But we, but we, for our city-owned facilities, yes, yes.

And can I, Mayor, ask another question? I think Terry brought up something a couple times ago when we were approving. He said, wait a minute, who's making sure this 50/50 stays 50/50? Because we were doing some catch-up and Are we relying on you, Brandon, in your office to make sure that, that when we approve this, that you're making sure that it's going 50/50 along these lines? Yes. And that we are spending it where we're legally allowed to, right? I'd say a combination of Steve, Bryce, and then as we go through kind of the annual budgeting process, but someone balances those books. But going along with what Tom's saying, let's don't do catch-up starting from now on. It should be 50/50. Don't tell me that 4 years ago the rec got more, so, you know, ours is less. I think it should— I think we all agree it should be— let's don't do the history, let's do 50/50. So it's in a pot, they can use it later perhaps. But don't tell me that 4 years ago you gave John a bigger Christmas present, so now we're doing this.

And is it over the The time period of when it was passed to the next time period of when it was passed.

Well, it should be annually.

You have to— or is it annually?

That's the question.

Well, that's okay.

So, well, go ahead, Brent.

I think it technically is over the 10-year term.

Our plan this time is to come with a multi-year plan so that you can see, and it would be updated yearly so you can see what's happening with So where, where council may want to consider an individual year difference is, is if there's a big capital project that needs to be purchased.

So, for example, when we started down this path of making big changes at Lakeside Park, you know, it was a big dollar amount. And we at the same time made the commitment that we were going to go to the county and get additional grant dollars to supplement it. But, um, but yeah, we also need to always make sure that even when we're doing something that's a dollar amount, that it's going to balance out over time. Do that proactively. But so I think that the issue is you want to make sure you don't tie yourself in a box, right? It might be this or that. It's what you need is a proactive process. the process. This is how— what we go through to get to how the money gets dispersed. And if there is some need, then that has to be defined and everyone's aware of it and everyone knows where we stand.

So it's—

And reporting back on it at least yearly, right?

So you don't have one council changing what another council—

Yeah, I like, I like, I'd like the money to be pretty sacred. So if we need— if we have a big project either in arts or usually it'd be a rec, I would think, if it's But I'd say, okay, go find it someplace else and keep the CARE tax what it's intended to be. I mean, that's what I'd like to see because it just gets very confusing since the rec side is really a city tax. We're using CARE money to build city stuff, so it's not like it's, you know, going to the community. So I think we need to be really careful that we keep it 50/50. Well, we going into that, we kind of have an idea what those dollars are going to be. And so, yeah, so we can probably do a better job. Okay, you know, we know a ballpark number of what we are going to be dealing with, and so we can kind of go into that. Okay, we've got this much, 50% of that would be this much for that, 50% of that would be this much for cultural arts. Kind of start out with that.

So that we stay on that 50/50 split.

I think that's a great point. But we're talking about a couple different things, right? We're talking about how hard we lock it down versus if there's any flexibility at all as there's needs that might have to go a different direction. I mean, we're talking about 2 different things, so we need to define what we're talking about. Find a solution to—

50/50 is our decision, not the law, right? It is our decision.

Oh, I thought it was in the—

Well, that's what we're going to post in the—

it's the—

it's in the—

it's your decision to put on the ballot, to make the ballot question.

Yeah.

But once that's decided, the 50/50, then, then you're bound by that. But you're not necessarily bound by it right now.

You can change those percentages.

In the past, it's always been— I think it was the very first time.

Back in 2013, I know we did 50/50, but before then, it was, uh, it was whatever.

So ours got like—

is there a way to say that?

Well, I think we can be flexible, but our goal is to be 50/50.

I mean, that's, that's basically the language right now gives you 2 points of flexibility, if you will. I mean, it says approximately 50/50, so that allows you a little bit of wiggle room. And then like Brent was talking about, it's, it's the 50/50 over the 10-year period. So if in one year you need a little more, one year you need a little less, then you can balance it out and have that flexibility that way.

But what I'm saying is we would have a 50/50 that we would have a process if we want to go outside of that norm, and that process for you to put it together, say this, and then pass it through the council, and you know what I mean? So there just needs to be a process of accountability. So maybe to that point, there is a—

there is some policies, uh, that, that have existed related to the process of care tax that I think speaks to what you're talking about.

So we could bring to you that where that policy is at and see if there were things that you wanted to adjust, improve, or incorporate in the ordinances. Yeah, Mayor, can I ask a question? What's the ballpark figure we're looking at for a year's revenue off of the tear-downs?

So it's not insignificant. It's also a great tax that captures people who don't live there to buy cars and high-ticket items, so you get, you get the benefit of those dollars that come into your community.

So because we're a metropolitan center, those that aren't residents of the city that shop here are contributing to that. And we get that we don't just split it with the state like we do the other.

Correct.

As far as the benefits of Warren also, um, if you break it down and say all the different taxable things that are out there from the county, from the state, that tax is super insignificant for the benefit that provides directly to Warren residents.

I think it would be—

I would like to—

I don't know how to do this. But I would like to see some kind of way to define what is arts and what is rec, because it seemed like in the past we paid for some feasibility study for, I want to say Library Hall or something like that, $525,000. I'm trying to remember when I was on the CARE Commission. And it was, I think it was attributed to the arts. Um, so I don't know how to define— so you have things that are actually directly benefiting the arts or directly benefiting that, you know, define the expenses.

Yeah, that's probably something we can address. It's the same policy, you know, you could define arts as music, live theater, you know, ballet, symphony, you know, I mean, all those things, right?

I just feel like it can be used because the study is different.

Yeah, so it's different than recreation.

It's a whole different animal.

Okay, so maybe that— you're not talking about categories so much as study versus actual.

Exactly.

Okay, gotcha.

Actual, like you always say, Jeff, end of the road, you know, getting to the area, something that actually makes a difference.

Yeah, that's, that's something I think that could be addressed in policy.

I think it's wise.

I think that the CARES Act dollars should be used to replace— Exactly. I think that's the voter's intention.

Yeah.

So, Stephen, if you like, we've answered the question as far as anything Yeah, I mean, if you're pretty much good to go with the same language we had before, then we'll just plan to schedule for August 1st for your consideration and adoption, and then we'll go on the ballot.

And then from what Brent's saying, there is an existing policy. My goal, I think, where the confusion is, is just from a transparency standpoint. Yeah, so if we can make sure that it's very transparent What's going on. And then I, I personally don't have a huge problem with if something needs to go a certain direction on a single year, it gets caught up. But as long as everyone knows what's going on.

Yeah.

In the policies, that's where it states the 35% of the operation. Yeah. So we want to change that or look at that, and that's something we can discuss.

Yes. So then I may note that It looks like the ballot question is looking pretty good and sets a general framework. We need to follow up with the policies. Sounds great.

I remember, could the city, uh, post, uh, signs? I remember that in the past. Does the city— tell me how that works.

Yeah, so, uh, once there's a ballot proposition And that would happen as soon as we pass this resolution on August 1st. That's kind of why we're delaying that as far out as we possibly can. Then yeah, there's going to be limitations on what the city can do in terms of not advocating for or against the ballot proposition. And so we'll, we'll be briefing you on that when we get closer to that time, what we can and can't do.

But we can't pass a resolution of support?

Um, I'll have to go back and look at the requirements because they're different for different types of ballot propositions.

So. At the same time, what I've heard from Adam Robertson, the director of SEER, is that they as a separate organization can help organize a political for or against. And he did mention last night in his intervention that it's up for— it'll be on the ballot. Several of those questions, there's no— yeah, so I think they're starting to mature.

Any other questions? All right, thank you.

Great, thanks.

All right, um, let's just run through the agenda. This would be the agenda for tonight. So we have no scheduled reports. We'll see council members according to this agenda. 6 PM winter session, call to order, invocation. And we've got Spencer Rands, uh, the, uh, the prayer or inspirational thought. We've got, um, Kelly Kirkpatrick. Who asked? Do you want to just welcome them and say something about them? We've got, um, item 6.1, Utah Valley Earth Forum Award. And this is an award that's being presented to the city, uh, by Jim Westwater, the chairman of the Utah Valley Earth Forum. I guess we'll just invite somebody to manage themselves, or anybody else involved in that. Jason, I think— is this the gentleman that had reached out to you?

So Matt Taylor, our Long Range Planner, will introduce this gentleman.

We go into personal appearances. And on the consent items, we've got approval of meeting minutes, the appointment of W.O. Ray as mayor pro tem, the appointment of Crystal Nielsen.

That's my commission.

Historic Preservation Advisory Commission. So we go through these consent items, I'll just be going through them. Did you want to say anything about that?

Um, sure. Okay. I mean, I don't—

yeah.

Okay.

Um, and then we've got the reappointment of Nathan Christianson to Cultural Arts.

Yeah, he's just been on the Arts Council, so it's a reappointment. Okay.

Okay, then we've got, uh, item 8.5, ordinance amending, uh, Article 7.1, as far as the adoption of building and fire codes. We've got another ordinance amending Article 2-34 to conform to the Neighborhood Commission.

Does anyone have—

wow. So we'll just go through those. And with those, because they're consent, we don't have to really join them unless somebody wants to, right? Does anyone here want to go into anything on those ordinances?

No? Good.

Okay, item 9. Um, now we're gonna schedule item We have a public hearing. I mean, for the fiscal year 2022-2023 adopted budget. Brandon's going to take care of that. So you're going to present, then we're going to open it up, public hearing, and then are we voting? Are we—

Vote to approve after the public hearing. Public hearing.

And then we'll move on to item 9.2, another public hearing. This is amending Article 22-5-3 and the zoning map of the City of Oron by rezoning portions of the property located generally at 883 North State Street to either the C-2 zone or the C-3 zone. I think Appendix A of the Warren City Code would make standard land use code for transitional treatment homes a permitted use in the C-3 zone.

So Jason, you're going to present that?

Yeah, we'll present that. It's really just— right now it's kind of jagged, C-3, C-2.

It's going to straighten out. I understand the front portion will be C-2, back portion will be C-3, so it's straightening out. Majority of the properties are already zoned either C-2 or C-3, so we actually need these zones to specify.

The other issue— That's just to have less confusion, to make it more simple. Because the 3 pads would now be in C-2, exclusive use zone.

So straightening that out.

Okay. And then the 1283 transitional treatment The applicants are going to have questions about the homes and children's shelter. Maybe whether people will be exposed by the property once the project is—

once the zone is done and the title is adopted by the Planning Commission, then the applicants will actually buy the property and develop a children's shelter and an office to go with it on the backside. I'll have a second time to show you more of that. Okay.

We're not voting on approving that. We're just voting on approving the Just the actual plan used to allow them. All right, anyone have any questions on that? Oh, I don't have any questions on that, but I have a favor.

I've got a grandson that has a championship baseball game tonight.

It's a Spanish sport, so I may— it's okay to step out a little bit early. He's got a fairly short shift, and I'm hoping that we can get to He's gonna fix me up with the Zoom link so I can attend virtually, but if I get up to leave, it's not because of—

it matters.

It's an important baseball game, so an 11-year-old boy that I flew out for that. Yeah, if you get up to leave, I just kind of interrupt on the microphone and just explain, you know, about what we're Sure.

I would expect that.

Item number 10, communication items. I don't think we have it. Brent, city manager information items. Do you have things tonight? Uh, connected to Just a couple of things. If you get questions, because you see a little bit of construction going on along the sides of 8th North, sidewalks and landscaping going on between 4th West, 8th West on the south side. Long time coming. And then also on the north side, in that kind of porch area immediately east of So, your questions. And that's ours, not UDOT's. I thought it was about projects we ever done.

Thank you.

Only other thing, I sent you an email to see the latest draft of the proposed employee survey. Plan is to try to get that out with the new pay period. fiscal year.

So this, this, uh, we're hoping to get that out this Thursday.

If you have any, uh, feedback, you can still give it to us by end of workday tomorrow. You know, a bunch of feedback from several of you already, and I think it's in a good spot that'll generate actionable and specific and constructive feedback.

And your timing, you want feedback by what did you say, end of business day tomorrow?

Thank you. So that's the survey we sent out. So yeah, we'd appreciate your feedback on that just to make sure everyone's involved. I think it's going to be a really good survey for us, give us a really good feel on where the employees are at. All right, uh, any other questions, comments? Okay, well, we'll adjourn. And, uh, yeah, we'll go ahead and adjourn. I think Pete stepped out to go grab it. It's coming in. Okay, so we're officially at the end of the meeting.

Our dear Heavenly Father, we're grateful that we have to gather today and discuss the pertinent business of the board. We're grateful for this food that's prepared for our enjoyment and our nutrition. We appreciate that. I hope we'll have a civil and a positive meeting this evening. We're grateful for this opportunity to serve. We say this in the holy name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

Okay, so Josh, they said your name.

I thought you were asking me to say it.

Quiet the masses.

So that's probably two, maybe two or four there. I'm not sure. Pressure, water pressure.

No water.

Done.

And the contractor.

You know what happened? Well, has to do with the subject. There's nothing else on it. Had to get relocated because they were in the middle of the driveway.

Test, test, test. Test, test, test.

No problem, no problem. Nice. Yes, of course.

Thank you very much. Test, test.

Test, test, test.

Sorry, last minute.

We'd like to call this meeting to order.

And welcome everyone who's come out tonight. We'll start out with an invocation, uh, or spiritual thought by Spencer Rands and a Pledge of Allegiance by Kelly Kirkpatrick. And Dave Spencer asked both these gentlemen to help.

Yeah, so Spencer Rands, he serves on the Public Safety Commission, also the CARE Commission, so he's a great advocate for serving in the community. We appreciate you, Spencer. And then also Kelly, uh, Served our country in the military, and, uh, we're ever indebted, Kelly. Thank you.

If you'd like to go ahead and start.

Father in heaven, we thank thee for this opportunity that we have to live here in America and be in a country that is where we are free to participate in our local government. We're thankful for all the moisture that you've blessed us with this season and for all the good that it has done for us. At this time, we ask a special blessing for our first responders here in Orem, that they may all be safe and doing the jobs that they do. And we ask a blessing for their families, that they may be comforted knowing that they are in good hands and will return safely from their jobs. We ask at this time as well that our elected officials will be guided by thee and that they may make good decisions that will bless the lives of the citizens of Orem. We say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you. And then Kelly Kirkpatrick, if you'd like to lead us in the pledge.

Sir, Congress enacted a law in 2005 that says whether you're in uniform or not, you may salute the flag. You earn that right. With that said, everyone please repeat the Pledge of Allegiance with me.

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, Spencer, and thank you, Kelly.

Thank you. We'd like to move on to item number 6.1. This is the Utah Valley Earth Forum Award. We'd like to have Matt Taylor and Jim Westwater come up for that presentation.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Matthew Taylor. I'm a senior planner with Orem City. I work with the Natural Resources Stewardship Commission. The Utah Valley Earth Forum approached us about 6 weeks ago to consider presenting an award to the city. Great thanks to Kathy Lewis, who also put together much information on the city's efforts on— in sustainability measures. And we provided that information to the Utah Valley Air Forum for their consideration and whether they would present Orem City with an award. This was presented at their request. And I'll turn the time over to Dr. James Westwater. He is the chairman of the board of the Utah Valley Earth Forum to present this award.

Thank you, Matt. It's a great pleasure and honor to be here to honor Orem City. A little bit about the Utah Valley Earth Forum. We formed in effect in about 2006, and our mission is to try to help move Utah Valley, Utah, and the Earth, the planet, in more healthful, greener, sustainable directions. And to do that, we conduct forums, and now pretty much by Zoom. But we also created a survey, an environmental sustainability survey, which we shared with cities and towns throughout Utah Valley. And the city— that survey had multiple functions. First of all, it gives cities and towns an opportunity to share with each other and with the public what they're doing to be helpful to the environment and to human health. Secondly, it helps to educate cities and towns We provide a number of items on our survey list and we ask cities, are you doing this? And we also give them an opportunity to free respond if they're doing things that are, are not on the list. So there's an educational aspect. And then thirdly, it attempts to help to inspire cities and towns to, to improve and to do a better job of being sustainable and helpful to the earth. And then lastly, it gives us an opportunity, opportunity to identify cities and towns that are doing a remarkable, outstanding job in, in being helpful in moving Utah and Utah Valley in more healthful directions. And that brings us to this evening. Orem, along with a couple of other cities, have done a really outstanding job of moving us forward. We've been doing the survey, by the way, for 10 years, and this is, this is the 10th year of doing it. So we have prepared this Earth Stewardship Award presented to Aurum City, and if I can just read from it, it's very short. In recognition of exemplary efforts to help the Earth's environment, which we all share, achieving important advancements in leadership and community involvement, energy conservation, EV charging, efficient construction, recycling, and water conservation and xeriscaping. So I will present this award to the mayor. If you will step forward, please.

Sure.

Or should I— I come to you or what?

Yeah, why don't we come up here and we can take it.

And Mayor, if, if I may ask, if we could have the council join for a photo, that might be appropriate. Thank you.

You all are doing a great job. Keep up the good work.

Thank you.

Yes, go ahead.

Um, I serve on the Natural Resource Committee, and I want to know that— I want you to know that they are very conscientious of sustainability, of recycling, and all these great things. And Matt has been great spearheading our rain barrel distribution, and the city's put some resources So we've done some really good things in the city, and I think we will continue to do them. That committee is very passionate and very competent. So thank you so much for the award.

And I'll just echo that. Thank you, Jim. We really appreciate that, and we appreciate all the good efforts of the city and the citizens to make that happen. So thank you. Well, we'll keep it going.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, we'll move on to item number 7, personal appearances. We just got 3 personal appearances tonight, and we'll start out, and if you would just come up and state your name. First, we've got Andrew Jackson. And if, if you live in the city type thing. Just your name.

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. So my name is Andrew Jackson and I live on Cherry Apple, just kind of northeast part of Orm, and have been here since I was a junior in high school. Um, Honorable Mayor and Honorable City Council, as well as Mr. Bybee— I guess I could put honorable before that as well— I've known Mr. Bybee for a long time and You're really lucky to have somebody as skilled as he is. I just wanted to bring this item up. It's probably more just an administrative item, but because it is something that maybe people aren't aware of, that I thought I would bring it forward to you. I placed at your desks a section of the Utah State Code as well, so I've given it to the city recorder. I have gotten a building permit for retaining wall at my property, and I like to follow all the rules and regulations and drew up the site plan to scale. And while I'm not a professional surveyor, I did get my orienteering merit badge. And so I know how to find a bearing and a distance and, and kind of locate those things. And so, um, there is a question as we got to the final approval of the building permit for my retaining wall, whether I am or whether the wall is or isn't within an easement. And, and so I came in to the Planning and Zoning Department and asked them— well, actually, I looked, I tried to find in the city code where it deals with easements, and I couldn't find anything. And I'm a guy that's pretty used to getting around codes and stuff, and I couldn't find it anywhere in there. So I came into the city, and I have to say that Everybody from top to bottom in the building department and the planning and zoning department has just been so great to work with. Anyway, they said that it wasn't in city code, it was actually state code, so they were following state code, which they said didn't allow any structures in a public utility easement. And so I agreed with that, and so I thought, well, I'll look up the state code and find out exactly what that says. And to my surprise— and I've been doing planning and zoning for a number of years and working with the legislature for many years— to my surprise, in 2009, the code was changed. And so this paper in front of you is the section of the state code that deals with public utility easements, and I'll just read from Paragraph, subparagraph 2 and 3, and it says a public utility easement provides a public utility with the right to install, maintain, operate, repair, remove, replace, relocate public utility facilities, the rights of ingress and egress within the public utility easement for public utility employees, contractors, and agents. So they can maintain it and they can also come in and off. Am I out of time? You want to sit down?

You're out of time, and I'd say to go ahead and continue, and—

Okay.

We'll give you some extra time.

I'll be very quick then. I'll just jump to the— so what it does say in here is that if you have bushes or trees or gravel, etc., in the public utility easement and the utility company rips it up, then it's the public utility's responsibility to replace those things. However, 3 says, except for those things that are identified in And Part 2B, if a property owner makes other improvements to the land that may interfere with the easement, then it's the property owner shall risk the loss or damage to those improvements. And so instead of what has happened in the past where people have had to have a one-lot subdivision to vacate an easement or have a surveyor come out and survey where everything is, I was surprised to find out in state code that I assume the responsibility for the cost if a public utility comes in that easement and has to rip out my retaining wall. The subdivision has been recorded for over 30 years. There's no utilities there. I blue staked it. So I think it's just an administrative item to let the planning and zoning folks know that it's okay to have structures. in that easement. They don't have to have no structures on it. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Would you like to address that, Brent?

Just—

we'll look into it. I made some notes, and I'll get with our planning staff, and, and we'll take a look at what Mr. Jackson has presented and go from there.

Okay, sounds good. Thank you. Next up, we've got somebody I know, Kathy Young.

As you heard, my name is Kathy Young, and I just want to tell you about an experience I had yesterday that was really positive and I was excited and I wanted to tell you about it. Um, I walk from my house over to the outdoor rec track almost every day, and yesterday I went and I do about 4 or 5 times around the track, and I noticed those beautiful new benches that you've put in. I don't know, is it you? You're a good smile. Whose idea was that? Because they are amazing. And I just wanted to thank you and tell you, so many senior citizens go and sit there, and then they get up and walk a little bit and they can sit down again. But I just, I don't think we thank you enough for some of these small things that, that our city does. So that's, that's what I wanted to tell you. So thank you so much.

Yeah, so I'm happy to address that. We, that was a communication that was sent to Councilmember Spencer and I from a senior citizen in our city, a resident, and we thought it was a great idea. We reached out to our city manager, Graham Bybee, and he made it happen.

So—

And we have really, really great public works staff and park staff who jumped on it and got it done, and then our development services staff helped us look at the benches we already had, kind of being fabricated for our new Hillcrest Park. And so timing-wise, it kind of came together quickly to get it, get it done and added.

So thanks for that. It's good to hear that things are working and people are using them.

So thank you.

And I think that also it was a citizen, Fred Johnson, who emailed us. And if you see something that you think you need or would be a good thing for the city, let us know and we'll take care of it. So that's what it was, just citizens' input, and worked out. So.

Thank you.

And we, and we receive those inputs all the time. I mean, regularly, and we're constantly pushing them off to the city and the different departments. So it's how it works. Next up, we've got Bennett Cookson.

Okay, I'm Bennett Cookson, and I live in Orem. Just congratulations on the environmental award. Actually, it reminded me of another issue, not my main issue, but I use the green bins a lot for, you know, the garbage service, and we used to take those to an actual green dump place. I mean, we don't now, so I don't know if reconsider— I hope you'll get back to that. And the other issue is, is that the longer it goes where it's going, and people see it going into the just regular dumpsters— like, I took a long time to train my family to put the appropriate things in the green bin. And, and actually, I didn't tell them it was going in the garbage because I didn't want to— I want to keep— still keep it separate, hoping that we can go back to it anyway. So I hope we can go back to that soon. I think that helps. But my main issue is with parking. Yesterday, our neighborhood was decorated with these parking tickets. Um, so I live at the end of a cul-de-sac, and all the cars in the cul-de-sac just pull straight in to the end of the cul-de-sac. And evidently, according to this notice, they want us— I guess it's a violation And they want us to try to parallel park, which you really— and also, I guess, you're supposed to parallel park 12 inches from the curb, which, because of the steepness of the cul-de-sac, a large vehicle can't even do that. So a small vehicle may be a little bit better. But anyway, so it makes it really hard for, for us. on that street. Me and my next-door neighbor that are actually at the end of the cul-de-sac both agree. Every single person that I've talked to about it said that's ridiculous because, I mean, it makes sense to parallel park on the straighter parts, but at the end of the cul-de-sac, it doesn't really make sense to try to, to park in a parallel way. So I would hope— I guess what I'm asking for is, is to have exceptions for the end of cul-de-sacs, especially when they're formulated the ways ours is. I've seen other cul-de-sacs where it wouldn't be as bad, and depends on where the driveways come out, but our particular one, that makes it very difficult for the parking. So, so consider an exception.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I would like to just say we've talked about this off the cuff, but I would like to have a further discussion about these rules and how they work and, and the reasons why, and then also potential exceptions, just because they seem to be getting happening, you know, different parts of the city, and they're something that hasn't happened for a long time. And so anyway, I just want to have a further discussion about that.

I think it's a fire department thing so the trucks can turn around in there. Brent, can you—

or Chief, can you let us—

But it is a fire department thing, and it's also a state code thing. Yeah, but I think we need to have a further discussion and see what can practically be done.

Certainly we can look at— I do look at it generally and make sure that our code is making— makes sense and is— and has a practical component to it. But yeah, I do believe there are additional considerations in terms of turnaround for our fire engines at the end of cul-de-sacs. So But so regardless, we can look at things and see where there might be ways to, or options or alternatives.

I just like to plan some time to talk about it and dive into it.

But just quick, in terms of turnaround, we customarily park that way straight in and then also end up putting the garbage cans in front of it, which maybe that's not so good either, I don't know. The garbage trucks come in and have no problem coming in in front of that and turning around in the cul-de-sac at all. And so a fire truck would be able to turn in there even with the cars and the garbage cans.

I know that there's a number of issues that we have to sort out, but we are, we are on it. One more thing. The previous issue that you're talking about, about green waste. Brent and I actually had a conversation about that yesterday. Can you share with them You know where we're at on that?

Yeah, so for green waste to be turned into fertilizer, you can still take it directly down to the transfer station in Lynden, and that is then processed into fertilizer that then can be purchased at a discounted rate and used for those purposes. In terms of the green waste that goes into the green waste can, that does end up going down to the landfill that the city, through a special service district, participates in kind of the ownership and management of that landfill. And it's actually desired to have that green waste go down there as it extends the life of the landfill because it helps to it helps for the waste that ends up there to digest and to decompose. And so furthermore, then when a cell at the landfill is closed and there's the creation of methane gases in the landfill, those are all then captured and can be used to turn into an energy source or converted into blue gas. So So, so in other words, we still get good benefit by how our green waste system works. What goes in the can goes to landfill, but that's to the benefit of increasing the longevity of the landfill. But then if you want it to go towards a fertilizer system, it can still be taken down and received down at the transfer station, and that will will turn into that, that fertilizer output.

Okay, thank you.

All right, let's move on to consent items. And essentially, we've got several items on the consent agenda. 8.1, approval of meeting minutes from June 13th. And then we're very caught up on that. We appreciate that, Teresa. You're doing a great job. Item 8.2, appointment of Debbie Larray as Mayor Pro Tem from July '23 to January of '24. We change every 6 months, and Jeff is retiring as Mayor Pro Tem for the last 6 months, and Debbie will be up going forward. Next, we've got item 8.3, appointment of Crystal Mielstein To the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission. And, uh, Renee, do you want to say anything?

Sure.

Um, that's one of the commissions that I'm over. Um, I'm very excited about having Crystal on this commission. She has a strong history of community service and dedication to the children of Orem, and she'll be a great asset to the Women's and Children's Memorial Park that we're working on there at 1600 North 400 West, and be able to contribute a vital perspective to that. So we're— she's a very qualified candidate. We appreciate her being willing to volunteer her time to serve on that commission.

Thank you. And then item 8.4, reappointment of Nathan Christensen to the Cultural Arts Council. Debbie?

Yes, this is a reappointment. We appreciate Nathan and his expertise. This is a very diverse and Very wonderful Arts Council with all kinds of great experts, and he's one of those great experts, so we're pleased to have him accept another 3 years from us.

Thank you.

We've got 2 ordinances that are in our consent items tonight. We've got item 8.5, amending Article 7-1, adoption of building and fire codes governing building construction of the Orem City Code to update the building code from 2018 to 2021. And item 8.6, an ordinance amending Article 2-34, Orem Neighborhood Commission, of the Orem City Code. So those are all the consent items.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve the consent items.

Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The consent items all pass. Thank you. Next, we go into item 9, scheduled items. Item 9.1, we've got a public hearing. So we'd like to have Brandon Nelson present amending the City of Warham fiscal year 2022-2023 adopted budget. And we'll have a— he'll have a presentation. And then we'll have a public hearing and we'll vote on that.

Thank you, Mayor.

So as our final budget amendment for the fiscal year, we have several items on here to finish out the year to get those accomplished. I just want to touch on really several items. Obviously, all the items listed with a— in the note column there with a number 1 are related to some sort of donation or primarily grants. And I want to really just focus on— if you can scroll up just a little bit, or down, I guess, whichever way you went—

right there.

So the one main one I want to really focus on is right there, near the bottom under the water fund. We received that $7 million for the water reuse project from, I believe, that was through ARPA funding. And so that's a big item as part of, you'll recall, that water reuse project, which came in significantly higher from a bid perspective, RFP perspective, than we had originally planned. And this was a big reason as to why that particular project was able to move forward. Associated also, just the one right below that, the $500,000, we received some money from Metro Water of Orem to help with the construction of the storage tank down at Heritage Park. And then if you want to scroll back to the top, if you would, right there. The other item I wanted to touch on is related to that bottom item, the appropriated surplus for CIP projects. projects, the $5.25 million. So if you'll read in, you can read in the notes, but primarily that's related to state law requirement related to the city is— has a— all cities have a ceiling in relation to their fund balance in which we can only keep so much money within our general fund. After our audit, it was identified that we had exceeded that fund balance, that ceiling amount, and therefore, in order to be in compliance, we need to transfer a certain amount of money out of the general fund, and we transfer those dollars into our capital projects fund for use within that capital projects fund. The primary— approximately $4 million of that money will be used towards the new city center. The other million or so as various parks and street and other projects that were identified through our budget process over this last little while. The requirement, just so you're aware, all of that is not part of the requirement to go below that ceiling. Approximately $3 million of that brought us below that state-mandated ceiling. That remaining $2.2 million is dollars that we feel like we don't need to maintain right at the very ceiling. Let— we've just, you know, as a council in the past, we've determined that, hey, let's put those dollars to good use. We don't feel like we necessarily need to just have always be at the very highest that we need to. Obviously, those funds are sitting in our capital projects fund and can be used as towards something that is beneficial towards the citizens of the city. And so, so we've targeted a little— some of that money towards that purpose. So just to make you aware, like I said, many of the other elements on here are just things related to various grants. You can scroll down a little ways. Are there any questions about any of the other items on there in particular? And just so you're aware, obviously the top section were the, you know, in accounting we have revenues equal expenditures in relation to our, especially in our budgeting. And so the top section were the revenues associated with those items and the bottom section are the expenditures as far as where do those particular things plan to be expended.

Debbie, I'm, I'm pleased to see that you have the Gold Star family donations. And I know they had a booth during Orem Fest. Is that the money they collected at that booth?

Or yes.

And will they be doing a little more outreach? Is there a certain goal we have? Is it $75,000 for that monument?

What's the—

I can't remember.

For just the monument, it was about $75,000-$80,000. we are— our fundraising goals will be for the entire Freedom Plaza there. So, uh, our goal overall is more like $250,000, uh, in fundraising goals.

Do we have a strategy that we're going to be reaching out to businesses, or—

Um, yes, Ryan can attest, I even reached out to a business today about contributing to that effort. So truly, uh, We really just initiated and kicked off the effort during Orem Fest, but we have a team together and we've, and we've had even some of you involved in looking at design and then ultimately how we fundraise from here. So we, we— There's a lot of excitement that's generating from our, our police department is, is big part of helping us with this. So even though this is a low dollar amount here, we're confident that we can achieve a much higher amount than that.

Right.

Thank you so much.

Okay, any additional questions? Okay, if there's no additional questions, we'll open it Up to the public for a public hearing on what Brandon's just gone over. If there's no comments from the public, we'll close the public hearing and we'll vote on it.

We need a motion.

We need a motion.

So I make a motion that we— let's see, we vote to— I move that we approve the amended City of Orem fiscal year 2022-2023 adopted budget.

Second.

I'll second that.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. The amendment passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brennan. Okay, next up, item 9.2.

Item 9.2.

Public hearing. Amending Article 22-5-3 and the zoning map of the City of Orem by rezoning portions of the property located generally at 883 North State Street to either a C-2 zone or C-3 zone, and amending the Appendix A of the Orem City Code to make Standard Land Use Code 1283 transitional treatment home permitted use in the C-3 zone. Jason, would you like to present that to us?

Yes, thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Tonight we're talking about this 6.928-acre property which is directly west of Macy's. The front's on State Street. It also fronts on 400 West, as you can see, next to the Sonic restaurant and Monarch Honda there. What they're proposing tonight is rezone a portion of it. You can see that the front path along Let me go to the zoning. You can see the front half is kind of a hodgepodge of C-2. There are some C-3 in some of those properties. What they're wanting to do is make it consistent. So the front lots— and I'll go to the next slide to show you the site plan— they have 3 parcels, 3 lots that they want to do that will actually front on State Street. Those they want to have in the C-2 zone. The back portion, which is including the detention basin you can see running down the middle, will all be in the C-3 zone. So there's only a small section of areas that we're going to rezone back and forth, either C-3 or C-2. But the bulk of the property in the front, and then the property in the back, will be either C-2 in the front, C-3 in the back. And then the back portion would be the women's and children's shelter with an office building on the backside that fronts on 4th West. And so that portion would be in the C-3 zone to meet those standards. The 3 lots in the front would meet the C-2 standards.

So, Jason, do you have a way to point to where you're talking about as we go through this?

I don't know if you can see that pointer.

Yeah, we can see that.

So the front 3 lots that they're pointing to are the commercial parcels— 2 restaurants on the north, a car wash on the south. And then if you go to the building in the middle, the larger building would be the The residential component of the women's and children's shelter.

Is that— is that blue square the—

Yes, building with the courtyard in the middle, the white courtyard.

Okay.

And then the building to the west would be their office building. So that would be— they would take both those buildings, either 1 or 2 stories. That's yet to be determined based on their site plan and coming forward for that approval tonight is simply adding that land use code into the C-3 zone so that they can then move forward with site plan with City Council.

So is this entire— it's part of the C-2 and part of the C-3 currently?

Yeah, so if I go back to the map, you can see that there's a little wedge of the C-3. The purple, purplish color is C-3. The red is C-2. So I can't really point at the pointer, but about a third of the Front property, so portions of that tip, so you can see where that pointer is. If you go straight up on that, that line right there, approximately right there, those C-3 zones would be zoned to C-2. Then the remaining portions, there's one section you can see on the bottom that C-2 would be zoned back to C-3. So the bulk of it would be— I'd have to come over to the pointer, I guess, to make more sense. But you see that strip right there, that will be C-3.

Okay.

And then those little sections right there would be back to C-2. So those are the only 2 properties that are rezoning to basically get to that configuration. Let me just go to the next map, might show you a little better. There you can see the red colors. So the 3 lots in the front would be C-2, the back portion would be C-3.

And that, and that's what you're trying to move it to? That's what we're trying to do right now.

It's Fairly jacketed as it goes down there. Yes, that's correct. So the bottom line is the purpose of that is so that a restaurant that comes in doesn't have to meet 2 different standards. They just have the one zone that they can meet— heights, setbacks, all that kind of stuff. So that would basically be consistent with those lots being C-2, the back lot be C-3, and then they're just easier to comply with and conform to the zoning requirements. Trying to meet 2 different zones is kind of a difficult standard sometimes.

Okay, so there's 2 things going on. You want to, you want to adjust the zoning, rearrange the lines on C-2, C-3 to try and make it make more sense. And then over here, these 2 blue buildings, this is a new proposed project, but we're not really— you're just letting us know that that's going to be—

So that's what they're proposing. Really, the bottom line is this, this is what they're proposing, is the transitional treatment home being allowed as a permitted use in the C-3 zone. And you can see the definition of what a transitional treatment home is. It is licensed by the state of Utah, does provide independent care, provides, you know, therapy, rehabilitation, or any of those types of care that is required. It does not allow any people that are referred to by the state, whether it's a correctional facility, juvenile or adult court. So it basically is not a center for those types of individuals, right, that are adjudicated through the courts. That's not the intent of a transitional treatment home. It's just those that are needing that additional help, which is what the Women's and Children's Center would be a part of. So that's what this proposal is, just to allow this as the use in the C-3. So rezoning and then adding this as a use, those are the 2 things we're before you tonight. Oh, go ahead.

Oh, I was just gonna ask, so, and you know, help me because you're the zoning guy. My understanding is the C-3 zone is typically a zone that is put into place as a transition zone to protect homes, to protect neighborhoods from commercial use like the C-2 use. So help me understand why this type of housing was not previously included in a C-3 and why you think it's appropriate now for— because this then will apply to all of our C-3 zones throughout Orem.

Is that correct?

Correct. So here's the map that shows, and you can see that there are some commercial uses. So the Sonic restaurant, that little strip mall, the Pinehurst Plaza is C-3 zone. So it's not exclusive of not allowing commercial, not allowing those types of things. The C-3 zone was created in Orem back when the Smith's was built, and that was even before my time. But C-3 was developed specifically for the Pinehurst as well, that kind of related back to those homes that are to the north. So it had a terrace effect. Those office buildings that you see west of Pinehurst, you can see the ones that are closest to the residential are 2 stories. As it gets closer to 8th North, they go to 3 stories. So the setback was built in. It wasn't necessarily designed that it didn't allow commercial uses. It was just designed specifically for what they're proposing at that time. So uses over time— you remember the tattoo ablation thing that we talked about months ago. I mean, over time, cities add different uses of different zones based on what comes in and what's proposed. So at the time it was created, back in probably the late '90s, some of the uses just weren't considered, and we basically allow applicants to come in over time and request changes as it goes forward. So some of those probably weren't contemplated at the time. It doesn't mean it doesn't fit into the zone, but it just wasn't contemplated. So your height and your setbacks Those are the basic requirements in the C-3, is that, and then some landscaping requirements to kind of buffer. So really, the uses in a C-3 or C-2 are not necessary. I mean, the C-2 does have a lot more intensive uses, the C-3 not so much, just because of the way it was created and the purpose of those— the Smith Shopping Center and the Pinehurst. But over time, we'll see those evolve with different applicants coming in and requesting a use here or use there that makes sense as well. So it was just the fact that we didn't see those, but the bulk of the requirements are really the height setbacks, things like that.

And then does this type of use— is it typically a nonprofit use where it would affect our revenues?

Our tax doesn't necessarily have to be. I mean, this is a nonprofit, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. I mean, if this didn't get approved, go in, a transitional treatment that met that requirement, met that definition, could go in, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a nonprofit.

Okay.

If I may, Tom, if I recall correctly, Jason, a couple of few months ago, we, we dealt with some of the rezoning of this particular piece of property, correct? And at that point, you, you alerted us to the fact that we'd be dealing with more to clean up this piece. Is this the final act there?

This is the final cleanup.

And, and the biggest difference tonight that we're considering is a, is a different use to it.

Adding the use and then adding a use and then straightening that.

And then straight—

well, we knew the straightening was going to come, but the adding the use. And we've had public hearing, we've had neighborhood meetings, I'm assuming.

Yes. Now the original application, they wanted to create the whole thing as a C-2 zone. During the Planning Commission reviews, I think during part of their neighborhood meeting, they wanted to keep that back portion portion C-3.

The planning commission step effect that you talked about, right?

And so the Planning Commission basically asked them to, to keep that back half C-3, which is why we're now coming with that straight line and making the C-2, C-3. At the same time, the C-2 zone does allow a transitional treatment home. The C-3 did not. So by keeping it C-3 as requested by the Planning Commission neighborhood, the next step would be to add that as a use in the C-3 to allow allow what they're wanting to do versus rezoning the whole thing C-2, which was their original application. So they're kind of meeting in the middle, trying to make it work.

And did the Planning Commission recommend approval?

They did.

Thank you.

But as far as we're just changing the zone and we're adding the use, as far as a specific business coming in, that they have— still have to go through that whole process, right?

Yes, it is Planning Commission. The site plan approval process. Yes.

Any other comments? The Planning Commission did spend a lot of time discussing this and had some concerns, so it wasn't just a slam dunk. So we're not just doing— discussing C-2 or C-3, we're also talking about changing it for a transitional treatment center. So there's just not— we're just not going to see, you know, one or the other, we're adding Another fact, another—

Yep.

So, Jason, I have a question about that. And I've talked to the director of Women and Children in Crisis, which is an organization I support and think is a great organization. What if they don't go there? Then what happens to that property? Because now it's approved for transitional treatment homes. So what does that mean to those neighbors? Does that mean And I just read what we said it is and what it isn't. Is that a halfway house? Is that a sex offender's home? Is that, you know, or maybe there's something I'm forgetting that would be— if I was a parent living across the street, Women and Children in Crisis, count me in all day long if I lived across the street. Some of these others, if I've got children and I'm 30 feet away from this building, I've got some Major concerns.

I mean, the bottom— this couple sentences on the bottom is basically the, I guess, the catch. That a transitional treatment home shall not include any person referred to by the state, State Department of Corrections, either adult or juvenile. So it would not be part of that type of facility. So a halfway house you're talking about, or those types of juvenile detention type things where they're, you know, going between jail and getting to the home, that would not be allowed based on this definition.

But you could be a sex offender that's, that's going there, but you're, you're now off your probation.

As long as it met the definition of the transitional treatment home, yeah, and they were licensed with the state of Utah.

So what protects the neighbors from making sure it stays women and children in crisis? Is there anything we could do to say this is a great This is great. I support that. I don't support opening up to transitional treatments homes, whatever that means, because that's a pretty broad category.

Unless there's some— I have to refer to Steve Earl on that, but whether we do a development agreement or something like that might be an option.

Yeah, and does this open up other residential uses? If we add it in the C-3 zone, do we have to add other residential uses?

No, you don't have to add— you don't have to allow other residential uses.

The other federal—

That stuff wouldn't apply in this situation, I don't believe. So the answer to the other question is, you know, yeah, if this allows for transitional treatment homes, if this particular group decides not to go there, you know, a subsequent purchaser of the property could develop it for any use that's permitted in the C-3 zone. So that could be a commercial use, it could be a transitional treatment home of a different kind. You know, we have a number of those in the city right now. I think actually probably most of them are private for-profit, my understanding. I mean, just as an example of some existing transitional treatment homes we have in the city, you know, Cirque Lodge, the Provo Canyon Hospital. The Center for Change. There's probably a few others I'm not thinking of. Maybe Jason can think of a couple others, but those are some examples of other types of uses. So, and keep in mind that, you know, these, these types of facilities can go in any C-2 zone right now, so they could go, you know, anywhere. I don't think you're likely to see any kind of a sex offender facility. Could you get one sex offender in there? Of course, you can get a sex offender living in any neighborhood in the city. But I, I'm no expert on this. But my— I've heard in the past, the state generally doesn't like to see sex offenders congregating or living close to each other. I don't know if that's true. That's, that's kind of a rumor. But, you know, a transitional treatment facility. Yeah, it could be for different things, whether that's, you know, eating disorders, you know, addictions, people with behavioral problems or difficulties. You know, those are the kinds of things that transitional treatment homes are typically used for.

So if it was a concern when it went through the— for the actual entity, whatever it was, that could be done as a conditional use?

No, no.

Right now, if the city council approves that as a permitted use, then it, then it's permitted. They don't have, you know, a group that fits within that definition could come in as a matter of right, they wouldn't have to get any further approvals except for a site plan approval. And that's basically looking at not the use so much as just making sure they comply with heights and parking requirements and setbacks and landscaping and those kinds of things.

But you're saying right now that right is allowed through all the C-2 zones, right?

In all the C-2 zones, yes.

So we're just adding that right to these. There's just a few C-3 zones.

Yeah.

So we're just adding it to the C-3. It's already approved in C-2. We're just adding it. Now you can do that.

It's also added in C-1. If you look on the permitted uses, it's C-1, which is also residential, next to residential transitional on 8th North, or C-1 zone. So the behavioral hospital you're talking about on 8th East, Palisade Drive. is in the C-1 zone, which is that zone.

So will you show that map again of the C-3s in Orem, please?

So the Pinehurst area next to Timpanogos Hospital is C-3, and then the Smith's Shopping Center is C-3. So we only have those 2 areas in the city.

And is that what— what's the bottom street on that C-3 that you have your arrow on? Is that 4th?

What is that?

That's Center Street.

200 South? No, the bottom.

200 South.

Is that that end of like the Jiffy Lube and everything?

Yep.

Okay.

Well, Shopko.

Yeah.

And then there's a bank.

Yep.

Yep. Backside of Shopko. And then you got— I think there's a bank behind that.

So what happens if it's a C-2? It already would be a transitional treatment center. What's the difference between if we just leave it C-2 with a transitional? Because they could already do a transitional treatment.

So yeah, the original application, like I mentioned was to rezone all of the property C-2, and then we wouldn't be here with this SLU code change. But the— yeah, with the Planning Commission, their recommendation is to take it C-3, just more for the setbacks and the height restriction issues. That was the main issue for a C-3 zone. C-2 zone does accomplish it without making that change.

I think it was also a matter of limiting the, the uses. Like Jason mentioned before, there's a lot of uses that are permitted in the C-2 zone that are not permitted in C-3. I mean, just as an example, a gas station, you know, so the thought was, you know, we don't necessarily want a gas station or some other, you know, heavier commercial uses in this area. We want more of the, for lack of a better term, lighter commercial uses in that, in that particular area.

Jason, on C-3, what is the height restriction?

35 within a certain distance, and it goes up to 48 is the max.

Any other questions?

One other question. The car wash is the— are those motors facing State Street? If I remember, I think they were.

So they're actually coming in from State Street, and the blowers would be on the west side. So the motors will be on the west side facing The residential, it'd be facing straight into the commercial to the west. So you can see the residential doesn't start until the top of the colored map. You'll see the, the women's and children's, and then the Pinehurst Plaza is directly to the west. And that's— you're talking about 500 feet, roughly, so 2 football fields probably before you ever get to any residential.

But the— so the noise will be facing the residents and the They will be facing west, the transitional treatment homes.

Yep, yep.

Facing, facing where the transitional home will be.

Now the transitional home will be facing that— you'll be driving out of the car wash going right to where the transitional home is.

You're saying that's about 200 feet of distance or no?

Well, to the transition treatment home, yeah, it's probably 150-ish. Yeah, to residential, to the top of the map where those apartments are. I measured it today, it's about 300 feet. So if you get to the actual single-family homes, you're looking at 600, 700 feet or more.

I'm talking about the residents in the transitional treatment home.

Yeah, that would be about within 150 feet.

And this has not been approved yet, their plan. They can rearrange that if, if we want the blowers facing State Street.

They have not gone through site plan approval, no. So I mean, if that's the direction, we as staff, we could ask them to, to, you know, face them east if that's the direction.

Yeah.

And then can I just ask why, or did you consider development agreement versus the addition of this transitional housing into the C-3 zone?

I think that, well, based on the Planning Commission support of C-3, and that's— we didn't really Really contemplate. That was discussed at the, at the Planning Commission, but they felt by keeping it C-3 was, was a trade-off, I guess, between going to C-2 versus having that little more protection with the C-3 zone.

Okay, we ready to go to a public hearing? Okay, let's just open this up for the public hearing if anyone has anything they'd like to add or comment about this.

So, Mayor, just be aware that we're not the applicant, so the applicants are here if you have questions for them as well.

Yeah, let me just— you might wonder why Jeff disappeared. He had to go to a baseball game, state championship game for his grandson, so we thought that was the most important use of his time right now, so he took off. If you can.

So, okay.

Mayor, Mayor, if I may, traditionally we do invite the applicant up to give a presentation or talk about the reasons for their application before we get to the public comment, if you'd like to follow that. Same procedure.

So as far as we've got labeled here as a public hearing, but you're just talking about just the zoning change. You're not talking about— we're not talking about the applicant for their particular case, right?

Well, we are talking about the applicant who's asking for the change to adding the transitional treatment home use. Okay, so I think they're here.

And the zone as well. I mean, so we have both applicants here for the zone change. They're acting as applicant for both, but the, the Women's and Children's Center who are going to buy the property are also here to address questions if you have any.

It just might help to have them present their side, and then that might help inform the public comment because they hear both the staff presentation and the applicant's presentation, and that might dictate where they go with—

You want to go through that now?

Yeah, if we could.

Good evening, evening, council members and mayor. My name is Paul Washburn. I'm here representing the Women and Children in Crisis Center. We also have Ashley Taylor, who is the director, and I think we'll ask her to initially talk a little bit about the Thank you.

Thank you so much. As you've seen in the plan that we are asking for this amendment to be made so that we can build on this property. I'm just a little bit about what we do. We are the Center for Women and Children in Crisis. We're currently branded as The Refuge Utah, and we provide services for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault throughout all of Utah County, as well as Juab and Wasatch Counties. The majority of those that are staying in our safe house who are looking to flee from abuse are from the Provo and Orem area. So we were really looking, as we're building to— looking to build an expanded facility, something that will accommodate the greatest need that we see, and that's coming from this area. We've seen in the past 3 years, unfortunately, the incidences of domestic abuse have more than doubled. And we are struggling to meet that need with our very small current facilities. It's estimated that law enforcement advocates within the county work with about 4,000 victims of domestic abuse each year. Our current facility has only 25 beds that are available for domestic abuse victims and their children that are fleeing. Unfortunately, we are consistently full. In any given year, we're able to serve about 200 to 220 individuals in in our shelter. And unfortunately, last year we had to turn away 480 individuals that requested shelter because our facilities were full. So it has been a need for a long time for us to be able to expand our facilities and be able to meet the need in our area. It was also reported that in 2021, 26.8% of homelessness was a result of domestic abuse, and that was the leading cause of homelessness in Utah County. So we're looking to build this expanded facility so that we can not only meet the need but help to grow as our community grows, and unfortunately, as the need grows for services for individuals that are fleeing abuse. These are just a couple of the impact that we have currently on the community, being able to provide emergency safe house to individuals and their children. On average, they stay about 28 days before leaving our services. And in last year, we received almost 3,000 crisis calls to our hotline and served about 1,575 victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. We know that there are many others out there that need our services and are looking to build an expanded facility to help meet that need. This property specifically in Orem meets so many of the criteria as we've been looking for property that is large enough to house a facility that can meet the need, but also be able to provide our office building that provides things like therapy services, case management, additional victim services for individuals that aren't looking to stay at the shelter but need advocacy support, help with protective orders, and things like that. This property allows us to have all of that on one united campus and be able to provide better services to the victims that we're serving, as well as being in an area that is slightly off of State Street and 800 North, so it's not public-facing but is still close to public transportation, as many of the residents don't have their own transportation, as well as access to medical services close by, grocery stores, drugstores, other things that they need immediately as they're staying in our services. Thank you. We appreciate your time this evening.

Thank you. I'd just like to add, this is a piece of property that the center has been looking for for a number of years. Actually, referred to the services that are available at this site— access to public housing or public transportation services, doctors, dentists, drugstore— all of those things that are within walking distance. Walking distance, you know, very close proximity. It's a hard piece of property to find, particularly in the size we need. This is not something we're doing on a whim that we're thinking, well, maybe we'll do it or maybe not. This is a vital need that needs to be taken care of. Also like to point out that we've got significant earnest money on this property, and it'll go hard in the next couple of days. We're not going to walk away from this. This is not a bait and switch. It's not trying to put something else there. This needs to be built. The current facility has been in place for a little over 30 years. This isn't something that's going to go away in a few weeks. It's a need, an increasing need in our community. This site is so perfect in so many ways. Really hope that you'll find a way to make this happen for us.

Thank you.

Are you on the board? What's your affiliation with this?

No, it's been my privilege to represent a lot of people over the years. Utah County Housing Authority, Provo Housing Authority, Food and Shelter down in Provo. All of those and this company here are ones that I've been able to work with over the last 30 years strictly on a pro bono basis. This is something I really believe in. My wife was a volunteer at the center during the mid-1990s, and it's— the work they do is so important, and the whole community suffers if it's not taken care of. And we've finally found a place we need to, need to make this happen.

So can you just explain, as far as you're— you have an existing facility in Provo, right? And then what does this do in terms of expansion as far as size and everything else?

I think what was happening is they have the existing facility, they'll acquire the property, sell the existing facility for some other kind of development that'll give them the funding to build a new building.

So, this will be replacing that property.

Okay. And how, how much different is this in size than the place you've currently got?

Yeah, we're looking to expand to at least 90 beds in this new facility, and we're currently at 25 beds.

Okay.

And Paul, from your perspective, is the— if selling the other property is a piece of this puzzle, is that pretty viable as far as—

It's pretty viable. I mean, it's like all development, it depends on what building costs are and interest rates and everything else, but the property's in a good location. I think it will market fairly quickly. Obviously, they want this new building built as quickly as possible, and it's not the only access to funds they have, but it would be the lion's share of what they can put into this.

Okay.

And if I understand right, you have some grants lined up and different things like that to help make this all happen?

Yep, we do.

Any, any questions? Okay, if you'll go ahead and stay here, we'll have the public comment now.

Great.

I was going to add one thing real quick. Hi, my name is Matt Nielsen with Evergreen Development. So we're buying the entire property and then we're in escrow to sell the project to them. Early on, we held a neighborhood meeting to discuss and to figure out what the neighborhood concerns were back there, and it was a great discussion, and we were considering a lot of uses early on, which included, you know, hotels, distribution centers, different things like that to try to meet it. There was 3 main concerns from residents that we came away from that meeting was one was increased traffic to the center was a major concern for residents. One was height, and one was noise from loading docks, from, you know, loading a retail facility like that. And so we did put a lot of thought into what type of use we could put back there that would meet those requirements, that wouldn't increase traffic, that wouldn't be a noise generator, and that wouldn't have the height restriction. And we got really excited with the, the refugee center, not only because it provides a great service to the city, but also because we feel it's a way to win-win for our development, for the city, and for residents nearby that don't have to deal with the increased traffic, noise, or height requirements. So that's the only thing I was going to add.

Thank you. Okay, let's go ahead and open this up to the public.

That's okay, I'm patient, I can wait. My name is Greg Dourdan. I'm a resident of Orem. And the facility that they're currently using is here in Orem, down by the freeway. And I think this is an excellent use of the property that's been vacant for about 50 years that I know of. And it's a, it's an unfortunate need of the community. You don't want to see a cancer treatment facility open up because you don't want anybody to have cancer. You don't want a spouse and victim center shelter to open up because you don't want those people victimized. The women and children that are victims of this, and even some men are victims of abuse, but you don't want that going on in your community, but it goes on and it's increasing and it's unfortunate. So you need a facility like this. You need this piece of property properly zoned so they can stay there for another 30 years. Hopefully they can diminish down because the need will be less. But this is a need of the community. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Corey Miller, and I live right at the end of 400 right there. So this is right in my neighborhood. I would be supportive of a women's abuse center. I would be a little nervous if for some reason that failed and a different treatment center came in there. We already have a lot of traffic that comes off of State or off of 800 to get over to State, or just drives through the neighborhood, which particularly at that intersection where I live, there's almost an accident every day. or a near accident. So I would just be concerned if a different treatment center came in there, what the risks would, would be to our children, to our families. I guess we want to be supportive of of, you know, improving the community, but we also want to protect our neighborhood and our children.

So thank you.

Any other comments? I was just thinking.

It's—

any other comments before we close the public? Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public.

Lenny, can I ask you one question? How confident are you that you'll be using this site plan?

Like I mentioned before, we've got a significant earnest money deposit that will go hard in just a couple of days, so been waiting for this hearing to be able to move forward. If this was a brand new startup— hey, we got a great idea and let's do it— I think there might be some concern. The fact that it has been an active part of the community for over 30 years I think says that this is something that's going to last. It's going to be here. This center has a number of means of financial support. There's state, federal, different grants that come through, not to mention, you know, private donations that keep this going as well. I don't see that diminishing. I mean, you can't guarantee anything, but I I look at a number of the organizations I've worked with over the years. I think I'd bet on these people before I bet on the others.

My question is a little more specific. I, looking at this particular site plan, this design, I like the buffering. I like the parking as a buffering for the neighborhood. And to me, that's pretty important because even though those are condos right over there, I mean, those people really deserve They deserve to be treated like homeowners and residents, or apartments, I guess they're apartments, but I'm just trying to gauge, you know, how confident are you that this is your plan, or will we be changing this? I want to ask that question, and then I also want to say, I can appreciate what you're saying. I volunteered probably 20 years ago. It seems like there was one of these on 12th West. And we would go in and play with the children that were there. So, um, yeah, I think this is a great, great purpose, you know, great thing for our community. But I do feel quite a responsibility here to, you know, buffer our neighborhood.

Absolutely. This is not a final site plan. This is just a rough concept as we're working out many of the details, but we do want for our use as well to provide as much of a buffer for— so that we can provide safety and security for our residents. So we do intend to have as much of a buffer as we can between us and neighboring facilities.

So I've got a question for Steve. So, you know, with the standard land use code of 1283, is there a way to tie a development agreement that code, or is that not possible?

Well, where we are right now, it's not possible. I mean, you know, this standard land use code for transitional treatment home, it is what it is. You know, it's fairly broad. You know, if you wanted to go back through the process, you know, you could maybe create a different standard land use code that was more specific than this, or, you know, even contemplate a development agreement that that tied the use to this particular use, but you wouldn't be able to do that tonight. You'd have to go back to the Planning Commission through that process to do that.

Okay, we don't want to delay it, but Paul, I appreciate your generosity and your kindness in taking on this project.

So—

We would prefer not to have a delay if it's possible. Like I say, we have money going hard in a few days.

And I don't really see— I mean, if we're— so we're changing it to C-3. We've got this before us. They've got pretty good probability that it's going to work out. You always look at the worst case. What if it doesn't? Well, if it doesn't, then we've changed the zoning to allow transitional homes here. I didn't hear anything. from what Steve was talking about earlier, as far as transitional homes that would be really adverse to the community, the way that they're defined. And so I don't see that— yeah, and then the entire rest of the city is also in C-2. I just don't see that we're really giving anything up that's going to be harmful to the community by allowing them to give this a shot.

Thank you.

Mayor, unless, you know, let's say it does fall through, we can always go back and take it out.

That is, that is possible. Yes.

It's not—

so I don't, I don't think we're— if any of the council is concerned, I think we can always reverse that pretty quick.

But so if I can point out on the site plan on the very top, you can see the connection between State Street and 4th East. That road is going to be required at that location based on the way that they've configured their site plan. So all the buildings would have to be south of that anyway. So we're not going to get anybody encroaching with buildings closer than that. So I would imagine their site plan may tweak a little bit, but I think your buildings are going to be on that south portion.

Terry.

So I had a conversation with Mrs. Taylor the other day, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. I also was— it's a long time ago, I guess it's about 25 years ago. involved, and I mentioned that too, I had a client that was a major contributor. And every year I got to deliver the check for my client. And that was a very emotional thing for me. It wasn't my money, it's my client's money, but I'm the one handing the check. And there was a gentleman who's probably long gone now that would come to my office, I'd hand him the check and he'd open the envelope and he'd start to cry. And I'd start to cry anyway. So, and then he'd share with me what that meant to the women and children that are there. So thank you for your service. You said a key thing, Paul, about bait and switch. That's been my concern before I understood the, you know, a little bit more about the nature of this. You know, none of us like to— none of us like to do that, be caught in a bait and switch. So, and So I'm very supportive of women, children in crisis, and you need to have a little more grass in that drawing. So when it's redone, there needs to be a playground and some grass. And, but the thing that I would be very upset about is, you know, if there was a bait and switch, Paul. So you're, you know, that if there's not, and that's where we're going, God bless you.

Thank you.

Come to Orem.

So, Mayor, I'd like to make a motion.

Okay.

That the City Council amending Article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by rezoning portions of the property located generally at 883 North State to either a C-2 zone or C-3 zone, and amending the Appendix A of the Orem City Code to make a Standard Land Use Code 1283 traditional— transitional treatment homes A permitted use in the C-3 zone.

Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Jeff.

Welcome to Orem.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

This is a good thing for the city. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, last on our agenda. We talked about a few things in the previous meeting, but, Bryn, as far as city manager information items, do you have anything else?

Nothing else, Mayor.

Okay, thank you. All right, I'd like to make— would someone like to make a motion to adjourn?

I move that we adjourn.

Okay, I'll second that.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

We're adjourned.