City Council · 2023-12-12

Since the mayor's not here, I'm from town. I think the food is here. Are you okay if we have a prayer and get our food and then wait to eat?

Yep.

Okay, we'll have Tom offer.

Our Heavenly Father, we're grateful for the food that's here and for those who prepared it, made sure that we're taken care of. We're thankful for the city we have the opportunity to serve. We're grateful for this time of year where hearts are naturally drawn to charity and goodwill toward their fellow man. May we feel that spirit permeate this meeting in our lives, we pray in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Amen. So, what are the varieties?

Just bonus.

Yeah, just bonus. Yeah, bonus treats. Bonus holiday treats. Mayor, we started with a prayer and give food. Your mayor pro tem took over well.

Sorry, I didn't know if you were here.

David's got some air in it. An extra chair?

Yes.

Jacob? So then we have to— let's go ahead and call this meeting to order. Welcome everyone. Sorry for the delay, we were in another meeting and now we're all here to call Um, like item number 1, Jake Summers is going to update us for you on short-term rentals. So, uh, to first start on the update is just basically to kind of give an update or a result of recent short-term rental regulation that occurred in our administrative law report that we have here. Um, in this particular case, uh, the short-term rental property was cited for 3 separate violations of the Lawrence City Code. Uh, first was improper—

Is this the goat house?

Yes. Oh, you know how to say that. It is the goat house. We are, we are approaching the end of the appeal period. I think the appeal period expires tomorrow, so I'm not going to go into all of the ins and the outs of the case, but give you kind of an overview of the case itself. But in this particular property, it was cited for 3 separate violations. One is keeping of animals in violation of the ordinance. Second was renting the property in violation of our single-family definition, and then ultimately violation of Appendix A for improper use of the property in violation of our zoning rules. So Really, part of the main problem with this one particular property was the number of individuals that were renting the short-term rental. We would have business groups rent it for a retreat event where 20 to 50 people were responding to the property. We had evidence presented where there was a sorority involved with in excess of 200 people there at the property. On one evening. And so really, we were able to provide with a lot of help from the neighbors, photos, evidence of the frequency and the number of people that were coming to and out of this property itself. With that, our administrative law judge found that we had met this burden of proof that there had been a violation of the single-family definition. And that the short-term rental is in violation of the city code. That's— we also use Appendix A. Appendix A is at the very back of our, of our code, and we reference it in Orem City Code 2219. We basically say that any, any use has to fall in line with the outline of Appendix A, and it goes through every different use. identification that we have put into this appendix. And in particular, we pointed out that SLU code, or use code, for wedding reception centers, 6292, would encompass like a business retreat or wedding receptions or events that— like, it's an event center. And that that type of use within any residential zone, whether it be R-5 all the way through R-20, was a non-permitted use. And our administrative law judge also found that we had met that, that That requirement of evidence in this case. Um, as a backup argument, we also had presented the fact that, um, short-term rental use is not listed in our appendix. However, very other uses similar to short-term rentals, like rooming and boarding houses, transient lodging, Those are also non-permitted uses within any residential zone. And based on, on the arguments we presented to the administrative law judge, the court held that this— that short-term rental was operating in violation of our city code. And then they ordered that that short-term rental cease operations and not continue to rent that as a short-term rental. until the city adopted regulations and that they were in line with those regulations. And so the neighborhood was quite happy with the result from, from this case. Really brings us to what, though, our next steps need to be as a city.

So how did you communicate that to them?

To the neighbors?

We had a group of the neighborhood there at the hearing. We had coordinated prior to the hearing to have certain members of the neighborhood be able to testify, present evidence, and then other neighbors were there just to be supportive. And then we've just had phone conversations and email conversations with neighbors.

Thank you. Thank you for doing that. That's amazing.

I appreciate that. You're welcome. So right now, we can keep the status quo and vote what it is. Yes. Oh, sorry, I thought you were raising your hand. Okay. So the next steps would be, you know, how would the city want to move forward with any sort of regulation or regulatory scheme, if any? As I've looked at other cities and other ways that we could, we could branch out is we could expand our already existing landlord-tenant program. We do have a landlord-tenant licensing scheme where anybody who is renting out property— right now our ordinance says any property, any period of time, 1 month or longer, falls under this. So short-term rentals technically don't fall under our landlord-tenant program, but we can expand that, and in so expanding, we could adopt licensing fee Have, have an information center where we collect the contact information for the property owner. Part of that also having a detailed site plan where they have to have off-site parking for that short-term rental. We can place restrictions, as I think Councilmember Millen had indicated, not allowing them in ADUs would be something that we may want to consider. Possible geographic or per capita limitations for the number of short-term rentals. Another concern about short-term rentals that I've heard both from council members as well as just general public is the number of short-term rentals you have within a community may increase the cost of housing within the community. So we may want to look at some sort of cap or limitation.

Right, and that's what we want to clarify here, right, is, you know, if we're doing ADUs in order to increase affordable housing and yet we're pulling some of those out of the market, Airbnbs, we're kind of not helping ourselves.

Correct. Yeah.

So can you have an Airbnb? I mean, can you have Airbnb in Long Beach?

If you were to ask me my legal opinion right now, my argument is no.

I know people who like that.

My argument would be that you do not currently permit that as a use. Airbnb or any short-term Airbnb, whatever. You're saying currently it's not legal? That would be my opinion. That would be the argument I would make is that right now our ordinances do not permit short-term rental use in the city. And yet we receive more transient room tax from Airbnb than any hotel or other one.

I am sensitive to people who have got a supplemental source of income for them, and they're maybe they're lower income.

I don't—

I have some— if it's not large groups, maybe it's just maybe the limit of a family.

I don't know. And I think that would be the intent of this regulatory scheme is not to prohibit short-term rentals, but to provide that short-term rental operators are operating consciously with the neighborhood that they exist. Also that they're providing safety for the renters that are coming to use their properties, that we manage in a way that's reasonable. And basically, that is also cognizant of the fact that they're in a residential zone. How would you answer the question based on everything you think? why it took so long for the Guild House to become an issue. It didn't become an issue until all those people came to City Council. So my answer to that is, I don't, I don't think that it was— not that the city was not responding, it was taking time for NIT, our Neighborhood Preservation Unit, to collect evidence to be able to prosecute them through the administrative law. We have been working on this issue probably about 30 to 45 days prior to this group coming to the city council. As we were working through the process, they were wanting to see a larger regulatory code present, uh, be implemented by the city. And we actually— our advice is, I've worked with in particular Mr. Astell, was to, uh, or Mr. Estelle, was to come to City Council, present their, their, their voices, and then we could move forward with a regulatory scheme to address this. But we were willing in efforts to respond to the built house in particular. And we had already started that process.

I do remember we have talked about short-term rentals during my 8 years, and I don't know how long it's been. And it may have been in response to something from the state. Steve, do you remember?

Well, a couple of years ago, the state did pass some legislation. They were considering regulating short-term rentals themselves. Ultimately, they decided not to do that. But what they did was say that cities can't prosecute somebody for advertising short-term rentals. That was sort of a compromise they reached on that legislation, which you can argue whether that makes a lot of sense or not. But it's my understanding, maybe Jake was going to get to this, that I think Jesse might be able to speak to it as well. I think the legislature may be undertaking or taking another look at short-term rentals again this year and proposing some regulations that would apply statewide. Because we have looked at that before. And that was— that really was— oh, so if I were to summarize, the state has affected our ability to enforce. The city does have related regulations on code. Already that we have successfully taken through the administrative law judge process. Our administrative law judge process is relatively new within the last handful of years. In terms of moving forward, we just want to make sure that we have tempered, measured, cognizant path forward. Hopefully, well, that isn't going to make everyone happy, but makes everyone happier or is thoughtful of everyone. Now, looking forward, one of the very next steps we see on the horizon is the state legislature is going to re-engage on this subject in the next legislative session, and we can provide an additional set of framework, uh, do's and don'ts for the service. Yes, so there is currently a draft bill that is going to be addressing short-term rentals and really have requirements for municipalities to adopt ordinances or regulations if they're going to allow Short-term rentals to be operated within their municipality. It is just a draft bill at this point, so I didn't put all of the ins and outs of the bill on this presentation. Based on that fact, I think really the city's position here should be continue to research, prepare, and then see what the ultimate outcome is at this legislative session. And then based on what bills are passed as it, as it regards to short-term rental regulations, that we then respond at the end of the session. You know who's pushing that legislation? If it's Pro-Rental or— Uh, from the reading of the bill, I don't know what the lobbyist groups are behind it, but reading from the bill, it is very much from the idea of protecting renters. But it does speak specifically to if a municipality is going to allow short-term rentals to be operated, that they are to adopt regulations for the operation. So right now, Jake, we don't allow Airbnbs or short-term rentals. And that'll help people that can rent homes and families and have their homes come in. When you say we don't allow, we do and we don't. So we've been operating—

Oh, yeah.

We've been operating under the idea that this has been complaint-based enforcement. So NIT and our Neighborhood Preservation Unit hasn't been going out actively looking to investigate cases for short-term rental violations. But as complaints have come into the Neighborhood Preservation Unit, they started opening up cases and doing those investigations. We've been operating as a complaint-based system. And do we stop people saying you can no longer have short-term rentals? So that's your position as a law, but we haven't done that, correct? We've started doing that. And then they can just— they can rent the home instead of short-term, which now you'd have more housing for people to rent instead of— Right. And their theory is I wouldn't get as much money as renting it to a frat house for 3 nights, right, than renting it to a family, right? So that's their motivation for doing it. But what we kind of have to— I mean, as a city, we should have a format for it because otherwise some random person shows up to buy a house, they think they're gonna do short-term rentals. There needs to be some— something defining how this all works. Mayor, that's exactly where I was going to go, is there needs to be a balance between individual property rights As well as maintaining the, the nature of a neighborhood. So we need to figure out what that balance is and how to address that tension. I think it all comes down to they want to make more money, they can rent it, not allow this, allow that. So Tom said it's just money.

It's like, I want to make as much money as possible.

And, you know, in reality, if it's a single-family neighborhood, it should stay single-family and they can rent it.

But you do have people who live upstairs and rent their basement.

But not night by night. And that's really the policy that the council would need to set is where do we want to go on this. And I'm happy to draft a set of regulations. But at the end of the day, it is ultimately the policy of the council to either adopt or not.

Maybe that's a retreat subject.

We also have, you know, I think this is something you want to open up the community because you have, you're gonna get more people than just the 7 of us who are here.

I've already gotten emails on this.

Yeah, no, I have. People are concerned their short-term rentals are going away. That's about everything. Yeah, we're hearing more from that as well.

Yeah.

Jesse, you researched this a bit. Do you have any Uh, yeah, there is a bill in the committee. The fact that it's been released in the committee, they're trying to get a feel for— I didn't see the task force name that was introduced. A very good sign that it's going to be considered in the House and the Senate, the proper committees. So regulation just requires a permit. If you go into Zillow and look at a house in some of the counties that permit, like St. George, and do the search for nightly, it will tell you what houses are nightly rentals. And it's not required to do that, but it sure helps if you're looking for a house to know if you're buying a house that you can nightly rent. Washington County has a pretty aggressive permitting process. I noticed that, uh, Herkin— did I say that right?

Correct.

Uh, there was a developer that went in the neighborhood, a couple hundred people showed up at city council, and it was not in my neighborhood. So it will be a hot topic for council, just to let you know. Um, it sounds like I mean, we've got this bill going through. We don't know which side's pushing it. We don't know where it's going. We don't know if we like it or if we don't. So we don't know if they're going to apply it over the top of us or in conjunction. We just don't know. So we should be tracking that bill, and at the same time we're tracking that bill, we should be coming to— we should know where we want to go, right? And I think it's exactly what you say. We want to not disrupt our normal family neighborhoods. These short-term rentals should just be like another normal situation. That should not be a problem. And we come up with some clear ideas on it. So it sounds like we need to keep moving forward while at the same time, I don't think we want to just wait for the end of the legislative session and say what happened. We want to be pretty actively involved in this. Yeah, I mean, one way to be proactive is if you have some strong feelings on what you'd like to see happen with short-term rentals, is we could engage with our lobbyists and Utah League of Cities and towns to maybe get them to put provisions in there that we want to see happen or take out things that we don't like. So we could actually have a voice in what happens with that legislation. So that's a great point. But the legislation actually just requires a city that does permit short-term rentals, requires a permitting process. So I don't I don't think they're requiring specifics in the process, but probably there's definitions that the city would have to come up with. A working rental is a rental not less than 30 days, or some definition. There are probably— with the fire department, there's probably going to be some inspections, I would assume, in your code that will happen frequently. You know, it's a safety issue for people to come in. So those are some of the issues that I think the city will look at. But I do think we have some pretty good code out there regulating that in the state.

Well, and I like that, get the League involved, because things can just change on a dime, right?

Sometimes a bill can start out doing one thing and it can morph pretty substantially.

So we should be present.

Yeah. So like I said, either to add or subtract what's being proposed right now. Yeah, we definitely—

Couple that with what Jesse's saying about being proactive on our own organization.

You know, not only the League, but I think Jesse is kind of acting as our voice to some extent on the legislation.

And I think he He could play—

I'm sorry, Jesse, I don't mean to give you an assignment. He certainly— I think that's what he's doing. Yeah, he could play a role in talking to legislators up there about what our interests or our desires might be as to short-term housing.

I think that would be wise.

Mayor, just a suggestion. So Jesse's up there for all the legislative things going on. It's probably a good idea for him to be reporting back, not just every city council meeting, but there might be things that I'll pick on Brady since he's our friend. You know, Brady Brammer might be reporting that we might have a connection with Brady if we knew that this happened yesterday and Brady was involved. You know, you could be involved with that. But, you know, if Jesse's reporting that this kind of took a turn the other direction, uh, it'd be good if we knew that, oh, Kevin Stratton's involved with that, or people that we know, um, before it goes down that road. And also get, get a meeting with our legislators like we had before. We had a Zoom before, maybe have them come in and, you know.

Yeah, we set that up before the session.

That was very beneficial.

That helped a lot.

But I think Jesse reports— figured out a way that Jesse's reporting to us what's happening on an ongoing basis so we know, oh, this is something coming up tomorrow.

He's gonna—

I mean, he can do a recap daily because he's up there every day. Yeah, I mean, I think that'd be— I don't know if that's a lot too much. No, I'm up there. It's difficult because there's several hearings going on at the same time. And, you know, quite frankly, if I want the bill passed, the less I say about it, the better chance I have. And so some of the times you see the bill when it's actually being voted on, just barely, very little debate on it. And so it's really difficult to make a change. It's been done in the back room. I don't know how else to say that. The legislature works. Right, so we're gonna have to push forward. So, so going forward, I mean, you'll keep going down the path you're going down. Does anyone have a different paradigm of what they want these short-term rentals look like other than what we just talked about?

I just think that however, so they're not complaint-based, so we control, you know, balance the property rights with the ability to limit complaints. Just, you know, respectful.

There's a fine line, probably impossible to hit.

Because I—

when I was running, when I was campaigning, I knocked on a neighbor's door and I said— anyway, the house next door to them was a big home that had been rented out, kind of like the goat house, and they had several times complained, and the owner of the home didn't care at all, similar to the goat house thing. So we've got to figure out how to keep you know, I don't know how you legislate kindness and respect, but try to frame it in a way that protects property rights on both sides of the fence.

Yeah, I think you just have a proactive process, right? I mean, there's a complaint, they go to the city, they fill out the complaint, that complaint gets investigated, gets reported back. There's just got to be a set process based on whatever the legislation is that we pass. So, okay, um, so you'll work towards— Jesse? We'll work together, work together. Sounds good. Thank you, Jake. Appreciate it. Let's move on to item number 2, just an update on the, uh, Traffic Tiger team. Chris, come on board. Come on. I am the tiger, did you say, Gwen?

He did.

Okay.

Is there an acronym here, Chris, or was this just an animal that you admire?

No, this is, you know, we'll often use the word tiger team for like an ad hoc team. Yeah, perfect. What you're saying, pouncing on it. Yeah, we're pouncing on it. Yeah, we have the eye of the tiger, if you will. Got the lyrics if you'd like to read them. We want you to sing them. Sam likes this, so we, we, uh, we followed the tiger.

Is that Stallone?

Yeah, yeah, this is Stallone in Rocky III. Here's the lyrics. And I don't know, we just like the Tiger Team kind of concept because I feel like we are attacking issues and coming up with some good results. And the Traffic Tiger Team was developed about 18 months ago and in an attempt to— actually, it wasn't that long ago, but we've been receiving requests regularly, or it seems like an increased number of requests over the last 18 months. So we decided we'll get into those details. Chris, if you don't mind, I'd love to emphasize here, this is because of the increases in requests on traffic-related concerns around the city. We wanted to create a multidisciplinary team that addresses these kinds of issues timely and even hopefully starts to become proactive in anticipating issues that are happening around the city. So, so if calling it the Tiger Team gets people excited, we're gonna, we're gonna probably make some jackets from that. I'll get into some more detail here in just sec. So multidisciplinary. So representation from the City Manager's Office, the Public Works Department, Engineering Division and Development Services, the Planning Division and Development Services. Is it not working?

This works.

Oh, thank you. Thank you. Planning and then also police. So it's multidisciplinary. And every, every, I think, area group basically looks at The same issue, maybe from a slightly different nuanced perspective, to help bring the best holistic kind of solution, I think, to the issue at hand, whether it has to do with legal efforts or efforts to change how traffic flows, or to influence traffic patterns or speeds, pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, and so on. We all have different areas of expertise. So these are the names of those that are a part of that, this group. There's not really an official invitation of sorts that went out to this group, but we've identified these different departments, and the different areas are different colors. So the City Manager's Office is represented by Brandon Ryan. They were both in our meeting today. We meet every 2 weeks. to review new inputs and requests and challenges that have been identified by a variety of people. It could be council members, it could be citizens, public agencies, internal staff even. So the blue group consists of the police department, which is led by our Chief Josh Adams. BJ Robinson has been on this, on these calls and part of this committee, as well as Lieutenant Pereskeva and Jeremy Jameson. There's been some restructuring in the department. I don't know if I have the titles all exactly right. Are these correct? Okay, good. And then Kara Lee Tracy is the newest addition to this. She is also a police lieutenant, I believe, as well. And so although not all of those listed here are actively involved in this, they all have been at some point or another. And those that are underlined are those that are typically involved on an every 2-week basis. So I'm involved as the Public Works Director. Tyler Pay is my Assistant Public Works Director. He was over our Traffic Operations Division that is headed up by Taylor Forbush. Then we have the engineering side of things with Sam Kelly in the back, who is our city engineer, and John Dorney is our recently hired transportation engineer. And then Jason Bench is where— here he's our city planner. And so we're looking at things from really a nice overall comprehensive holistic perspective, from a planning perspective, from a transportation and engineering perspective, to how things operate in the field perspective, to enforcement, and then maybe more kind of a political aspect in considering the requests that are being made. And so we feel like this is a really good group. We've received 18 months' worth of requests and data that I'm going to present to you tonight. And just, I'll just give you an overview. So over those 18 months, we've had 54 submittals or cases that have come in through either through 311, through our help center, or from staff internally. As we've contemplated different issues, we've, we've added cases. It could be from the city council has submitted cases. I'll give those breakdowns at the end. 29 of those cases that have been submitted over the last 18 months have been resolved. And here's the breakdown. The City Council has submitted 30%, of which Dave is about 90% of that.

I love those stop signs.

I'll say Dave Anglina, but that's great.

Mayor Dave Anglina.

I like painting on the road.

Jeff Lamson as well. So 4 of the council are— we have 100,000 public and they've done half of And 7 on the city council, and we've done 30%. Just trying to get those numbers.

Good stats.

Of the public, of those that are submitted, so 50% are from the public. They may be citizens or residents of Orem, or they may be from an adjacent community, maybe Lyndon, Provo, Vineyard. And then staff is about 10%. Like I said, we'll bring up areas that we feel like we need to address, and we'll add them to this, and we'll include them in our biweekly discussions. Then we might have requests that come from the school district or from Lyndon City staff or Pova City staff or council. That can— that, you know, this is generally about the breakdown there. Um, so 54% is what we're looking at.

20—

25 of those are active. 29— 54% or 54 calls? Oh, I'm sorry, that should have been 54, the number 54. That's what you had said earlier. 54 cases. You can skip this one. That's a faux pas there. Then 25 are active, 29 are closed, and then so that's 46% are still active. So here's the categorical breakdown. We've basically been classifying each one of these cases in these following categories. Some kind of bleed over, maybe a couple of the categories. We tried to put them in as best we could to kind of give you a feel And for our tracking purposes, to get a feel of where are the highest demands or the highest number of requests coming. And overwhelmingly, I think the number is at pedestrian crossings. There's 16 out of the 54 cases are coming in on pedestrian crossings. We've resolved 8 of those 16. They might be a mid-block crossing, it might be a crossing at an intersection. Most of these are related to schools, but not all. One request we had recently came in to look at mid-block crossing at 400 North and 600 West, which we are currently studying.

Now, may I ask, since we have had a couple of residents come to City Council—

more than a couple—

but so when you hear that, you're putting that on this list, right?

Yes, they are.

They're on the list. And if they're coming in to a meeting like that, then we'll put them down as public. So I think that there's one reference. I think his name is Trevor Macedone, came in recently in October to a city council meeting requesting— he submitted a formal request, first one we received in accordance with our, uh, with our transportation guidelines, our transportation master plan for traffic calming. They've done everything correctly. We've since gone and studied that particular case and determined that The request, while they might feel as is they need to put in some calming there, the volumes are very low and the speeds are very low. So the 85th percentile speed on that particular corridor is 26 miles an hour. 85th percentile, 85 out of 100 cars are going 26 or lower. And then there's only— Sam, remember how many cars were on that? It was just a couple hundred cars.

Yeah, and that's why it's kind of skewed. Yes, right, it's because you don't have a high sample.

No, we studied it.

That's—

No, I mean, I mean, that's why you're not having that many violations is because you just have a lot of law abiders there.

In fact, I was shocked to see how low it was. I was curious because that particular request was from 400 North to 800 North on 6th West. What we're communicating back to Mr. Macedone and others that have made calls and requests is that We will put this, keep this on our list of things to track in the future. When a signal goes in at 6th West on 800 North, then we'll reevaluate that. We anticipate that the volumes there will then increase. Perhaps the speeds will increase as well. So is that on 8th North? That's quite a few lights right in a row. 8th North and 6th West, that signal is warranted, I believe, Sam. John, is that correct? Yes. So hopefully we have it in unison because backup traffic— Typically it'll help with coordination and to make a smoother traffic flow. That's what we anticipate there, to keep the platoons together for me to signal for the next. But that is a UDOT intersection and it's controlled by UDOT and they've done studies on that. I don't know the timeframe on that. Sam, do you know when they're anticipating that going in? Currently, there's a redevelopment happening with Orchard. Technogus Hospital is looking to redevelop that area, put in a 3-story professional office building, surgical center. So likely it'll happen probably in the next couple of years. Okay. Again, we'll reach out to that community and reevaluate that, that street section. Keeping a history of all of these We're not deleting them when we're completing them. We're putting them on a separate location to continue to evaluate or to have a history of the evaluations and then to compare. So traffic calming is 50% completed. So 10 requests have come in for that traffic calming. You might ask, what is that for? It is if there's, you know, for example, on 6th West between 4th and 8th North, they felt like the speeds were high, that they needed— we needed to do something physically there to calm the traffic and slow it down to make it safer. Traffic safety, it might include things where maybe cars are parked outside of the parking area and they're in the travel lane, or there are a variety of other safety issues that need to be addressed.

Hey, can I ask you a question about that? When you, when you look at these streets, Do you take into account streets that have a lot of street parking or parking? Because to me, that even though people are going 25 or 30, that might be too fast if you've got only really one lane and you can't see if there are kids on the sidewalk or something.

Yeah, that particular street I think is 34 feet of asphalt. It's not— it's a standard local street cross-section. I think parking is available on both sides. When I drove up and down it, when I looked specifically, I didn't notice—

You didn't notice anything?

A large amount of cars parked. I didn't see any cars driving on it, quite frankly, when I was there even. So, but I just— that was a simple snapshot of time.

And that's 600 West by Warren Junior High, correct?

Correct.

So that could be based on the time of day also?

Sure. Okay. Yeah, again, there were only a couple hundred cars a day. Local streets will have up to about maybe 1,500 cars a day on them. And that had just a couple.

But the light is warranted there because of the commercial across the street?

The light is warranted. I don't know what the warrants were for that particular one. I'm assuming volume and then the inability for cars to turn left or right on 6th West. As you get closer to 8th North, I think the volumes increase quite a bit there at that location in conjunction with the school, people coming and going, dropping off kids and picking up kids. So, but we've had several requests come in regarding just basic traffic movement and making traffic movement more efficient in certain areas. Bike lanes, bike routes, multi-use paths, striping on streets, street lighting. We've had 3 of those. Those have all been resolved quickly. And then parking has all been resolved as well. We've had some recent ones regarding parking in cul-de-sacs. All of those have been resolved. So with that, I'd like to share with you this document that we have here. This is our Traffic Tiger Team document. It has— I don't know if— can you read that?

Not really.

Maybe I'll blow it up a little bit just so you can see it. The headings are just ID.

We have it—

we have in the order that they've been received, we put an identifier on them. If there's a specific requester, we'll identify who that is. Now let's look at this one. In this case, Linné submitted a request. It's been taking a long time to get resolved on this particular one. This is in conjunction with Bonneville Elementary School regarding pedestrian crossing at 12th West and about 1400 North. We have this all identified. When it's resolved, we check the checkbox. We've all been working on this together as a team. We have links in there that will show you— I'll bring up the location of the area that's been studied or is in the process of being studied. So we're looking at a particular signal at this location. It would be like a hawk signal, something similar to that. If it's not a hawk signal, it'd be generally located in this location. I think actually we're looking at it right about here. We do have a set of plans that are completed. That are probably 90% completed, and then we're going to be meeting with the Bonneville Community Council in January. And so that's an example. These types of crossings generally take quite a while to study and then also to meet with the community and so forth. However, we're identifying all of these, we're tracking all of them, we have notes on each one of these, we've identified areas and locations where we need to And so we're investing in our system right now to, to obtain more data and do some data collection so we can make informed decisions and provide best solutions based on our collective wisdom and feedback and professional expertise that we have.

Well, the fun thing about this one is I was attending the school community council meeting, just as kind of some outreach from the council with the schools, and the it was brought up during that meeting and they asked for that assistance. So I appreciate your work on this because I know these things do take time, but they did have concerns with student safety and the safe walking route took the kids the other direction up to 1600 North to cross at that light and then walking back. And so we definitely needed a solution there. So thanks.

We, we feel like that's probably going to be happening. So on, on the 1600 North and 400 East, back in the day we had Flags that were at the— they're not there. They're not there anymore. No, I drove by there.

They're all gone.

So we need to look at that. You didn't take them away? No, check my trunk.

I don't think—

I don't think they got less scared within your percentage of direction.

I just noticed because that's where the kid got hit. So then we put the flags, right? And they're all gone now. So they're not there. Yeah, I drove the other day and I looked at it. That's a good point. So you can give me another one there. So this is how you do it. I'll stop there because I know your time is precious. So if I can just emphasize, I think this has been a great example that the sum is greater than its parts. And It's great evidence that shows that increased communication collaboration gets things done quicker and helps us get to a better solution than we otherwise would. So I really appreciate Chris's, Brian's, Josh's, Jason's, Sam and John's leadership in the center in really engaging on it, coming up with detailed, real achievable Achievable results, because, because this is of high concern and interest to our residents. I'll just second that. As far as it's, uh, this type of project really shows what OREM's all about. In other words, the normal way would be somebody had an issue, they complain, they kind of track the person down, that person has to talk to somebody else, that person has to talk to somebody else, eventually you figure out the place, but you don't have a way of prioritizing it. This brings it all together and makes it so when we have issues, they can be prioritized pretty instantly and then dealt with. So I think that's a great example of what we're doing. Great. Thank you. I added the dates right there. Any questions, comments?

Thank you.

Thank you, Bryce. Okay, let's run through the agenda real quick here. Got a pretty full agenda for the last one of the year. Got— is there anyone that needs to do a city council report? I don't remember. Okay, all right, um, meeting's called to order at 6 PM. Invocation is by Julie Allen. Who invited Julie Allen? Oh, you did? Oh, oh, for—

oh yes, I'm sorry, the prayer pledge. Is that what you're talking about?

Yes. So do you like to just introduce them?

Yes, so Julie is one of the BYU professors that has been instrumental in helping us move forward the Women's and Children's Memorial Park.

So, okay, but I'll have you introduce her.

Okay.

And also Lon Bowen, who is in the pledge, she's on our Historic Preservation Commission. So they are— that's the theme for our resolution tonight.

Okay, great. So if you have to just give them a shout out. Um, and then we've got item number 6, uh, 6.1, introduction of public safety peer support dogs. Yeah, Rachel will be presenting. I think she was— Rachel will be— she'll introduce and then turn it over to Trevor. So should I just introduce Rachel? Yeah, she'll take it from there. And we've got 6.2, highlights of Lights On, our huge success. That was awesome. Item 6.3, farewell remarks from Council Members Debbie Larray and Terry Peterson.

You want to time us in 3 minutes?

Yeah, that would be really funny. Then item 7, we've got personal appearances. Now personal appearances can be an issue with our public hearing 9.5, so should I just go and attempt to separate those out?

You know, Mary, you did such a good job with the school district having, you know, not everyone say the same thing, kind of having some sort of like leader. I don't know if you want to Similar in the public hearing section, public hearing section. I just know that we're going to get a lot of opposition, but if they say the same thing over and over, I don't know.

Right.

I thought it did— it was good in this school district to have more spokespeople. I don't know, what do you think?

Oh, I think that's great. I think, I mean, we want to hear from everyone, but we want to simplify and make it meaningful input.

So yeah, we don't want to be here all night.

So See, we've got our consent items. Minutes, approval of 2024 City Council meeting schedule. Announcing my new pro tem switch. That's Dave Spencer. Dave Spencer wanted it for a year. He asked me if I'd give up my seat. Beautification Advisory Committee, Kristen Bascom. Kirsten. Kirsten. Yeah, that's how it's spelled.

Kirsten.

Yeah, not Kristen. Okay, and then sort of the rec commission, we got Danny Miller. He's been a mainstay on that for— he's been good on that, Danny. Yeah, yeah. Years. We need to replace Skip. We're working on it. And then we've got a reappointment to CDBG. Actually, Gil, you skipped the library.

That one's mine. Oh, the library. Both of those 2 are mine. The CDBG is a reappointment. And Nancy Schultz is— I think she's going to be here. So I'll just introduce her if that's okay for a quick minute.

Okay.

The others are just reappointments. I don't think they're coming.

So you want to introduce Nancy Schultz. Yeah. And then did you also say—

No, I talked to them and neither one of them will be here, so— but they are just going to be grateful.

Okay, so mainly the library advisors.

Yeah.

And Bryce. Is Bryce here?

Yeah.

Okay, they're gonna— she's gonna talk to you after.

Does anyone know if any of these other people are gonna be here? I don't know if she's gonna be— if she's all— let me know. Let me know if anyone else is gonna be here. So Item 9, scheduled items. We've got 9.1, independent financial audit. Brandon will go through that. Item 9.2, the new forms. Even though they're charging twice as much, we don't get twice as long on their presentation. I can make a promise on my part. It was pretty good. Excellent, actually. So it should be a quick presentation. Item 9.3, the historical memorial. So 9.2, 9.3, presentations by Jake Summers. 9.4, public hearing on the rezoning. Okay, so that's a— that's public hearing. Are we— are we voting on that tonight? Yes. Yes, I think so.

So we're gonna go through the public hearing.

And then we'll go— that's just taking an old grandfather clause and allowing it now legally, right? So they can extend, they can increase the mental health. Okay. I don't assume you got any negative pushback from the neighbors. The neighbors?

Yeah, they worked with the developer very closely, and the developer did what they wanted.

So it should work. Item 9.5. our public hearing on, uh, the settlement agreement with the Pride Development Group. Again, that'll be a public hearing. Item 10, communication items. 11, city manager information items. And adjourned. Mr. Langton is on remotely right now. He will be there. So, Mayor, just a suggestion, somewhere in here, if it's going really long, we might want to take bathroom We don't— we'll end quicker.

We'd like to welcome everyone here tonight and call this meeting to order. We've got a pretty full meeting tonight for the last one of the year. We'll start out with an invocation followed by a pledge. And, uh, Lynnae, if you'd like to introduce the people that you asked to do that.

Yes, I will. Um, I'd like to welcome— um, let's see, I can't remember what order we did, who we're having do what. Lon Bowen is going to give our pledge, and Lon is on our Historic Preservation Commission, and I invited him and Julie Allen, who is doing our prayer. She's one of the BYU professors that has helped put— move forward our resolution that we're voting on tonight for the Women's and Children's Memorial. So I wanted to invite these 2 individuals because they will be working on this project that we're gonna have in the future that I'm very excited about. So, Lon, for the—

oh, what's that?

Julie.

Oh, Lon, let's have Julie go first with the— do you want to do— So let's have Julie do the prayer first, and then we'll have you do the pledge. She's right behind you. Sit right here on that chair. Thank you. Yeah, we're gonna do her— she'll announce the prayer or offer the prayer first, and then we'll have you do the pledge. Sorry for— that's on me, the miscommunication. Thank you, Julie.

Dear Lord, we're grateful for the chance to gather together tonight, grateful for the chance to govern ourselves, and we pray for thy wisdom and compassion as we listen to our elected lawmakers and offer our insights into how the city can be the most welcoming and stable and safe place for all of our families. We ask you to please bless everyone here tonight with a spirit of calmness and peace and love for their fellow men, and we ask you to please help us to be able to reach decisions through the council that will benefit all the citizens of this area. And we ask these blessings in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Amen.

Will the audience please rise?

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 both for that. We'll move to item number 6, 6.1, and this will be a presentation. about our public safety peer support dogs, and Rachel Thomas will come up and start this.

Hello, hello, council members, Orem residents, and guests. My name is Rachel Thomas. I'm a fire service specialist, and I'm currently serving under Chief Myers, handling everything operational in the fire department. Um, I am truly honored to be here to present a facet of public safety that is a special passion of mine. So it is the handlers and dogs of both the fire and police department who comprise our canine support teams. Each of these dogs has their own unique personalities and strengths. What's really impressive is that their handlers give of their time, their resources, and even their own homes to shape and mold them into incredible assets to our firefighters, policemen, and to the victims that we rush to aid. I personally have witnessed the impact the dog's training and presence in general lends to morale, lowered anxiety, and connection just within our department, and I can't imagine what it does outside of it. So without further ado, I'd like to invite Captain Trevor McGinty up first. Unfortunately, his dog Rocky is unable to make it. He's under the weather today. Following him will be firefighter Mike Hickman with his dog named Duke. Following him is firefighter Matt Kauer with his dog named Torch. If you guys want to come up to the front. And then following him is our victims advocate, Isa Stevens, and her sweet pup, Hoku. Like I said, we are truly honored to be able to present them to you today. They are the culmination of lots and lots of hours of service. I'd like to turn some time over to Captain Trevor McGinty. He's our peer support coordinator and actually our very first handler on the fire department. And then to our victims advocate, Isa Stevens. Both will present briefly on aspects of training and impacts they've seen their dogs have.

All right, I know we don't have a lot of time, so I took some notes so I try and hit all of the important things. Um, so quite a few years ago, I think it's been about 5 years ago, I started the peer support program here in Orem. Um, it's been a special passion of mine because one of my first paramedic, um, partners that I had and, and one that trained me, uh, committed suicide. And so the peer support team has been a, a huge passion of mine because I don't want that to happen to anybody else that I work with. And whether it happens or not, there's, there's things that, that we feel here in our job as police officers and firefighters that stress us out, and, and it gets to a point where it's too much. And so the peer support team is there for us to have, have a voice to, to hear and a voice to talk to, somebody to talk to and listen. And that's what the peer support team is. It's a group of 11, currently 11 people on the fire department that are trained, specially trained. And those 11 members are able to be on call at any hour, any day for anybody in the department. If somebody has a stressful call, no matter what it is, they're able to call somebody on that, that team and have a listening ear. And then also be provided with resources if needed. After a couple of years of being the peer support team coordinator, I decided to bring on dogs to the program. We had a family dog, and I have a son that has some mental health concerns that the dog was helping with. So I Wrote a— it's called an SBAR— to the chief and just kind of gave him the concerns and the reasoning for it. I thought that the dogs would be a good addition to our program and help the firefighters and as well as our patients. I think we're the only department in the state that has the approval from the Utah State Bureau of EMS to actually have dogs in the back of the ambulance with us with our patients. I've had my dog with me a couple of times on a couple occasions. One was a pediatric patient. She had some mental health issues and we had to transport her all the way to Ogden Regional Hospital for further care. And Rocky was able to kind of huddle up and sit, sit on the stretcher next to her and provide support throughout that long transport all the way up to Ogden. Another call that we went on was just a basic traffic accident, but the female that was involved in the accident was having a panic attack because what had gone on. And I didn't know what was going on or what was happening on the scene prior to us arriving in the engine, but I pulled Rocky out of the engine and he went straight up to the girl that was involved in the accident that was having a panic attack. And it calmed her down within about 30 seconds. And so the dogs have been a huge asset for us on scene. But mainly, the reason why we have them is for our own firefighters, for our own members of our department. They provide that support with the stressors that we have in life. And the guys are able to request the dogs to come to the station at any time. they're able to request them for any of our stress debriefings that we do, whether it's a state critical incident stress debriefing or just something that we're doing at the station in general. So my dog Rocky, who unfortunately has chronic ear infections and couldn't be here tonight, and Duke went through the program together. We finished 2 years ago. The program is through Four Paws for Patriots, which is located in Ogden. And the reason why I chose that program is because it's actually free if you are a firefighter, police officer, veteran, or current, current military.

Mm-hmm.

It, it allows you to become the handler of your own dog and also allows your dog to get about $20,000 worth of training. Um, and it's a, it's a year-long program. So we went up to— we'd travel up to Ogden, um, every Friday for a year, um, to do the training. And then everything else had to be practiced on our own, um, at home or at the station, wherever we were at. It required a lot of taking the dog to the grocery store when I went grocery shopping, taking him to school when I drop my kids off at school just to get a lot of, of different access. And I know that these guys are doing a lot of that as well. Torch, Matt's dog, is currently in the program. He just finished the first module and will be moving on to the second in January. And we're very thankful to Christina and Todd, which are here with us tonight. They actually donated Torch to to the fire department for, for this reason. And then last of all, just like to thank you as the city and Chief Sanderson as our representative for the department for being supportive of this program and providing us with travel and coverage and everything that we've needed to make this program work and, and the training, training happen. That's all I have.

So I think it's—

Thank you.

Dave and I got to see Torch last night. We went to visit your station and it was so fun. He's very— I've just— thank you for having this program. It's amazing. Fabulous.

And I'll turn some time over to Aza. She's got a little bit more information on her her portion of the program.

Hello, everybody. My name is Isa Stevens. I am one of the victim advocates with Orem Police Department. This here is Hoku. She's our 5-month-old fox red Labrador. She's in training right now, and she has the best job in the world. Her job is to be loved and petted on.

Off, off.

She met Torch yesterday and she loves Torch.

So, down, down.

So she's currently undergoing psychiatric service dog training with Dog Training Elite. Um, all of our— we've had some donors who have generously given to the program, so we as a police department, we're not paying for anything except for Um, our police department has generally, uh, generously offered to pay for any kind of veterinary, uh, expenses. Uh, she will be— after the program, she'll be able to aid victims of crime. Um, a lot of victims of crime, they have symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. And so she's currently undergoing a training right now to help out with that. She's doing super well. She's going through public access training next week, and she's only 5 months old, which is super incredible. We've had a few success stories. When I'm inside my room doing protective orders with victims of crime, we have teenagers that come in, sisters, moms, whole families. When they see her, you know, it's intimidating coming to the police department, but with Hoku there, they kind of have a smile on her face. on their face, and they leave with a smile, which is our goal with having Hoku. We're just thankful for this opportunity. Our police department, Chief Adams, was on board right away, and we're just grateful that we were able to implement her into our program.

Any other questions or anything else from you, Council?

All right.

I just— I just appreciate— we appreciate the, the fire and the police and for what you do for the citizens of Warren. You keep us safe, so we appreciate you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for that presentation.

It's good to know.

Next up we've got item 6.2, the highlights of Lights On, and Karina and Pete are gonna tell us about that. Actually, Bryce.

Mayor, City Council, thank you for providing us just a couple of minutes today. We wanted to share a quick report on our Lights On event that happened last week. Mayor, you sort of stole our thunder with your mayor's message this month. We love to see that, and we really wanted to celebrate a lot of the same message. We were just so pleased with the community support and the experiences made for a lot of our residents to come here by City Center Park and enjoy it. And so Karina has just a little bit of information that we wanted to share with y'all today about how it went and a recap of what is still left to come if you haven't had a chance to make it over to the park yet.

What?

Sorry, no, mine doesn't plug in. Sorry, I should have figured this out.

It's all good. Take your time.

Yeah. Sorry about that.

Okay, let's see if that pulls up.

Okay.

All right, we have just a video highlight that we wanted to show everyone.

Let's see if that sounds— of course that's not going.

Pete? Blessings once again.

Sorry everyone, give me one second.

Okay. A pair of hopalong boots and a piece of the truth is the wish of Barney and Ben. Dogs that'll talk and we'll go for a walk is the hope of Janice and Jane.

Mom and Dad can hardly wait for school to start again.

Like Christmas everywhere. Okay.

Okay, thank you.

So this was the 12th annual Lights On ceremony, and this wouldn't be possible without the help of so many individuals and sponsors. And I'd like to extend my sincerest thanks to all of the staff who worked tirelessly to make this event the best it's ever been, and it was truly a Hallmark holiday experience that every family in Orem could enjoy. I would like to express my gratitude to the SIA for the exceptional stage sound that they provided and for all the remarkable performances that we had throughout the night. We were treated to numerous captivating performances that truly enhanced the holiday atmosphere. Another huge thank you to Trio and Walker Sanderson for the generous donations, for providing free hot cocoa and donuts to the community. We were also able to have Rondi Booth, who were able to elevate our event by providing instant prints of families taking photos with Santa and Mrs. Claus. We were able to get nearly 1,000 prints out. to the residents of Orem. Sunset Farmer Market, we're able to get around 100 different holiday booths. This is a new tradition that will continue as we continue, or as we continue to host the holiday farmers market on Saturdays in the month of December. A new addition that we had this year was the Orem Express, which has already garnered immense popularity amongst the community and is set to continue to be a crowd favorite for upcoming future Orem City events. And then lastly, just a huge thank you to Mayor and Council for your continuous support for these events and your continuous attendance. I truly think you guys make it a magical time just as well, and it's been so fun to be able to plan these, these events and I can't wait for next year and what we can come up with.

Thank you, you 2. No, that was an amazing event, and we've gotten a ton of feedback from the citizens as far as that it was amazing. Put it in perspective, usually we have 3 legs of fireworks— or not fireworks, but lights go off. This time we had 8, and, and I, I do know the city workers were working, putting in a ton of effort just to put it all together because it was kind of uncharted territory. And one final shout out is, this is a great example because there had been talk about the Lights On being canceled because of the new city center. And instead of Lights On being canceled, which was an option, Orem got the biggest Christmas party ever. So we're excited about that. Great job.

You guys have an estimate of how many people attended?

Is there a rough estimate?

Just under 3,000 people were able to come through on the initial Monday evening. And then both last Saturday and the next 2 Saturdays, there's still the holiday farmers market as well as the Orem Express. And so really, we're hoping to be able to reach, you know, 7,000 8,000 of our Orem residents over the course of the different events.

Wonderful.

Thanks.

Thank you. Great job. Next up, we've got item 6.3, and we're only gonna do this once. We've got farewell, farewell remarks from first Debbie Larray and then Terry Peterson.

Thank you.

First, I wanna say thank you to the citizens over the last 8 years, and of course, to the great city staff and my fellow council people. I really had 2 themes for my, for my years. One was quality of life, especially for families, and then my, my background as an economic development director. Economic development was really very important to me. Some of the things that were unique to what I that'll be my marks moving forward are the James—

excuse me—

the James Christensen Park over at Sierra. That was my brainchild, and I'm very grateful that came to fruition. I fought for as many family dressing rooms we could have at the fitness center, and I believe we ended up with 19. That was very important to me based on me being a grandma and How that's a great thing to help. I worked on saving the gym at Hillcrest Park. Of course, the library hall, city hall, all of those things. Economic development. Before I started my new job, I bet I met— when I was in town, I went to every ribbon cutting I could if I was there, and there's nothing greater than watching someone's dream come true when they open a new business. And so I tried to make everyone I could, and I, I think I did. I did a lot with our Orem Alliance, helping with them picking Business of the Year, things like that. I've enjoyed many, many committee assignments. Most notably, I was on Arts Council and Orem Fest, did a lot of that, and then other various things. The Natural Resource, I've been on Transportation Planning, many, many more, Beautification. And then with the State Street Master Plan, it was real important for me to make sure that Landscaping was part of that, making sure that we had good materials so that as we were redoing it, that those, those were important. So to me, they were quality of life and then economic development. So the things that I hope I'm known for is that I cared, that I, that I came prepared, and that I'm— that I emphasize once again quality of life and economic development. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Debbie. And let me just mention, I should have mentioned this earlier, but Jeff Lamson is here in our meeting remotely, so Jeff will be voting with us later. Terry, would you like to say a few things?

Sure.

No, it's been a great opportunity to serve in the city, and it's not I, it's we, because it is Debbie and I got to represent the citizens of Orem, and that's, that's just a great honor. I need to start by just saying something about yesterday. They had— the city had a little retirement party, which is kind of fun to have a retirement party when you only serve for 4 years, you're getting a retirement party. But, but it was such a very touching experience that meant the world to me. And To my family. And I thank Bryn, I thank Tess, I thank the whole staff that put this together, and it really did mean a lot to me and my family. So thank you for your kind words and things that you said. The citizens of Orem, I thank you because you put some trust in me 4 years ago, and I've tried to be loyal to those things I said I would do. And we live in a great city. Went to school, you know, I lived, grown up here and have great memories and great experiences of the citizens of Orem. The employees of Orem City are great people. The first responders, the fire department yesterday showed up en masse to the retirement party. And that means the world to me too, guys. Thank you. And, and, you know, we, we show up occasionally on the city council, sit up here and say a few things. Those guys and women are, are 24/7 watching our backs, protecting us, taking care of us. And so grateful that we have a city with great first responders. Uh, also our public works. I mean, now if I start naming different departments. I'll forget, you know, finance, or I'll forget somebody else. But there we have so many great departments in our city that take their jobs seriously, and, and we appreciate what you do. Also, I'll mention my member, my fellow members on the City Council. So, you know, nothing happens unless we have at least 4 people agreeing to something, and it's been really an enjoyable experience to work with members of the city council, and as we try to— as I listen to their concerns, they listen to my concerns, we try to come up with some kind of consensus. So I'll just make a couple other comments. You know, I decided to run 5 years ago for city council because the number one concern I had was the high-density apartments in our— in Orem City. I was— I talked to a neighbor one time Uh, or someone who's next to a high-density apartment, and he said, you know what, Terry, you don't know what it's like, but I will never see another sunset. Because he's got a 5-story apartment complex across the street from his house. Um, that bothered me. And as I knocked on doors and campaigned, that's the number one thing I heard was concern about high-density apartments springing up all over our city. So I've been very grateful to be on the city council when we stopped the State Street Master Plan. State Street Master Plan would have added 10,000 apartments on State Street and the corridors surrounding State Street. That's apartments. That's not people. So if you add how many people are gonna be in those apartments, that's like And I'm so grateful for my fellow members of the city council to say, no, enough's enough. And, and we stopped the State Street master plan. State Street, or the transportation plan, had streets being widened all over the city. 8th North, uh, uh, or not, uh, 16th North, 8th East, uh, take your pick. Um, overpasses over the freeway on 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th. North on 8th South. And again, grateful for my fellow members of City Council to say, no, no, no, that's, that's not, that's not Orem. So it's been very grateful and satisfying for me to be part of those decisions. Hillcrest Park, Debbie mentioned. That's just— that was an elementary school. That was a neighborhood school, and we have great neighborhood schools in our city. And I served on the school board for 6 years, and when I was on the school board, the superintendent at that time said, we support neighborhood schools. We don't take out neighborhood schools. I mean, that's part of your identity is where you went to school. I bet you most of you in this room, if I asked you name your elementary school teachers, you could do it. I think I can name all but maybe my 2nd grade teacher. I'm a little fuzzy on that, but I bet most of us could do that. Kindergarten through 6th grade, and you're nodding because I think most of you could. That's the impact those teachers had. So when Hillcrest Elementary, which is right across from the mall, when that was announced that was going to be closed, because the district has changed what they used to do. Now instead of protecting neighborhood schools, they've been closing— at least in Orem, they've been closing neighborhood schools, selling off the property. And I'm so grateful for the city council to say no, no, no. Let's put a park in the southeast part of town. And I love Cat Stevens. None of you— you got to be old if you know who Cat Stevens is. But his, his song was, Where Are the Children Gonna Play? If you take out the parks— And the problem is Hillcrest is a low-income minority school, so those kids don't have 3 cars at home. And moms that are stay-at-home moms, they don't have that opportunity. You close their school and you're busing them across town. Now they have to catch a bus, and there's no one there to take them to school. By the way, that's the same case with Sharon. That's the same case with Windsor. They taught— I mean, there's other schools that the district's closing too. That's another story. So I'm just— but I'm very grateful for the concern of the city council to say no, the kids in that part of town will have a place to play, and it's gonna be a beautiful park.

And, and I think Thank that's a great thing.

you, fellow members of the City Council. So I've been grateful for the things that we've accomplished. I'm grateful for the concerns for children, because my big issue is the children. How do we protect our children from— you know, they grow up way too fast. So let's have parks for them to play. Let's have places for— safe places for them to go. You know, I could keep going, but I'll quit. Other than I just want to say, Thank you for the opportunity that I've had to serve. And thank you for, you know, listening to me, you know, through these years as I ramble on different things. But I'm passionate. I'm passionate about our city. I'm passionate about our children. So one last statement. What will keep me up nights and make me worry after I leave the city council, which is in another couple of weeks? The same things I just mentioned. What if there's a push to turn to reverse the State Street Master Plan? What if all of a sudden we have a city council now that wants to stick high-density apartments back in our city? Okay, that's something that will keep me up nights. Because the traffic, the burden on our, our fire, our police, our infrastructure, all those things are a concern. What else will keep me up nights is the children. Is no one— if you're low income, or if you're a non-legal resident that lives in Orem, you don't have a voice. So if they're closing your school, there is no voice. So hopefully we'll continue to do our part as a city council to say, what can we do to protect children? We can't stop a school district closing schools or trying to sell it. But one last thing, Mayor, and then I'll quit. The last thing that the city council did, though, was change the zoning on these school properties. So if the district decides they don't want to— by the way, we have more children going to school now than we ever had in the city. So it's not like we don't have children going to school, but they go to home schools, they go to charter schools, they go to private schools, they go to Provo School District. But, but the city council said, we've got to protect this property, because when schools, you know, if the district closes a school, we still need schools. There still needs to be opportunities for children. So the zoning now protects that, so that'll stay schools. So the district can close the school, but the zoning doesn't change, so they can't stick a bunch of high-density apartments on that property. It will stay school or school-related kind of property. So again, I thank my city council. I'm grateful to have been part of all those things, and Thank you for your indulgence as I rambled, but these things are important to me and I think they are to you. So thank you for the opportunity to serve.

Thank you.

Thank you, Terry, and thank you, Debbie, and thank you for your service and all the great work you do for them. We're going to move into personal appearances, and let me just say a couple things about that. So I've got this list, and I know usually when you do personal appearances, you've got to sign up before, which is the way it works, and then I get this list. Um, but later on One last thing's on the agenda is we're going to have a, a couple public hearings, but one of the public hearings will be about Hillcrest— not Hillcrest, but Meadowgold property. And, and so anyway, if you're on this list where you signed in, you don't need to stay on this list if you're going to talk about Meadowgold, because you'll have an opportunity to do that when we get to that part. So I'll just go through the names. and, and call you up. But if you're gonna— if you want to talk about Meadow Gold, it'd be best if you just hold that, just raise your hand and say I'm good, and, uh, and then do that in the public hearing part. So let me just read this, and then, uh, this is just what we say when we do public appearances, and this will apply to later also. Time has been set aside for public The public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak are encouraged to show respect for those who serve the city. Comments should focus on issues concerning the city. Those wishing to speak should have signed in before the beginning of the meeting, except for later when it's the public hearing. Please keep your comments to 3 minutes or less.

Thank you.

We'll start out first with Mike Christensen.

Engaging sandwich mode criticism in 3, 2, 1. I really appreciated that despite the previous administration not having a Christmas lighting ceremony either during COVID or while the new auditorium was being built, you current one recognized that even though there's construction out in front here again, you could have it at the park instead with even more light trees. What a bright idea that was. And even though we miss having it right here at State Street, I love that we're now using the big pro stage for the performers. That and the trains and stuff make this so much more a pro-quality event. That we should just keep having it out there instead, instead of here on the patio, indefinitely anyway. But where it wasn't so bright was the stage. The performers and speakers really need key lighting. The stage lights don't really work to brighten up their faces. We ought to have some lights on poles or something similar out front. Number 2, I like the spectacle of Santa Claus riding in on the tiller drive fire truck or one of the others. But this year I couldn't really see the truck until it parked at the senior center. And that was— it was cool that he rode up to the stage from there on one of the trains. So I think it would be— it would bring back the loud excitement like we had on State Street if he would come barreling down Center Street with the lights blazing and siren blaring, and then either park where— with the seniors again or at one of the pavilion lots and then get on the train. Number 3, I wish you would advertise the actual start time as being the half-hour mark when the live music starts playing before the speaking, because otherwise it messes up the people who try coming a little early to get a good spot but don't remember to come extremely early. So those of us in the less extreme group will still would still miss out on some of the music and getting a good spot. When you said 5:30 instead of 6 this year, I thought you fixed that, but you didn't. I got there a little after 5 with the stuff already started. So if you're starting before 6 now, but the first music's before even 5:30, then please advertise it in the future as starting at 5 o'clock. Then the medium early birds might try getting there at 4:30 instead of 5 when the music's already starting. Thanks for waiting until after Thanksgiving, but I do have to say that this year's show was still so good that you really knocked it out of the park. Oh, actually, a little correction there— you knocked it into the park. Thanks for your time, and I wish you a happy Christmas and 123123 New Year.

Thank you.

Kathy Minster. Okay, thank you. Charlene Lawrence. I've got Scott Swain, it says, right development. Steve Bassel.

Mayor, it's still a stale though. Like to say thank you to the City Council.

Thank you for the 2 retiring members.

Thank you very much for your service. We'd also like to thank— we did watch the last meeting online for the first 15 minutes or so to watch short-term rentals and your decisions there. Thank you very much for considering us. We appreciate the City Council.

We appreciate the City Attorney's Office.

Jake, appreciate the neighborhood enforcement people.

We've had a nightmare to go through that other people shouldn't have to go through with a short-term rental that was in our neighborhood.

The court ruled in favor of us, and not only did they ban short-term rentals in our neighborhood, but they banned short-term rentals in the city of Orem in any residential neighborhood by law. And so that's a big handful for you guys to work with. And as to the judge's decision, and so I think that sets a precedent for many other neighborhoods to consider with their problematic areas of short-term rentals. We're not necessarily saying short-term rentals are bad. We're saying the way it was taken advantage of by certain people, at least in our neighborhood, they rode it all the way to an extreme that was impossible to function in a neighborhood as a residential neighborhood. And with parties, events, event centers, And taking advantage of it. I hope, as you consider rules and laws and ordinances to guide future things with short-term rentals, you'll consider other cities that have had success. Some cities have it in certain parts of town. I think that's a thought to think of. Some cities within our county have actually the homeowners having actually having to live in the property and maintain residence there with a short-term rental. I think that should be considered also.

Thank you.

And, and there's other things that should be looked at to consider for this. I'm not looking for more than 3 minutes. I just want to say one, thank you for working so hard and diligently as a city. Thanking the city workers and you pretty much volunteers.

Thank you for what you've been doing here for the city also.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve. And just to clarify, the short-term rentals are something that has been brought to our attention, and it is something we will be working on over the coming months to come up with some concrete standards and that sort of thing. So just so everybody understands what's going on. Next, we've got John Birch, or I'm sorry, I can't quite read. John.

Bowich.

It's about Aspen Grove Behavioral. He'll defer. Okay. And then Jeremy Cottle, same thing. Oh, okay. All right, well, thank you. Heather Fry.

Hi, Merry Christmas.

As one of the many residents who were heartbroken at the loss of the amazing massive trees at the corner of Center and State Street, I admit I begrudgingly attended the Lights On event. On November 27th. I, along with so many, am deeply grateful for the massive efforts to create a wonderful, cheerful, festive atmosphere at the park. Thank you to all those who dedicated time and energy to provide our community with the spirit of this magical season. I can't say enough about all of the many friends I have sent to Orem Setu Park, telling them You don't even have to go to Salt Lake City. You can go to the Orem Center Park. It's fantastic. On a somber note, as this year draws to a close, I have met so many amazing Orem residents. I have learned about the many challenges and successes that are involved in caring for our city. May I ask, please remember that even if it seems that there is division. We the people care what is happening in Orem. We the people are busy with raising children, serving our neighborhoods, working long hours, especially the last couple of years. And we may not always be able to be actively engaged in what is happening in Orem, but that does not mean we don't care. Please remember your oath. Please remember to keep your eye— your egos in check as you work together to fulfill your duty to the people of Orem. I have lots of quotes that help me through difficult times, and this one is by Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he says, we must avoid becoming a community of fear and hate and be instead a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. And that a gentleman named Neil A. Maxwell said, once society loses its capacity to declare that some things are wrong per se, then it finds itself forever building temporary defenses, revising rationales, drawing new lines. But forever falling back and losing its nerve. A society which permits anything will eventually lose everything. And I would like to speak to the fact that we have members of our community who have, on rec— on as recorded, have referred to comments made by public, the public, as trash. And it is disgraceful. And it is abhorrent to know that those who take the time to care and who take the time to invest in their city are equated with garbage. And I pray that as we complete this, this year, and that as we go into the new year, that there will be more respect given to the many residents who care so deeply about what happens in our city, and that the respect be paid to those people who put you in office. And I appreciate all that Orem has done.

Thank you.

Next, we've got 2 names together. I'm guessing you both want to come up. Becca Driggs and Jill Barrick.

It's a pleasure to be here tonight to thank you for the memorial designation that you're gonna put forward. I think these sorts of things, keeping baseball parks Dave Spencer, building Hillcrest Park, Terry and Debbie, and now this memorial designation to preserve the burial site for 2 pioneer babies that have been a block from my house for the last 130 years. These sorts of things make a city livable. They make people want to stay. They're extremely meaningful.

Wow.

And this will have an impact on all women who will lose children, and the Statistics are quite discouraging, but it will happen, and I'm so happy, and I'm so proud of each of you for doing this tonight, and I am devoted towards making sure that the memorial that goes in is appropriate. And if that requires me knocking every door in Orem to get the donations, I will do it. So thank you tonight for this.

Thank you.

And then I really quickly wanna say, as a student, this has been an incredible experience for me to have a city council back our project, a project that I dreamed up, and it's encouraged me moving forward with the cities that I live in for the rest of my life to be actively engaged. And so thank you for setting that example for me and teaching me that my voice matters.

Thank you.

Terry and Debbie, I, I wanna thank you from the bottom of my heart. I honestly love both of you, and the platforms that you ran on are platforms that matter to many, many of us, and we will make sure that they continue. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, that's the last of our speakers signed up. Let's move on to item number 8, and that's our consent items. Let me just— I'll just read through the consent items, and then we'll vote to pass those. 8.1 is the approval of the meeting minutes for November 14th, 2023. 8.2 is the 2024 City Council meeting schedule. 8.3 is the change with mayor pro tem for January 2024 to June of 2024, with David Spencer becoming the mayor pro tem. Item 8.4, appointment to the Beautification Advisory Commission, Kirsten Bascom. And I'll come back and we'll, we'll say something. 8.5 is a reappointment to the Recreation Advisory Commission, Danny Miller. 8.6, appointment to the Library Advisory Commission, Nancy Schultz. And item 8.7, reappointment to CDBG, Community Development Block Grant Commission, Ashley Gill and Eileen Black. Let me just say about all these commissions, we've got a number of commissions that all work together to make the city the best it can be. And so there are a lot of opportunities for service. We encourage people to to get involved in that, and we appreciate these people for signing up again. Lynnae, did you want to say something about your Library Advisory Commission?

Yeah, I'd like to. So Nancy Schultz, did you make it? Are you here? Oh, would you stand up, Nancy? So Nancy put in an application to be on our Library Advisory Commission, and one of my goals for this commission has been to create a commission of diversity and a lot of different passions and demographics. And Nancy, when I spoke to her on the phone to interview her for this position, I loved how her passion is connecting our senior citizen center. We are— our focus in the library with our makerspace is to really create these experiences for our public, and quilting classes, teaching kids how to sew. She had so many great ideas. I'm excited to have her on our commission. So thank you for being willing to serve. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And with that, unless there's any suggestions to change anything, we'd like to have a vote on these consent items.

You want a motion first, Mayor?

Yes.

I move that we approve the consent items.

I'll second.

Let's start with, with Jeff, and then— Jeff, would you like to vote?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The consent items pass. Thank you. Next, we'll move to item number 9, our scheduled items. And first up, we've got Brandon Nelson, our city budget director, finance director, and John Hatterley, CPA partner with Larson and Company, to go through their findings on the audit and where we're at on that.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council members. It's that time of year again. We've completed our fiscal year '23 audit with our independent auditors from Larson and Company. I just wanted to start with just a couple of key points from our fiscal year '23 financials. Just as items of note, our general fund unassigned balance, which basically are funds available to spend, for lack of a better term, increased by $5.4 million comparative to the prior year. You might wonder, how did we get $5.4 million? Well, and that's what I'm going to try to just touch on. Normally it would be sales taxes. Our sales taxes normally in the past of, you know, 5 to 8 years have been very, very good. This past year, however, they only increased 0.9%, or approximately $272,000. So that growth wasn't necessarily related to sales tax. So the biggest element, as you are well aware, interest rates, inflation increased pretty dramatically over the fiscal year. At the beginning of the year, the city was earning approximately 1% on, on its funds. By the end of the fiscal year, we were earning around 5%. So over that period of time, our interest earnings with funds available increased over $3.7 million. So a huge majority of that growth, that $5.4 million growth, relates to those interest earnings. You know, looking ahead, as you're aware, each year we transfer funds from our general fund that are in, if you will, in excess, and we move those into our capital projects fund primarily to fund park-related items, various equipment, various street project type of things, and that will be occurring again based on our fiscal '23 numbers. And then one last element, which John, John here will touch on in one of his reports, but we did have— we do have one fund that is in a deficit position, our facilities maintenance fund, which, just to make you aware, we are working on trying to eliminate that deficit here in the current fiscal year and hope to do so by the end of the fiscal year. So With that said, first of all, are there any questions before I turn the time over to John about anything I've said, or maybe anything you've heard in relation to the city's finances?

Hey, Brandon, I have a question.

You bet.

So, you know, more and more purchasing that people make is online, and they do— now it looks like they've figured that out. So everywhere you order something online, they do withhold sales tax. How do we track that? to make sure that we're getting what we're supposed to be getting as a city when it's being held by Ralph Lauren or some, you know, whoever?

There's, there's no real way for us as a city to necessarily determine that based on internet sales as far as tracking that. Auditing is the responsibility of the State Tax Commission. I don't know their audit procedures per se in relation to internet sales. But, you know, we— so if you're ordering something that doesn't have what's called nexus here in the state of Utah, there's not really a way for us to be able to monitor that unless we go— unless we know there's particular places that our sales are occurring that we should see in our detailed reports that we get from the State Tax Commission. So we're very reliant on the— for internet sales, Um, very reliant on the Tax Commission for that.

So the state's getting it, we just don't know if we're getting our portion.

Uh, yeah, so again, yeah, that obviously this— the whoever the, um, internet retailer is, it's their responsibility to report those sales in the proper jurisdiction. And so it— unless the State Tax Commission is auditing their records to, to see that that's occurring, which they do regularly. And obviously, um, entities like Amazon, for instance, they get, I'm sure, audited all the time because they're the big player in most of the online world, right? Um, and so I'm sure states are monitoring them all the time, but I, I don't have any specifics in relation to that.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, you bet.

Anybody else?

You bet.

I just want to say how good— when interest was low, we refinanced bonds and were able to save. And now that interest is higher, now it's painful for the public. But now that we're making what, from like 1% to 5%, you said. So I just—

it was—

it's been a very wise management of our funds to refinance when that made sense. And now we're getting our interest. So I just want to thank you for being aware, really refinancing those bonds, saving us long-term money. You said $3.7 million from interest.

So it's—

I think it's— I appreciate your, your good management. I just want to say thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, with that said, I'll turn the time over to John Hatterley. He is a partner with the CPA firm of Larson and Company based out of Spanish Fork, and I think you have offices up in Salt Lake, is that correct? Up in Salt Lake as well. So without further ado, I will turn the time over Thanks, Brandon.

I'll be brief tonight. I recommend that you read through the audit report that Brandon's put together. It's, it's a very well put together report. You'll find in the very beginning of the financial section will be our audit report, and that always precedes the, the actual financial statements. And I, I would ask that you would read through it and understand what is contained in the audit report. There is sections that pertain to your responsibility as a council and management, as well as our responsibilities, and what does and does not fall under the opinions that we give. There are certain sections of the financial statements that do not— are not considered part of the basic financial statements, so they do not fall under our opinion. And really, that just translates back to the amount of information that we have and we test as part of the, the annual financial report. We issue 3 opinions. The first one pertains to the financial statements, and that's contained in the audit report, and that is an unmodified or an unqualified opinion. In layman's terms, that's a clean opinion. That's what everybody wants to hear, is it's a clean opinion. That means that the financial statements themselves are materially correct. The second opinion that we are required to issue is for the federal government, and that is— oh, I opened the wrong one. That is an opinion on your compliance and your internal controls on how you spend federal money. So, as you know, over the last few years you've received a significant amount of federal money, both in COVID funds and now the ARPA money. So this is kind of a dual opinion. First, we look at the compliance. So with those programs and any other federal program that you participate in, there's conditions on how you spend that money, when you can spend that money, if there's matching That you have to do as a city in order to receive those funds. And, and other things that we look at. So we look at your compliance first, and we found no issues there. We also look at your internal controls when we have our audits looked at. Just like we look at your books, we have external auditors that come and review our audits. We just got done with a federal audit. Looking at some of our federal single audits. And what they're looking for is our documentation that you have controls in place in order to make sure that that money is tracked and that it's spent appropriately and in a timely manner. And that's also— we found no issues there either. So an unmodified or an unqualified opinion on your federal single audit as well. Um, the next opinion that we're required to issue is for the Utah State Auditor. We issue a report. The federal single audit report as well as the state compliance report are— they're contained in the supplemental reports package that you would have received from Brandon. We are required to look at specific areas of state code that you are required to be in compliance with. Um, and we found no, uh, material issues or significant issues that we would have to identify as part of that. So it's also an unmodified or an unqualified opinion. With that, we also look at your internal controls over compliance. We don't give an opinion on your internal controls as far as state compliance goes, but we make sure that they exist. And we actually make Brandon's team fill out a really awful internal control spreadsheet outlining every compliance that we look at and what the, the controls are that he has in place. And so we found no concerns with the controls that are in place in order to keep you guys in compliance with the Utah State Code. There were a couple of findings. Brandon mentioned one of them. The facilities maintenance fund is currently in a deficit position. It was in a deficit position last year, and what the requirement is, is you have to reduce that deficit by 5% of the revenue coming into that fund on an annual basis each year until that is taken care of. The city did transfer a significant amount of money into that fund last year, hoping to reduce that deficit and eradicate it. But the costs in that, that fund ended up being more than were anticipated. So the deficit actually increased. The city has planned for in the 2024 budget an increase of the amount of costs that are being allocated to other funds. So the other funds and departments are going to pay into that facilities maintenance. And that should, based on the numbers right now, should eradicate that deficit fund balance. So I expect that that is not a concern next year. The second finding is the general fund balance. You have— you are required to maintain only a 35% maximum fund balance, and that's 35% of all the revenue of the general fund for the year. Currently you're sitting about 40%. Do I think this is a concern? Well, it's a concern, yes, because state code says you can only have 35%, but it's not a bad problem to have, to say that, hey, we have some money in the coffers that we can save for rainy days. And in fact, those funds are planned for future projects. And I think one of them is going to be the new Building that you'll be in.

Can I ask about that?

I think we generally have— I remember 15% was kind of our— what we want to keep there, and then we would transfer everything else to capital improvement project. Is that still our— what we're gonna do? Correct.

Yep.

Yep. And in talking to Brandon's team when we issued the finding, that is their expectation when some of these funds are spent. Part of the other problem is, is a lot of the cities and the counties, all the local governments across the state that received COVID money and ARPA money. That's why the code changed from 25% to 35%, because you had a huge influx of money from the federal government that really was— you didn't ask for it.

You were—

it was just given to you, and you had to find ways to allocate that money or spend that money, and people weren't prepared to All of a sudden spend that much money, and so everybody's fund balance kind of skyrocketed a little bit. But once again, knowing the projects that are coming up, knowing the costs that are coming up for the city, I expect that this you know I expect to see the fund balance drop back down to around the 15%. In speaking to Brandon's team, the last letter that we issue is just communication to you as a council, and that was sent to you as well. And I would just recommend that you read through that. Those are things that. we're required to disclose to you at the close of our audit. And if there's any questions, I'm happy to have phone calls. I know that you probably haven't had time to read through the entire— all the reports, but I am available at any time to, to answer questions and love to chat because I want you to understand what we do as auditors and understand the language that, that we put in our reports and what that means to the city. Uh, with that, if there's any questions now, Happy to answer questions.

Mayor, do we need a motion to accept the audit? Maybe someone on the side bench could help me, or Brandon, you can.

There should be a resolution there accepting the audit.

It doesn't say that on, on what we have.

And I know in the packet, I believe.

Okay, maybe in the packet, not on the paper.

I'll look at the packet.

Okay, I've gotten a cheat sheet.

Is that okay?

You won't write me down on your audit if I get quotes? Do I read all this resolution? Okay, uh, a resolution by the Orem City Council that we accept the audit for fiscal year ended June 30th, 2023, as completed and presented by Larson and Company, PC.

Is that adequate, Stephen, or do I need to read all the whereases?

You just said no, you don't need to read all the whereases. But it's your motion to approve.

My motion is to approve the audit as presented by Larson and Company for June.

Except, except, make sure it's except approved.

Yeah, thank you.

I think I said them all now, and not sure we got them in the right order. Mayor, you want to try to see if anyone will second that garbled message?

I'll be happy to second it.

You going to Jeff?

Jeff?

I Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The budget passes. And this— in the summary of the budget, we went through a meeting yesterday with the— Brandon's doing a great job as our financial director, and Larson just verified that again. So we appreciate that. Thank you. All right, next up, item 9.2. We've got a resolution for a new Orem City seal. Jacob Summers, our city— one of our city attorneys, will present that to us.

Thank you.

Mayor, council members, thank you for your time this evening. Before the city council tonight is a resolution to adopt a new city seal. The city seal design that has been circulated is before you now. This new city seal includes the, obviously, the name of the City of Orem. It includes the city's family slogan, Family City— the city's slogan, Family City USA, the incorporation date of the city itself, 1919. And then based off of the resolution passed by the City Council in October, To display the national motto, In God We Trust, it is now going to be incorporated into the city seal. That city seal would then ultimately be displayed here in the city council chambers behind the dais of the city council. Wanted to speak specifically as to the inclusion of the national motto.

Motto here.

Uh, the purpose is for us to include it in our city seal is to foster patriotism, convey a sense of formality and solemnity to the city business, and also to express confidence in the future and the community. Um, I know that there has been recent, um, press and discussion regarding, uh, the city's decision to display the national motto. In anticipation of that, I looked around to see what other communities have done as far as it pertains to referencing of deity, divine, or adoption of the national motto in their seals or flags. And as you can see, the state of Arizona, their state seal incorporates their state motto. which means God enriches. The state of Colorado has done the same. Their Latin phrase translates to nothing without the deity or nothing without the divine will. State of Florida, state of Mississippi have also adopted the national motto. Those both appear on their seal, and in the case of Mississippi, they just recently adopted a new state flag, and it is on their state flag as well as the flag of Georgia. And then the state of South Dakota has a motto that is included on their state seal, and it says, under God, the people rule. And so the adoption of the national motto and incorporating it into the city seal is nothing new. It is nothing that is cutting edge, bleeding edge, or out there as far as pushing the limits of constitutionality. In particular, the courts have already addressed the national motto in a number of different settings, most particularly on the display on the U.S. currency. In the 10th Circuit, there was the case in, in 1996 where a group sued the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to remove the national motto from currency. And really, as the court in the 10th Circuit went through that, they found that this national motto has a secular purpose, a secular nature, in that it symbolizes the historical role of religion in our society. It formalizes the medium of exchange, fosters patriotism, and it expresses confidence in the future. The 10th Circuit is not alone in in making this, this type of determination, the Ninth Circuit, in addressing the national motto on coinage and currency, stated this: It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency, In God We Trust, has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance To a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. And then they further went on to say the national motto is excluded from the First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the congressional report, it has a spiritual and psychological value and inspirational quality. The Fourth Circuit has ruled likewise. on the issue of the national motto on currency, basically quoting almost identically the language from the Ninth Circuit. And then ultimately the Sixth Circuit has ruled similarly. And then they've noted that because the US Supreme Court has not taken appeals from the other circuits upon Sircharari, that in essence, this US Supreme Court has implicitly ruled that the national motto Does not violate the Establishment Clause. It does not further any sort of religious purpose or establishment of any one religion against another religion, or religion against non-religion. And so this resolution speaks to the history of the national motto, also the inclusions or reasons why the city council would adopt the, the new seal, including the national motto, and then ultimately adopting the new city seal. And with that, I present this resolution for the council to discuss.

Do we have any questions?

Debbie?

So we did receive an email from an organization, you know, questioning this motto.

But from what I can see here, you could easily defend that if they, if they, if they ever did anything more than write us a letter, correct?

Correct.

Now, again, I don't— I'm not going to put out there that nobody would challenge the city's action here. But again, I believe that we are on good footing based on prior rulings in multiple different federal district circuit courts of appeal, as well as the statements made by U.S. Supreme Court in other Establishment Clause cases.

Any other questions?

No, I'll make a motion.

Okay, do you have a motion?

Sure, I'll make a motion that the City Council by resolution adopt the new Orem city seal.

Second.

Jeff?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The resolution passes. Next up, we've got item 9.3, a resolution on the historical memorial that was mentioned earlier, and Jake will walk us through that.

Mayor and City Council members, thank you for, again, the time to address this. Addressed this in a prior work session. This resolution has been modified in a couple different ways since our work session meeting, mainly to address some of the concerns that were raised and some of the requests that were made during our work session, and I'll address those as we go through this. In essence, this resolution is calling to one designate. or direct city staff to prepare and plan development for a landscape open space or landscape park on the area of 1600 North, 411 West, but also to know that in the future that there is an anticipated plan to build a well house on this parcel. And so that there would be treatments, aesthetics, or evaluations— or not evaluations, but elevations That would incorporate the historic nature of that, that parcel of land. Also the creation of a women's and children's memorial, and then looking— zooming out and looking at a broader picture, refreshing our historic marker program, and then being able to incorporate that into our heritage park that should be coming online in the future. So, as I said, there are a number of requests or calls to action here in this resolution. And really, I don't want to go through all of them because we've discussed this at length in the work session. But again, that's the highlights of that. We would be beginning the planning and development of this Women and Children's Monument, that we would reaffirm the desire to preserve the unique nature of lands located within the PF zone, requests city staff to develop plans for a landscape park or open space on the parcel of land at 1600 North 411 West, and then calls on the Historic— Historical Preservation Advisory Committee— Commission to develop criteria and a procedure for the placement of historical markers Throughout the city of Orem, and then also calls for ultimately the incorporation of these markers in the Heritage Park tank site. So again, why now?

Why?

Oh, could I ask a question?

I don't think anything—

I heard the passionate plea from 2 citizens earlier that they would knock on doors and raise money. At this point, we're not allocating budget dollars to it. We're just approving it subject to funding being raised.

Is that correct?

That's what our current proposal is?

The current proposal, as it is worded in the resolution, is direct city staff to start the development and planning. So there would be expenditure, expenditure of funds based on staff time, but ultimately for the creation of a memorial, I would anticipate we would be coming back looking for appropriation of funds. I'll let Brent speak to that.

Yeah, so we don't have the exact costs all figured out yet, and we would expect that there would even be But we would intend to, I guess, use this as direction from you and the, you and the rest of the council to begin to design and come up with that cost budget.

Some staff time and some soft cost for design is what you're asking for right now. Is that correct?

Well, we would anticipate that we would engage with a third-party entity in terms of design.

Right.

Yeah, right.

Okay. Um, and again, as we explained in the work session, why now? Again, we've just recently celebrated our, our centennial about 4 years ago. Um, as the city is now, I believe, entering a new chapter of, of its, its being, is wanting to protect the core heart of the community, uh, growing that heart, and, and being able to have a, a consistent story throughout the city. Efforts that we've already taken to preserve unique properties. As the council is well aware, the council took steps in May to create the public facility zone and placed government property, owned property, as well as properties that had been uniquely paid for by Orem tax dollars to be protected within that public facility zone. The section of the parcel that we were talking about on 1600 North, 411 West is already designated within that PF zone. Other efforts to preserve Orem history, and I, I wanted to take again a global picture here, is the City Council back in 1990 adopted the Historical Preservation Advisory Commission, or created it, and gave specific duties and responsibilities to that commission. Third, the, the City of Orem has been able to work with civic partners like the Sierra, specifically the Orem Heritage Museum, and they, they serve a very important role in preserving the history of Orem, allowing residents to have free admission to come into the museum and see the artifacts and, and learn the story of the City of Orem. But then also we have citizen-led efforts, just like the City Council heard today from, from Ms. Barrick. And I've included their photos here from a recent KSL article. Again, citizen resident-led efforts to preserve Orem's unique history. And with that, I think it's an important partnership between citizens. These nonprofit groups and volunteers. Wanted to speak briefly to the Women and Children's Memorial. We don't have any any designs. We don't have any location specifically identified for this memorial. Just that it would role. It would honor the role of women in the history, and we'd want to acknowledge their role, women's role in the founding of the city of Orem, leadership within the community. And the unique challenges that they have faced throughout the history of Warren. It would not necessarily be this photo. I just wanted to find something that would be similar to perhaps what a design might be. Again, speaking to the preservation of the 1600 North parcel, it is already within the PF zone, and then it calls for the landscaping of that parcel. Parcel, but also the incorporation and acknowledgement of a future development of a well house on that parcel. The resolution also speaks largely to adopting a criterion or criterion to decide what is historic, what is it that we want to preserve within the city, and that would be placed with the historical preservation. Advisory Commission, and then also a desire to refresh the historical marker design that's already been adopted by the City Council. And then lastly, the inclusion and installment of this with the Heritage Park tank site to have a central location where residents and visitors of Orem can come and learn of history and the Orem history in one location. But then could also go out and find corresponding markers throughout the community. And with that, I would open it up for any discussion and consideration.

I just want to say, Jake, as far as we're seeing, you're seeing a lot more from the council lately in terms of going back to core values and going back to preserving our history and doing the things that really affect Orem's heart. And that's where, you know, we've got our foundational principles of God, family, country, and then our history that we're trying to make sure gets remembered as our, as our city grows, and we try and still keep that community that we've, we've had.

So, sorry.

I brought this up in the work session too. I think this is a great start, and especially because of this location, the significance of the family that were the children that passed away there. It's a, it's a very difficult piece of ground to, to pull into. I mean, with that 16th North, it's really tricky to get into that and just be able to see it. I would like to see going forward, and I'm sure there's a lot of other pieces of ground the city has that might be more accessible. I'd love to see this not end with this, especially with honoring women, that it would be nice to have a piece of ground that's easier to access. Anyway, just, just, I think it's a good starting point with what the mayor's saying, but I'd like to see that continue with maybe another spot in the future.

So, Terry, we are already working on that. I would just like to say I appreciate Jake and all the work that he's put into this, and all of our staff. And I really wanna express my gratitude. I see Becca and Jill had to leave, but to Becca Driggs Jill Barrick, Julie Allen, Sarah Reed, Steve Nelson, and James McBride for bringing this forward. I live in this area. This was family lore that we had heard about for 20 years with these pioneer babies being born there, but when Becca Driggs, through her research, and Julie Allen found the journals that provided documentation for this, this having happened, it really put forth this effort to preserve this area and to memorialize this area in particular, and to create this whole discussion of recognizing women and providing for this opportunity for this location and others for women's and children's memorial. This project is very close to my heart and one I've been working on for over a year now. And I hope I can get a positive recommendation from the council when we vote on this. There have been a few obstacles that we've had to overcome, but I feel like we're there now, and I'm overjoyed to be at this point. I appreciate, like I said, the support of our staff, our city manager, Bren Bybee, members of the community. After this was on the media and on the news, I received just a lot of of contact and information and gratitude of support, feeling messages of support for this. I just want to mention too that one of the founding partners of the Next Door Kwik Kwak, the Kwik Kwak Next Door, reached out and also is interested in supporting that particular area for this monument. This resolution allows us to move forward with plans for creating a beautiful place of remembrance. and recognition of the struggles and the strength of women, and more importantly, to respect this sacred ground and assure that these 2 baby boys that are buried there are not forgotten. As I mentioned, Terry, we have plans to move forward and put together a citizen design team to plan this memorial and work with our Historic Preservation Commission. This is the beginning of great things happening in Orem. in our lives, in the lives of the women here in Orem, and also in the lives of all those who love and support the women of Orem. So I, I just want to express once again my gratitude. I hope we can get a positive recommendation, a positive vote on this resolution tonight. I feel like we've got the votes. But anyway, thank you for all the work. Thank you to everyone who's listening, who contributed to this.

Thank you.

And I'm ready to make a motion unless someone else would like to say anything. Okay, I move that we approve the resolution for the historical memorial for the city of Warren.

I'm going to second that.

Oh, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Resolution passes. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to item 9.4. This is a public hearing on a rezone. And this is amending Article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by enacting Article 22-11-65. and Appendix ZZ of the Orem City Code, and by rezoning the property located generally at 1350 East 740 North from the R-12 zone to the PD-52 zone, approximately 6 acres. And Jason, would you like to present that to us?

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. As stated, this is an existing behavioral hospital located at 1350 East 740 North. It was originally constructed in 1984 under a conditional use permit. It's currently zoned R-12, which is a residential zone. Back in '84, they did allow them as a conditional use. So originally it was approved as a conditional use. It was amended to add school uses in 2001. So there's a combination of uses that are currently at this facility.

They only—

they also treat behavior, those that have some behavioral issues, and also a school to help those individuals as well. So they're here tonight to add some additional beds. They would like to add 24 beds, and I'll go through that and explain that. But in order to do that, expanding a conditional use is not possible under current standards. We don't allow them as conditional uses any longer. So it's legally established, and it's a legal nonconforming use currently. What the applicants are proposing Is to change it to a PD zone, a planned development zone, that would allow this use to expand. So, as I stated, it's currently zoned R-12. They would like to zone it to a PD-52 zone. Within— I'm just gonna go through really quick and talk about what's in the PD zone, and then we'll talk about the site plan as well. So the advantage of a PD zone is that the city can restrict or limit the types of uses that are allowed in a particular zone, because we're creating this PD-52 as a unique zone. Zone for this location. We can craft it with the developer. The property owners and the city have come up with this to be able to, to do what they need to do, but also then limit what they can do in the future. So under C permitted uses, hospital services are permitted and secondary schools are permitted, but those are the only 2 uses that would be permitted on this location. So that's an advantage to be able to restrict that. It's also limited to what's on the common So in the future, if there's any development on this property and they want to expand, they would have to come back through this process, ultimately through the City Council. The expansion is limited to a 15-foot height, or height. The existing facility remains as is, but any new expansion, the way that the current ordinance is written, is 15 feet is the maximum. With the— or with the functionality of heating mechanical equipment on top of that at 10 feet. So it does allow for a little bit of roof mechanical equipment setbacks. They worked with the neighborhood to the south to make sure that the addition was set back far enough. And I'll show you on the concept plan, the 80 feet is their setback from the residential properties to the south to where it comes into that structure. The parking is also restricted to 110 feet. Which is on the west side of the property, which I'll show you. Also, architectural standards are outlined, landscaping standards are outlined. Parking is a minimum of 139 parking stalls would be required based on 1 stall per 2 beds for the initial— or for the expansion of what they're proposing tonight. So getting into the site plan, you can see in the darker gray, that is the 24-bed expansion that they want to To do. You can see that it's 80 feet from the south property line, which is what has been negotiated and worked on with the neighbors. The parking that you can see to the west or left side of your screen is 110 feet, which is also as far back as they can do it and still provide the 139 parking stalls. So the applicants are proposing 154 total beds in the facility, and this concept plan that you see would be part of the ordinance. So anybody that comes in in the future would be tied to this specific layout and site plan. This is the proposed structure, and you can see if I can point out— this is the closest 80-foot point to the neighbors, and the only access or opening would be the door that's required for building code, so that the only opening that you see that's closest to the neighbors would be For an opening only. There would be no windows or anything of that nature. And these are the elevations. You'll see it matches similarly to what is existing there with the current facility. The Planning Commission did review this and did make a positive recommendation to the council to create the PD-52 zone and then also rezone the property to that. to that zone, which would also include the Appendix ZZ, which would be the concept plan and the elevations that you've seen. Any questions that I can address?

Go ahead, Tom.

Go ahead, Tom.

You mentioned this—

the neighbors had expressed some favorable for it, or maybe, Lene, you did. Could you share that with us?

So the Planning Commission, they had one spokesman, and I believe they're here tonight, and they can get up and share their opinion. But they did— the ultimate first review had the building a little bit closer to the neighbors. They worked with them in a neighborhood meeting and asked them not only to create a PD rather than rezone it to a PO zone, which would allow additional uses. The PD zone, like I stated, restricts them to the 2 uses only. But it also then limits them to this concept plan, which is 80 feet.

So they did work with the neighbors to My question, of course, is, I'm assuming, I'm assuming the demand is great, and what's our timeline if it gets approved tonight?

I would have to defer to the applicant, but I think they're anxious to move forward with this.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

The applicants are here if you like.

Okay, I'd be curious about the timeline too. And then if there are conditions on the timeline. But let's go ahead and— do you want to bring the applicants?

Yeah, if they'd like to come up.

Public hearing.

My name is Dave Gardner, George Bills.

We've been working with the hospital to work through this expansion permit process.

So I'm sorry, what was the question that I—

I had a question as far as what the timeframe is for this, and then also if there are limitations on the timeframe as far as As far as if it gets approved tonight, how long do you have to fulfill that?

And my other question was the demand. I'm sure you'll fill them as soon as they're available, I'm assuming.

The demand?

The demand, people moving in.

Yeah, there, there is a demand.

Not moving in, using the facility.

I'm not sure the, the starting point on— there's still quite a bit of work to do. Once we're approved. But once that's occurred, we're, we're ready to go. We want to get that, get the design, get the building signed, and get the permits as fast as we can.

So they will need to go through Planning Commission for site plans. So that is part of the process. Once, you know, if it's approved tonight, they will have that process, which is a couple-month process.

I guess my question is, Say, once it's approved, is there a time limitation on— I mean, do they have to do it within 3 years or 5 years or 10 years?

Or—

So if they go through and actually obtain a site plan from the Planning Commission, there is a 2-year limit. So that if they don't do within 2 years, it expires. They go through the process. So there is a 2-year time once it's approved.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the council? Okay, well, we'll open this up as a public hearing. Anyone from the public that would like to comment on this is free to come up and make a comment.

Yeah.

Mayor and council members, I appreciate you giving me a minute. My name is Bruce Cameron. I live on Bella Vista Drive, 658 North Bella Vista Drive. My house is just right below that line there where the new addition is. And I, I'm representing the Bella Vista neighborhood, and I think you'll remember me from a safety issue that we had. Over on Palisade Drive with the Choker Islands. And, and so, you know, I wanted to thank the council for your willingness to listen on that issue and for your great service, especially for the 2 members that are leaving the council. We do appreciate all that you've done. So in regard to this hospital addition, I've lived next to this for years. I've actually participated in services over there. We recognize the importance of this facility in our community. We are not opposed to the addition. When the first site plan came out, we had some concerns because the addition was turned. Right face into our fences at 15 to 20 feet. And the heights were an issue with some of the air conditioning units and so forth. But Jeremy Cottle, the other members of the hospital, Gardner Associates, have been very good in talking to the neighbors and getting our opinions. They have made significant changes in our favor at our request, which we really appreciate. At the Planning Commission meeting, I addressed the Planning Commission and explained that we are overall favorable to the addition, as long as it stays within the PD zone, so that it's specific on what's allowed and what is not allowed. And at the end of the Planning Commission meeting last week, there was one point that was brought up in the original neighborhood meeting. that did not get addressed in the PD zone. And the neighbor that had that concern was unable to attend. That's Kevin Hawkins, and his home is just about 3 houses down the street from mine. And as a courtesy to him and as I think a concern for the neighbors. We wanted to— I'd like to read his comment here. This is an email to me. He said that there is one more accommodation I would like to make as a condition of approval. The current practice at this facility is that they have a designated smoking area. area on the south side of their facility that is in full view of our subdivision. I would like to request that the applicant do one of 2 things: change the location for the smoking area to the north side of the building, or build an 8-foot screen wall that totally blocks the view of the smoking area from our community. Let me know your thoughts on this and so forth. Apparently the Hawkins have had— and mentioned that they have a little congregation of some of the residents that come out in groups and smoke next to their fence. And that I've never seen that myself because we're a little more east, but I feel like it needs to be discussed. And I'd like, if possible, the applicant to kind of address that issue, if possible.

Thank you.

Okay, would the applicant like to respond to that?

As a hospital, we have lots of regulations, including regulations about outdoor smoking. No indoor smoking is allowed, obviously.

We—

I think it's been demonstrated that we've tried to work with the neighbors. Uh, I don't know exactly what the solution could be. Um, perhaps we could put a sign up or something. Uh, we're open to continue working with the neighbors. We need to work with the neighbors.

But, um, so would you be willing to Maybe because we can move forward on this and we could just put a contingency in there that something acceptable to the neighbors as far as the smoking issue is resolved before it's finally approved. Or Jason, how would you do that?

Yeah, you're, you're hopefully approving it tonight if that's the direction, but then you could direct them to work with the neighbors, whether that's a screening around the current smoking area, what's that, relocating it to the North, whether that's doing something to, you know, discourage them from smoking next to the fence. That's something, you know, unless you want to add it directly to the ordinance, which I would not necessarily recommend, but I would, you know, recommend that they continue to work with the neighbors to try to find a solution, whether that's screening or relocating the area.

So, so if we pass it, there can be something that makes it so that that has to happen before it ultimately is done.

And when they come to the Planning Commission for the site plan, they could address that, show that where that's— if they've screened it, if they've relocated it, those types of things. Now, it's not going to prevent them from somebody, you know, randomly walking out and smoking next to the fence, but if they do get a complaint, they would be able to address that and ask them to, you know, go somewhere else.

Yeah, and I think the issue that was brought up, that there's a specific area that's close to somebody's house or something like that. So, so yeah. Any other questions, or yeah, let's okay. So we'll we'll work forward on that, and then any other public comments?

Yes, good evening. My name is Patrick Jackson.

I'm with.

resident of Orem for many years. I just have a personal experience with this hospital. I'd like to encourage you to move forward on this. Last year, my wife had some real serious medical issues involving COVID-19. She tried to commit suicide twice. I stopped it. And the first time in April, we tried to get her in Provo Canyon Hospital, which was very close, but we couldn't. She had to go up to the LDS hospital, and she was there for a week. She didn't get a lot of help there, but I had to travel up there, uh, every, every night to visit her. The second time, in the end of June, she was able to get into the Provo Canyon Hospital, and she was there for 3 weeks, and she did very well. It's a very, um, competent, uh, faculty and staff, and, uh, she, she still goes to outpatient counseling with one of the, um, medical people there. So anything you can do to help further this cause, because I, I think the way things are going, that we may experience more of our citizens having breakdowns of this kind, and it would be great if they could stay in their, in their own community. And so that's, that's all I want to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Terry, just a comment. Sitting in the Planning Commission meeting when the hospital came, I was very impressed with the neighbors that came in support of the hospital. That's not usually the case when there's a project going on. We all have some kind of issues. And my understanding is from the Planning Commission that the building was going to be closer to the residents, and you moved the building out a little bit. That's correct. after working with the residents. I think that's a great, great message that it can happen. And I also just mentioned that it's sure nice, it's a one-story building. That's different than somebody having a 4-story high-density apartment behind their house. So, so thank you for listening to the residents. The landscaping is beautiful. I mean, a lot of grass, which is nice. I think that's a nice thing if I— if you lived over there to have all this grass behind you, and, and one-story buildings. So, but I think that's a great message as far as businesses working with residents to try to say there's got to be a way we can come with a solution. So thank you, both residents and business hospital, for working together. Good example.

Are there any other comments before we close the public hearing part? Okay, well, we'll close the public hearing.

Mayor, if I could, could I suggest one minor change to the language? Jason, if you could go back to the text. There's some remnant language that's not supposed to be there still, and if Jason can go up to the occupancy limit language.

Let's see, where is that? Oh.

Oh, sorry. So it's in the, the second sentence of subsection C there, where we say the total number of beds related to the hospital use shall be limited to a maximum of 104 beds, and the total number of beds for all uses shall be limited to 154. I would suggest that we just State that the total number of beds is limited to 154. We had originally, when we were drafting this, we were trying to distinguish between a couple different uses that existed in the hospital. They basically have juveniles in there versus, you know, non-juveniles. But then ultimately we decided not to try and make that distinction, and that language is just kind of a remnant left over and shouldn't be there anymore. So suggest that change.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think we're fine with that. That makes sense. Anything else?

It's okay. Make a comment there.

Yes.

Okay. First of all, I just wanna say thank you, Steve. That's why we have you as our city attorney. This guy is amazing. We just really appreciate him. Very, very great attention to detail. I feel very confident with him in charge. I went to the neighborhood meeting, and can I— and then I just I just didn't follow this right until I happened to be in the Planning Commission meeting where you presented this again. And can I just tell you, the whole experience was different. And to echo what Terry said, it is so rewarding to see a developer who works with the neighbors, who is conscientious, and who cares about the impact that their development is going to have on the neighborhood. And I just appreciate you so much for bringing this development to us. It has a great benefit for our community, and everyone around it seems to really be appreciative of your endeavors to listen to them and to— in your design. So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I just want to second what Terri-Lynne and they have both said. Just, this is the way it's supposed to work. As far as the developers come in and work with the neighbors and come to a solution that works for everyone. So we do appreciate that. Does anyone— somebody like to make a motion? The only, the only issue I'm not sure how to deal with is the issue with the smoking, but I think other than that, we're ready to do a motion.

I can make the motion. I just need a little help with your correction. I move that we amend Article 22-5-3A and the zoning map of the City of Orem by enacting Article 22-11-65 and the Appendix ZZ of the Orem City Code, and by rezoning the property locally located generally at 1350 East, 740 North from R-12 zone to the PD-52 zone, approximately 6 acres. What else?

And you can just say with the, the change that I suggested the subsection C that we're just going to have a maximum number of beds of 154.

And with a maximum of 154 as recommended by Steve Earl, our attorney.

Second.

Jeff?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Rezone passes.

Thank you.

Yeah, we will.

So, all right, so we have made a lot of progress tonight. And we've got one more item. I've had a couple recommendations. Since we've been here for 2 hours, that we just take a quick 5-minute break and then reconvene, and we'll be very timely on starting again. So just a 5-minute break. Thanks. Okay, let's call this meeting back to order.

Yeah. All right.

Welcome back. We'll move on to item 9.5, a public hearing considering a proposed settlement agreement between Wright Development Group and the City of Orem regarding development of the property located generally at 841 South State Street, the former Meadow Gold property. Steve will present this to us.

Thank you, Mayor, Mayor and City Council. As the mayor just stated, this is— you have before you a proposed settlement agreement between the city and Wright Development concerning the property located at 841 South State Street, also commonly known as the former Metal Gold property. Just to kind of give you a little bit of background to what brings us to this point. And many of you know this history, but maybe some of some in the audience don't. Back in 2018, the City Council enacted the the State Street District Zones. There were five district zones along key intersections with State Street. One of those State Street District Zones was known as the Arts District Zone. It was located generally at the intersection of 800 South. It included the property that we're discussing tonight, the former Metal Gold property at 841 South State Street. A couple years later, after the property was rezoned— well, I should back up and say the Arts District zone allowed for mixed-use developments, including high-density residential development, and as did the other State Street district zones as well. A couple years later, in approximately July 2021, Wright Development, who owns the property at the former medical property, submitted a site plan application to develop a mixed-use project in accordance with the Arts District zone. That project basically consisted of 7 stories, 78 feet in height, Approximately 335 residential units. And anyway, so that there was some dispute after they— the initial application was submitted as to whether that application was complete or not. But shortly after, well, that occurred, the city council enacted a moratorium on any residential development along the State Street corridor. That had the effect of essentially halting that project from moving forward. Obviously, Wright Development was not happy with the fact that the City Council enacted that moratorium, and they filed a lawsuit against the city a couple of weeks later, in September of 2021. Essentially, that lawsuit argued that The moratorium was invalid— sorry, invalid— and also that they claimed that their site plan application had vested before the City Council enacted the moratorium. So since that time in September of 2021, the city has been involved in that litigation with Wright Development. At some point, probably beginning in late 2021, early 2022, Early 2022, we explored the possibility of reaching some sort of a compromise settlement with Wright Development, explored a number of different possibilities. One of the objectives was to potentially avoid the worst-case scenario, if you will, at least from the city's perspective and from probably the neighbors' perspective as well. in terms of having a very large building, you know, 78 feet high, and which would have a lot of impact on the neighborhood. And so as part of that, those discussions, we came up with a proposal, if you will, to— as a possible compromise settlement that would reduce the scope and size of the development They could do on the property. The proposal— and this is included in the proposed settlement agreement that you have before you tonight— the proposed settlement would reduce the maximum project height from 78 feet to 52 feet, would reduce the total number of stories allowed from 7 to 4, would reduce the number of residential units slightly from 335 to 311. It would eliminate the commercial area. Originally, in their original project proposal, they had approximately 42,000 square feet of commercial area, and in the proposed settlement agreement, they would have zero commercial square footage. The reason that matters a little bit is because that reduces both traffic impact and as well as parking demand on the So the, the number of required parking stalls in the original project was 626, and the proposed settlement would have a required number of parking stalls of 650. So not only increase the number of parking stalls, but also by elimination of the commercial area and the reduction in residential units, decrease the parking demand that the project would create as well. So the, the proposed agreement that you have before you tonight then would allow that, that reduced scope concept plan that I just mentioned. Jason Bench maybe can go through some of the additional development standards, but maybe I can point out just a couple of other things, a couple of other things in the settlement agreement. Basically provides that any rooftop amenities can't be used between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM. They had originally proposed having some pickleball courts and possibly a swimming pool on the roof of the project, and there was concern about noise emanating from those amenities that we wanted to restrict as much as possible. The proposed agreement also requires Compliance with the concept plan, including the elevations, which Jason will show you in just a moment, as well as development standards that deal with things like architectural features, materials, windows, and things like that. And maybe with that, I'll have, I'll have a couple more comments after Jason's done, but maybe Jason can go through, he can show you some of the elevations, as well as what some of the other standards are that are being proposed in the agreement.

Sure. So just kind of highlight the location here. It's currently zoned C-2. Some of the things that Steve's already addressed: 52 feet height, 311 residential units, parking is 650, which is 2.09 stalls per unit. Calculation on that compliance with the building elevations, which I'll show you here. And then, of course, the building materials, which, which Steve has pointed out, would be specific to what they would be required to maintain. This would be the elevation or the floor, the site plan. If I can zoom in a little bit, you can see the setbacks off of State Street. And then the setbacks from the neighborhood as well. And this would be the proposed 4-story structure that they would propose. I'll show you what the existing or the previous one was as well. You can see the street would have landscaping along the streets, and then they'll have some courtyard for the residents as well. So this represents the 4 stories, 52 feet. And then this is showing what was proposed in 2021. This is the 7-story proposal. 79 feet. And then just to show you, this is the, the 7 stories. So this is what was originally proposed, and this is what is proposed today, which is the 4-story within the development agreement. That's the information that I have.

Thanks, Jason. So as we bring this to you, we fully recognize that this is a difficult And probably painful discussion and a decision to make. And obviously, I think that if this were a brand new proposal that were being brought to you with no history or no attempt to settle a lawsuit, my guess would be that nobody on the council would be in favor of this. I think that you know the current council when you when you basically repealed the State Street. District zones indicated your intent that you didn't really want to see any more high-density housing along State Street. I think that's probably the, the council's current intention and desire. But unfortunately, this doesn't come to us in a vacuum or as a brand new greenfield type of a proposal. I mean, this is basically an opportunity to resolve the lawsuit, and I guess why that's important. There's a possibility that something much worse could happen. So in any litigation, any litigation is uncertain as to the outcome, and there's the possibility that the original proposal, the 7-foot— or sorry, the 7-story, 78-foot-high project.

That's right.

could be built on that property if the city were to lose the lawsuit. And so the city, as part of this settlement proposal, we're trying to eliminate, if you will, again, the worst-case scenario, the worst possible outcome, and to mitigate the city's risk. So unfortunately, it's not a question for the City Council tonight of whether you want to see high-density residential development on the property or not. If that were the only question, I think the answer to that would be obvious. But it's really, do we want to mitigate the city's risk and achieve what we think is the best possible compromise that we've been able to reach in order to avoid the potential downside if we were to lose the lawsuit? So again, I recognize This is difficult. It's— I don't think anybody, or very few people in this room, would really want to see a high-density residential project on this property. But again, it is a matter of, is it in the best interest of the city to resolve the lawsuit by entering into this proposed settlement agreement? And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

If it's my understanding that they would have 3 years, is that correct? Still, if this did— we did settle the lawsuit, they would have to build it within 3 years, and if they didn't, then what happens then?

Yeah, if I can just kind of review the agreement. You're right, it's a 3-year— I believe it's 3 years to obtain an approved site plan, if I'm remembering correctly. I'll just verify that, but that's my recollection.

Yeah.

My question is, if they don't build it within 3 years, is it just— what happens? It's all null and void, and then it's empty property?

Yeah, that's essentially right. So we basically— this proposed settlement agreement gives them vested rights to develop this reduced scope project and to obtain an approved site plan for that 3-year period. If they weren't, for whatever reason, if they decided not to pursue it, then they would lose those rights.

those vested rights.

If they get a 3-year— if they get the site plan approved within 3 years, then— so say they got it after 2 and a half years, how much longer do they have to actually complete the project?

So once, once you have an approved site plan, you're, you're essentially considered vested in the project. And so then it becomes— I, I think our ordinance gives them 1 or 2 years to complete, or 2 years, 2 years essentially to To complete the project. You know, I think we— our typical practice, and Jason, correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as you're making progress, we typically—

So not typically to complete the project, but to actually pull up a building permit.

Okay, that's, that's the standard, is to pull a building permit. And the reason that's important is that's where kind of the rubber meets the road, when you, when you, you have to pay a bunch of fees to pull a building permit. So that's not something you can just do lightly. You have to to pay impact fees and inspection fees. And, you know, for a project of this size, that would be, I would think, millions of dollars. So you have to really be committed to the project when you're, when you're pulling permits.

So, Jason, I've got a question on that same line. There's a little development on 1600 North that they were going to put twin homes, and they pulled the permit, but it's been like Forever, and they have forever to build it.

The one on, uh, furthest east, are you talking about?

Correct.

Yeah, yeah, that, that plat has been recorded, so that, that is vested. So they, uh—

But they, but they're not doing anything with it.

So yeah, so it's zoned PRD. That, I, I'm assuming that's the one you're talking about with the cul-de-sac. Yeah, because it's zoned PRD and it's— the plat has been recorded, and, and we are actually getting progress on that. But yeah, that's That's a different issue in the fact that they've recorded the plat and it's zoned PRD, so they can build it according to that standard.

And they can take as long as they want.

Yes.

Okay.

So I have one more question too. If you go back to the picture of the— on 900 East.

Keep going.

Sal, sorry.

Correct.

Say that again.

The, the main thing when you have the— you can see the roads. Oh, making us sick, Jason.

Trying to be fast. That's all the slides I have.

So which—

the picture?

Yeah, right there.

Right.

So, so on, on 900 South, you have an in and out, and, uh, I think we talked about, is there a way that that 900 South could be a one-way so the traffic does not go into the neighborhood, or that's long gone? Yeah, I, I don't know that that's something we I mean, I brought up the meeting, but that's fine.

Okay. Yeah. Right now it's proposed as, you know, a full access as far as I can tell. You know, if a traffic study— one of the other requirements of the settlement agreement is they have to do a traffic study with the project. And so that traffic study will typically have mitigation measures that they recommend to Mitigate the impact of traffic. If it were to say that that's what was needed, is only be a right-in, right-out, for example, then that might be something.

I mean, one way that would force everything onto State Street and not into the neighborhood. Plus, if you came out on 400 East, they'd have to go down 900 South pretty much.

But yeah, and, and maybe— I don't know if the, uh, a representative from Wright Development is here and could speak to that possibly about whether they could do that or they'd be willing to agree to that.

Thank you for your time this evening. We appreciate it. Uh, the question is related to 900 South.

So could you introduce yourself?

Sorry.

Yeah, introduce yourself for the record.

Spencer Wright.

Thank you.

Is the question related to 900 South, or the—

The question is 900 South, and you got right now you have a right-in, right-out, or right-in, whatever, left-in, right-out, so, or unrestricted. So would it be a possibility that that could be a one-way road and all the traffic goes out on the state street? So you don't have 650 parking stalls or cars going through that neighborhood. Just a thought.

Yeah, good question. I don't know that we've discussed that or thought about that. How would the residents that live over on 400 East, how would they get to State Street?

They go down 4th East out on to the light to 800 South.

So it has been discussed. So for him to say, oh, this has never been discussed, then the gentleman that had the city— the neighborhood meeting didn't do his job to take it back and say, this is what the neighborhood wants. This is what they need for this area because of children and everything else. Why are we even having this discussion? Maybe the neighbors should tell you how we feel and what we need since these gentlemen aren't doing their job.

Thank you.

Mayor, if you wouldn't mind. I was the representative at the neighborhood meeting, and, and I can say that did come up, and it was specifically looked at in the traffic study that was submitted along with our application. And, and it was evaluated as to whether or not that was one of a few mechanisms that can be used to address the level of service at the south— at the 900 South and State Street intersection. And so my apologies to Spencer that maybe I didn't address with him.

Is—

yeah, no, just to clarify, what I was referring to is in the settlement agreement. We hadn't discussed that in terms of language or site plan. That's what I was referring to.

But I guess, too, that 900 South is a city road, so we can do what we want, really.

It is a city road.

That's exactly right. Yeah, the access on 900 South is up to the city right now. The only way to restrict the access into the project would be to put in some kind of a median or have a pork chop, and that's something that we, we could consider. But in terms of the road— yeah, and again, that's a, that's a, that's it. The roads are city issues.

Okay, thank you.

Can I ask a question about your traffic study? Um, I have seen traffic studies that have used formulas to manipulate the number To get the outcome that they want, so I'm wondering if we can request a true count traffic study, something that actually shows actual impact to the area. We've got State Street there. We've got a lot of you know the number of apartments that you've got there. I mean, is there a way that we could make sure that we have a traffic study that accurately defined instead of just pulling out whatever formula works to get the result that you want?

We, we have confidence in the engineer that did the traffic study, and in fact, when we submitted it first, there were some concerns with the city on some of the assumptions of the study. And so one of our rounds of comments was to address those concerns and adjust the study. So we submitted a study, and it's been reviewed by the City's engineer, and I believe the individual who reviewed it was a traffic engineer. I don't recall his name. Perhaps he's gone. Jason with the city at this point.

John.

Oh, John. But he reviewed it and had some comments to it, and then we resubmitted. The traffic counts that went into the study were actual counts. Someone came out and counted at the AM and PM peak hours. And, you know, the city always has the right, obviously, to hire an And another traffic engineer if they're worried about the veracity of the study, but it was reviewed by city staff and, and adjusted accordingly.

Refresh my memory, would a new traffic study be required for this new project?

We did a new traffic study for, for our—

for this application.

Yeah, there seems to be some confusion. Yeah, as far as you did a new traffic study like recently, or what you're talking about, 2021?

No, no, no, just recently. Yep. We had the neighborhood meeting, and that was a big concern of the neighbors, and we commissioned a traffic study at that time that was, that was created for this particular application and this development agreement project.

Includes actual traffic counts, correct?

That's correct, and it talks about these access points, the distance from State Street. It contemplates different mechanisms that could be used to adjust the level of function for each intersection.

So were there any mitigation measures that you need to The—

I don't recall off the top of my head all of the conclusions of the study, but I can say that there was not a right-in, right-out required on 900 South that would affect the level of function at the intersection of 900 South and State Street. I don't recall on State Street or the other intersections. This one's been more the focus. So, so the answer is no, there was not any traffic mitigation effort required.

So is UDOT— have you gotten approval from UDOT for that?

The traffic study was what we call a Level 2 UDOT traffic study. We anticipated that UDOT requires it, so we built the study to the specifications for UDOT. We have met with UDOT on the previous application where the access on State Street is a right-in, right-out at its same location. And they approved that one years ago preliminarily. And so we have not got another approval. We would normally do that after zoning when we get into the site plan phase, but we have no anticipation that UDOT would have any issue with the access that they control, which is on State Street.

So I don't see a— do you have a deceleration lane?

Yes, this particular sheet doesn't show the striping. If you zoom in real close to that text and the callout on State Street, there is a callout showing a decel lane that we built in, an additional dedication for striping of a decel lane.

Yes.

So that's a standard width?

The decel lane was 12 feet, if memory serves, but I would rely on my engineer to confirm that through the site plan process.

Okay.

Is there—

I mean, we just kind of jumped over this, but I don't know if this is a possibility or not, But is there a possibility, if the residents wanted it, that the 4th East would be blocked off, and that would just be 9th South underneath the project and traffic for the project? And then is that, is that something that—

Blocked off in the sense of like maybe a cul-de-sac there or something like that, or what?

Just, just to make it so that, that 9th South was exclusive. Used by the project and cars weren't going from the project into the neighborhoods. I don't know if that's something that residents want or not, but yes, absolutely.

Also, did the scope of your traffic study extend past the 9th South and State Street intersection? Did it study at all the impact of the growth in the neighborhood at all, or was it simply that intersection?

Yeah, I know. The traffic study studied all the intersections right around the project, and then in the neighborhood meeting there was a request that we do a particular closer look. I think there's a phenomenon where people go to Costco and they go and try to turn around and they get stuck and go in. So I brought that up with our traffic engineer, and he said, that's a hard nut to crack. We don't have models or mathematics to predict that. And, and so he did address it. I believe there is some verbiage in the traffic study discussing it, but in terms of a sophisticated model, I don't know that there is. And Mayor, let me be honest, I love these neighbors. I had a great interaction with them. I found that public meetings go a little bit better if, if we could follow the public comment process rather than engaging directly back and forth.

But Anyway, I appreciate that, but I'll take care of that.

Thanks. Sorry.

There, as far as— but back to my question on this 9th South, because it seems like there's neighborhood interest in if 9th South was basically capped at 4th East, if that would help the cause or not.

So I need to point out that there is still an access out on 4th East, right? So this is not just accessing directly from State and 4th. There is one over here as well.

Remove that.

And just to clarify that, because this is a settlement agreement, we're treating it like a rezone. This has not gone through any full size, you know, full site plan. The traffic study has not fully been reviewed because of—

Do you have any ideas of what would be the goal for my area? The neighbors would like to have the project face out on State Street and 9 South and keep all the traffic out there, and that would allow it to not be as interrupted in their neighborhoods.

Yeah, here's the project study.

I looked at it, have all my little tabs in there. You have to think of what's the desire of the development to go deep into the neighborhood. You know, you've got multiple roads, multiple lanes heading They can't go east, but they kind of get in at the mall. They can go south and get to some restaurants. The immediate residents on 4th and 9th, there's a couple there that would see the most impact. Again, a diagonal diverter, if you could, without me drawing it, take any corner of the intersection and draw a diagonal through it, and that would be a hard turn. So cars couldn't turn through or left. They could go right only.

Right only.

You could diagonal it the other direction. You could try to calm it with a traffic circle. I did that at the City of Sparks. We put reflector cones. You don't have to put hardscape.

You can do it with other things.

And we're limited to what we can do just due to the width of the road. It's 34 feet of asphalt on that south and About 40 feet on the fourth piece. So there are things we could do. It's just what are the two parties willing to look at when you can't fit geometrically?

So, go ahead and stay there for a sec.

Yeah, we have we have no need or That's not part of the project. That's not part of our goal. So the only things that are critical is that residents can get from State Street to the 900 South axis right there, and then that if they came from the north, they could get into the loading/unloading area. But anything south of that top axis on 400 East And everything east of the access on 900 South. We don't, we don't need to have access to that. So if there's something that the city would like to propose to prevent that, we would support that 100%.

Okay, that sounds great. So it'd be a matter of just figuring out what that looks like. Unless I'm misreading this, I don't want to do something negative as a memoire, but is that something you might We don't want it.

We don't want the project, period.

Yeah, no settlement, nothing.

Okay, so it would have to be subject to fire emergency vehicles being able to turn around. That's the biggest thing, whether that's a circle or they call it a hammerhead, you can't do a 3-point turnaround. Well, if 4th South were to be closed, you still have to turn a vehicle around. 4 feet, sorry, to get back. And there's just standards of what that has to look like for turning radiuses.

Can you put the other one on 4 feet? A keyed entrance, so a gate that fire has access?

Yeah, it's not so much— they can do that too, but they don't back out. Like if someone drove down the road and they need to turn around because they realize it's a dead end, they have to be able to turn around.

And not backing.

Or if there's a gate there, they just open the gate and drive out.

Yes, but not another person, not a non-fire truck vehicle, right? If you're just a person on a truck pulling a trailer or something and you realize that's a dead end, then they have to be able to U-turn it somehow. There's just banners.

So hypothetically, the developer says that they They're good with making it so that they can access the neighborhood. Do you think of all the different solutions you feel, and if there's a solution that will work to make that happen? I'm just trying to figure out because we're in the site where it's settled on agreement, and just if that's a real thing, then that should be part of the agreement.

Yes, I think there's things that could be done, and I also think they could provide options, and we could bring.

The goal would be to keep traffic out of the neighborhood, right?

Yeah, that's what it sounds like.

Yeah.

All right, any other questions?

Okay, thanks for now.

All right, let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Um, as far as So what I'd like you to do is, you know, we want everyone to be heard, obviously, um, but to the extent that there's the same concerns, you know, over and over, if you can kind of just keep that in mind as you make your comments. I'm fine with, you know, hearing the same thing 2 or 3 times, but if we go more than that, then it starts to not make sense. So I'd like you just to— the goal is to inform us the best you can, and so just keep that in mind as you do your comments.

Okay, thank you. Uh, I just have to say, whoa, Tex, on this. We're not settling. We don't want to settle. We don't want a settlement agreement. Terry is going to vote no to a settlement agreement. We need you, Dave, you, Lynnae, and you, Dave Spencer, to vote no to this. We don't want to compromise here. There's no way we're going to come out on top here. This is going to be bad for us. Let me tell you, we're at Christmas, okay? You guys can all watch this movie, It's a Wonderful Life. We're dealing with the Potters here, Mr. Potter, okay? We don't want to, to make our quality of life crap, okay, around our place. We need to not compromise.

We We need to compromise.

would not have this here at all. All right, so listen, I know you got a big old lawsuit. We understand that. Pay the money. We got some money in our account. Pay them. If you have to pay them off, pay them off. We don't want it here. Let's put commercial in. We can put in— that's another strip mall. We can put in banks. No more compromise. I'm sorry, Mr. Wright. You're gonna— you need to go somewhere else. You need to find another place.

Go to Provo.

Can't we trade them some property in Provo? We don't want them here at all. No compromise. None of this 9th South, 4th East Bowl. We don't want it at all. Okay, now listen, this is our last chance with some of you because some of you are moving on. We can put— we can stop this tonight. But we need you people who voted to put down the Stage 3 Master Plan to vote against this and stay with your convictions. Listen, you're going to all move on and you're going to be remembered not by how much cash you kept into the account, but how you stood on principles and how you stood up to these lawsuits. Yeah, bark, bark, bark. We're supposed to be afraid of that? No, this is a time for the Currys to rise up and say, we're not putting up with this anymore. We're supporting the people of Orem. Okay? We're not going to say, okay, Mr. Potter, yes, you can have it because it makes us money or because you threaten us. Remember, the Mr. Potters of the world, they don't back down unless you are as tough as they are.

Them.

Okay, we don't want to compromise with these people. No more talk about that. The barking dogs, the threatened lawsuits, they'll go away at some point. We got money to fight it. We have attorneys to fight it. Listen, I know it's crazy, but let's fight it. Let's stand up, get ourselves out on the ledge, and fight this. Stop the compromise. We got to stay out of the way of those bulldozers, you know. We got to— we got to say enough's enough. The State Street Master Plan is gone. We're not bringing it back, okay? And I don't know what else to say. Listen, these folks all here would agree with me on this, right?

Yes!

We don't want this plan at all, right? Not good compromise.

Okay, thank you. Next up, and just by way of the way this works, um, be respectful and just make your arguments logically and stick to that.

Thank you.

And if you'll state your name before you start.

My name is Ken Temple. I'd like to say good evening, Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the City Council. My home is located directly across the street on 900 South. Where you see it widened there, that is the beginning of my property, and it goes all the way to the corner at 400 East. I've done my own traffic study over the the last 25 years, which is how long I've owned this home. And I can tell you that just with the minimal traffic that travels down 900 South, which is only 34 feet wide, that we're already scraping door handles just with a minimum amount of traffic. If they put an entrance on 900 South, I can I can see traffic backing up all the way to State Street during peak hours. I can also see that with the width of that street, first of all, people are going to park on the street.

They're not—

visitors are not going to pull into that. The natural reaction is to just park on the street and walk in. There won't be enough room. For that level of traffic on this very narrow street. Also, I find it interesting that early on in this meeting we're talking about the history and preserving the history of Orem. I assume that that's important to you as it is to us. Right across from my property on the corner of 900 South and 400 East, the street sign says National Historic District. If they put this monstrosity in, that will crush any history that this city has, that this neighborhood has contributed to since 1943. With this monstrosity, you will bring in additional crime, overtax our city services, police, fire. Can anyone in this room think of any possible benefit to this apartment building going up?

No.

We talk about money.

The lawsuit.

The lawsuit. I guess we're—

And how much it's costing. But you know what? It's costing them the same thing. We talk about the possibility of losing. They could also lose. We need to be strong, courageous, fight for our city, fight for our neighborhoods, and fight for our children who would be put in jeopardy. All this talk about the traffic studies and this and that is a bunch of nonsense. I've lived there for 25 years. I know what the traffic's like. I know what the road can handle. It cannot handle an entrance to a 310 or 315-unit apartment building. It cannot. You can spin it any way you want. You can get whatever traffic studies you want. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It can't handle it. This will bring our neighborhood to its knees.

Thank you.

My name is Greg Dourdan.

I'm not a resident of this neighborhood, but I do I do know a couple of interesting facts. One fact is Orem City is the 4th largest city for population density in the state. Kearns is number 1. Taylorsville is number 2. Provo is 38th.

Salt Lake City is 52nd.

We're number 4. We have 5,200 people per square mile in Orem City. That's the same density of London, England. I don't want to live in London, folks.

This city is special because Because it's a family city.

We don't need 300 more apartments in the city. Now, one of the reasons you put in the moratorium was because you didn't want Vineyard moved on to say State Street.

State Street.

This would be a crack into putting more apartments on State Street where the stupid apartments don't even belong.

I'm sorry, developers are in this to make money. They need 300 apartments to make money. Forum City is not in the business of making other people money. My suggestion is the same thing Nancy Reagan said, just say no.

Yeah.

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen.

Good evening.

Hang on, we might want to pause. I think we're having some audiovisual problems. Yeah, we are. The, uh, yeah, maybe if we could just take a quick break, see if we can get it back on. We should take a quick break.

Are you ready to start?

Yeah.

All right, so you're all witnesses.

We did not plan this.

What happened was the live feed stopped working, and so when the live feed stopped working, we started recording it, and that recording will be released tomorrow.

So we attempted to bring the live feed back, but no luck.

I'm not sure why exactly it didn't work. So we're recording it.

We've got Councilman Jeff Lansing is on a notebook over here so he can hear everything and see everything for the vote later.

So with all that in mind, We'll go back to—

if you'd like to just hop up and clarify what you want to clarify, and we'll come back to the public comment.

I'd like to clarify.

So during the break, I realized that the—

I found out that the cul-de-sac pavement has to be 94 feet. Some of the older code allows 75 feet, so it's a little bit harder to fit that in. There's 3 homes and the developer, so We can work with them, they can provide some information, but it's not as simple as it probably led to believe.

How about on the diagonal?

Yeah, those are—

those are usable, but I would suggest that the developer's engineer maybe come back with some cul-de-sac options. There's a lot to go into their property. Okay, from—

and I'd be interested to hear more, but from what I heard, that was a fairly high priority for them.

The neighborhood.

Okay, thank you. And, and I think we— I mean, we very clearly understand the number one choice on this is just to not do it. I'd be interested to hear from some of you, if this is to happen potentially, what would be some of the things like blocking off that street that would be things that you care about and want.

So let's continue with public comments. Hey, thanks.

Um, I live on 400 East. Um, what's your name? Oh, sorry, my name is Tammy Rodriguez. Um, love it for McDonald's, who I grew up in his neighborhood. Um, so there is a concern in our neighborhood as it stands because the traffic on State Street backs up so egregiously during Um, high traffic times, cars circumvent that by coming through my neighborhood, and they're not happy about having to do so. They're not happy about having to not get to where they want when they want, so they come down my street like nobody's business. It's awful, and it's both directions. They try to avoid State Street by coming into our neighborhood. That's as it is without 650+ additional cars Trying to get to their home, which would be right there. And I guarantee you traffic on State Street is going to be backed up to the point where they can't access 900 South. So how are they going to get there? They're going to come through my neighborhood.

Our neighborhood.

So, um, parking is another issue. If 2.09 stalls per unit is what they have to park in within their structure, Are they going to guarantee tenants that rent from them have no friends, family, or visitors? Because at 2 cars per unit for a 3-bedroom or a 2-bedroom, it's not enough parking for the residents. So they either restrict the number of cars that residents are allowed to own or park there, or they've got to say no friends, no family, because those cars will come into our neighborhood. And on 900 South, Crap. Um, anyway, okay, so Mayor, I saw your ad online and I watched it with my children where you said since our tenure began, no new high-density housing units have been built except for this one. This directly impacts my home, my family, my neighborhood. I understand that it's so easy when you're not a party to where you are building to make decisions for that neighborhood, but you really don't have any idea what's going on or how it will impact because you're not in the situation. My children continually ask me to move out of my home of the last 24 years to anywhere but Warren, as our neighborhood unfortunately has been methodically and systematically swallowed by high-density housing and is rapidly on the decline. If a single mom could afford it, I'd be gone. And it is sad to me that throughout this whole situation, my sense from Warren City was, well, if you're squeezed out, sorry, we don't value your home and your neighborhood. We don't value your city. Oh, are you okay? Anyway, so my suggestion is to put a gate— we've discussed discussed with Logan—

is it Logan?

Yes. The possibility of that 400 access point be gated with a key card. You have to get the key card to move in or out, and then the trash could access it there. Also, closing off 9th at 400 would do a great service because it would at least discourage those 600 people from coming through my neighborhood and endangering the children that to want to play in front of their home without fear of being squished.

Thanks. I'll build it up to those points.

Um, as far as the traffic going down there that just is trying to shortcut through, the city could do things about that, right?

As far as irrespective of this development, because that's been an issue for Quite a while. Cars come racing around, they're trying to go to the mall, they're trying to go different places, and they, they buzz into that area and they drive like crazy.

I heard about that before this.

So in other words, you're, um, yes, we could look at traffic calming and traffic diverting measures, um, just even in general.

Is that what you're asking?

That's what I'm asking.

Okay, so I made note.

Okay, so that, that's, that's one thing.

I do want to get to a resolution on this, this idea, if we're talking a gate, if we're talking whatever, because I think to the extent that we can keep traffic out of the neighborhood, that's a huge win for the neighborhood. And as far as cars parking, do you have any— for the developer, do you have any thoughts on that? I mean, I've seen different apartment complexes, the access, whatever. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a good point. Those areas owned by UVU, and the cars don't fit, and so they go into the neighborhoods.

Now we're proposing much more parking in this than what they got over there, but as far as— do you have any thoughts on guest passes, visitor passes, how to—

the goal is to make, if you go in, is to make you independent and the neighborhood stays independent, you guys stay independent. But how would you deal with that parking?

I think it's important to remember though, I don't remember the exact unit mix, but a number of the units will be 1-bedroom.

And so those, uh, do require—

The numbers are on the slide if you want to bring up the slide.

So we've, we've developed other apartment projects, and traditionally in most places, if you have 1.75 parking stalls per unit, that is sufficient. So just based on our experience, the 2.09, I think it was. So you've got 71 studios and 139 1-bedrooms. So in our experience—

And how many 2-bedrooms and 3-bedrooms?

The 2-bedrooms is 89 and the 3-bedrooms is 12. So in our experience, the 2.09 stalls is more than enough to ensure that everyone will have a place to park and We're committed to doing all we can to make sure that's the case.

Is that for residents or is that for visitors?

Yeah, there's, there's visitor parking as well.

Is that contained within the 650 stalls?

Yes, that's contained within the 650 stalls. But I think it's important to note that the settlement agreement, that's a minimum number of hardened stalls, and I think I can confidently say that we will provide more than 650 stalls.

That's the minimum number that we have to keep.

Okay, and so would there be something that you would basically—

I mean, because this meeting will be recorded, um, would you be willing to say, say, who knows what happens in the future, and who knows what happens in the future, but if there ever became a problem with cars spilling out into the neighborhood, that Orms—

you—

I mean, Ormsay can regulate that and basically kind of force everything back into here.

No question.

Yeah, we need to be a good neighbor, absolutely.

All right, thank you. So we got those, those issues so far written down.

Yes, so I've, I've, uh, made a note here about the gated key card.

And, um, and, and she also mentioned that we want to make sure and again review the off of 900 South diverting traffic before it gets to 400 East from 900 South.

Okay, sounds good.

Okay, ma'am, if you'd like to go ahead.

My name is Heather Daglet.

I live right on 400 East as well. Um, I have 3 kids under the age of 11. Just within that block, there are 50 kids that live there, just within 400 East, 450 East, and then 850 South. So just within there, there are 50 kids that live there full-time. My kids don't have a park in our neighborhood to go play. So we have to cross 800, which is already so busy. We have to cross the 800 South to go to the steering plane. If you just put 600 units across from my kids, that's 600 people that are—

I don't know.

I can't just allow my kids to go and freely go to the steering plane.

I'm sorry.

So you're taking away a lot of my kids' possibilities of playing. And I know that this isn't addressed to you guys, but I just— the attorney brought up, if we don't let this pass today, then the lawsuit will happen and much worse could happen. Those 7— it goes back to 7 levels in my mind. What's the difference? You have 7 levels, you have 4 levels.

It's the exact same.

You're taking away the safety of our neighborhood, and it takes away the— it takes away the joy of our neighborhood. It's gone whether you block off those roads or not. My kids walk on 400. There's bus stops. It doesn't matter if there's 7 levels or there's 4 levels. It's the exact same. So you fight it. Or you don't. So, hi, my name is Ashley McCrary. I also live in the neighborhood on 450 East. Um, while I understand that growth and development are inevitable, the manner in which this potential development was planned and presented Was done in a way that Orange City should be appalled by. I know as a resident of this neighborhood, I sure am. Why would we want to agree to this settlement and continue to do business with a developer who has taken the low road and the shortcut in many aspects? We could get into that, but we don't have time today. Behind closed doors with previous councils, all of the things. Why are we wanting to? Stay in business with this developer. Um, uh, let's see, one second. At a previous meeting, at the Planning Commission meeting, the developer's representative addressed a definition of adjacent.

He—

they said that, uh, initially a neighborhood meeting was not needed because there was no adjacent residential properties that it affects. I think their definition is wrong, and according to several websites on the internet, when in reference to real estate, adjacent means the land lot or property adjoining the property in question along a lot line or separated only by an alley, easement, or street. Therefore, this development is adjacent to our neighborhood. And I feel like there's a lot of trying to cut through loopholes and do the things, and that just means shady business to me.

That—

and then why would we want to do— continue to do business with, with the shadiness?

Um, uh, he also—

there was also a statement that was that we shouldn't be surprised by the property being converted into commercial property. Um, we're not— we weren't going to be surprised by that. Were we expecting maybe a restaurant, maybe a bank, maybe some retail spots? What we were surprised by was the influx of the residential amount that is going to negatively impact our neighborhood to the nth degree. And that has all been discussed today. Um, I also want to say, in the settlement agreement, it states—

I don't—

I just screenshot it, but it says agreement and the project-specific development standards is consistent with and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the community. None of this proposed permits promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Um, thank you very much. The safety of my 2 children, the 50 other kids who live within walking distance of this. Um, I also have a video I took of 900 South at 2:15 PM, not peak hours, not peak rush time, and you literally cannot drive without it being a one-way street. There are so many cars parked on there at 2:15 PM on a Friday. So I'd like to say, I mean, I have the video right here if we want to watch it, but it is a major problem that is not going to be fixed by a dead-end street. It's not going to be fixed by that.

Mayor and Council, thank you so much for hearing, uh, our heartfelt pleas.

Um, my name is Chad Brown.

I live on the corner of 900 South and 500 East with my wife and my 3 kids.

My 10-year-old little boy catches the bus on 900 South, just, I don't know, probably 50 yards south of this complex. My 12— or my 13-year-old, 14-year-old daughter They're getting older and older.

My 14-year-old daughter walks to the Sarah Theater once a week. She works at the Snow Shack in the parking lot of Zirker's.

We can trust that our children can wander through our neighborhood and be safe, and that's something that we're unwilling to give up. I have a mentor who said this to me.

He said, do you know who the most dangerous person at the table is? The person who has nothing to lose.

In this situation, our neighborhood, our city, has nothing to lose. Whether it's 4 stories or 7 stories with a difference of 30 units, who cares?

Who cares?

Now, you have to make a choice. Are you going to make a courageous move? Are you going to stand for the people? Or are you going to protect the assets? Our fate, our neighborhood's fate, is in your hands. You decide the legacy of this neighborhood. My mentor also tells me short-term pain equals long-term gain, but the opposite is true, that short-term gain equals long-term pain.

I'll let you decide which is which.

Since one of the arguments against going through with the lawsuit is that we might end up with the original plan, I would like for everybody to see what the original plan is. If we can bring that up. May we do that?

Yeah, we're trying to do it right now.

I'd like everybody to see what the thread is.

Thank you.

Okay, just a few things to point out. Number one, lots of open space. All there is is a circle of apartments. Number 2, in this plan we get what the zoning was at the time. We get art and we get commercial. We get rid of the Closed parking lot. Closed parking lot, which now, if we go with that, has all the amenities, the swimming pool and all that good stuff on the roof. Sure, it's shorter, it's not as tall, What does that cost us when it's already a skyscraper? The sun's going to go down in their neighborhood a few minutes later. Excuse me. They have given up nothing in the proposed settlement agreement. They've given up only that Recording in progress. Which might have been some benefit to the neighborhood, that is, some shopping. We have been cut off from shopping in the mall as far as walking to it. We cannot walk to the mall. I see no threat to getting the original. It's better for us than what they're proposing. All they have given up is the part they didn't want to build in the first place, the commercial.

Amen.

Good evening, my name is Debbie Lamb. I have lived in this neighborhood for over 30 years, born and raised, moved for a little bit, and brought my family back because of the love that I have for this neighborhood. When I was little, I would go to Medbold and buy ice cream and milk. When I was about the same age, I would go to where Zuercher's is and play in the park that was there, Mona Spencer Elementary. Those things are all gone. My kids can't enjoy those things that I enjoyed. I would ride my bike in the dirt hills of Costco or go sledding during the winter over there as well, ride my bike through the neighborhood with no worries of traffic.

I have 6 children, none of which can do that safely without being—

without their mother being terrified that something's going to happen.

The traffic that we have right now is horrible.

I'm on 500 East and watch it every day as they come through hoping to get to the mall or Costco and hitting a dead end and speeding down 500 East to get where they need to go. I watched a girl turn on 500 East and 1070 South, caught air, took out one of the speed limit signs, and kept going. Luckily, there was not a child on that sidewalk or he would have been killed. This cannot happen. We do not need any more traffic in this neighborhood. We all have children. We all have families. Orem is Family City, USA. We need to protect that. These children need to be able to be outside playing with friends, riding bikes, and not worried that somebody is going to fly through this neighborhood and take them out. Please consider those of us that have lived here longer than the Wright Group has owned this property and what's important to us, and those of us that voted to put you into this position due to the promise of no more high density.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Jared Fisher. I have not lived here as long as she has. I've lived here for 2 and a half years at the corner of 9th and 550. We live on the corner of that cul-de-sac that people come and scream down and see that they can't get to Costco and then turn around, and I guess they don't scream down. Generally, they're pretty good when they come into the neighborhood, and then they see they can't get where they're going, and they double their speed on the way out. I'm a statistician by trade, so I could— I'd like to talk numbers. But for me, the neighborhood's somewhat about vision. I wanna fix up my fence. I wanna build a garage someday. I want to invest in my house, and I don't feel like I can right now, because I don't know if our neighborhood will exist. In 10 years. It's gradually eaten up. I want something beautiful to be built on that medical property.

Be great.

But I also want my 4 kids to be safe, and I want to know that I can live in my neighborhood a long time.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Josue Alvarez. I've been living here for 8 years, and I just want to tell you, I These are the best people I've ever been around with. This neighborhood is beautiful. I've learned a lot from my neighbors. They're amazing people. And just to see this happening, I think it says— it's like they're the ones who built this. They've been here the longest, right? That place where this place is about to be built is sacred to me. These people are amazing. The history is just amazing. And And just to see that this is like— I don't know if it's approved or not, but it's— I feel like they're being bullied. They're the ones that built this place, and I'm totally against this. Uh, I hope that, uh, you guys, that you guys can have a heart and feel the, uh, the love that the people in the neighborhood, uh, have for the city. And, uh, It feels to me in my heart that it's like, it's like a big bully here, right? And the heroes are being bullied. And if the heroes want this place not to be built because it's going to bring all this negative stuff, why not hear them, right? Um, I love this city and I've been here 8 years, and, and right now we don't need, uh, this apartments in here. We don't need this at all. And we need to listen to the voices here. They're very sacred to me. And I just want to say that I know in my heart that this is wrong. Building this big apartment complex is not— it's not going to bring positive stuff here. And especially for schools. Schools were hit pretty hard by some changes. And, and, and the closing down of schools, and now adding 300 apartments or plus. Just think about what it's gonna do to the parking spaces, to, to the transportation. It's gonna be bad. So I just gotta say that from my heart.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Mark Gessel. I just moved into the neighborhood a year ago. Um, last December. A great little neighborhood. Uh, love your city of Orem. I moved from the state of Washington. I love Orem. I love the rec center. I love the fact that you got those family dressing rooms or whatever. Wonderful place to be. We love your parks. We love your, you know, all the festivities. We love it here. We just love— I, I just chose this place to retire. I could have retired in a lot of places. Uh, chose here. And we love it here. But this seems like a major disaster. One, one key thing that I like to make sure that we understand, and maybe go in more depth discussion, is on the traffic study. As I look at this development, this 600-car development, there's 3 entrances in the development, 2 of which go across State Street. In other words, if you're heading southbound on State Street, And you cross, you decide not to turn left at 800 South, which is the only light. You can come further south and you can turn into this complex, but you have to wait for all the northbound traffic. Or you can go to 9th South, and then once again you have to wait for all the northbound traffic. So my wife and I come home from the rec center in the morning, and I say, here, turn here at 9th South because there's no cars. You get down a little farther, there's lots of cars. And she never does that. She always goes down to the tattoo parlor or the Burger King, whatever it is.

I can't—

I don't know what streets are. But I can guarantee you that if people are there at 9th South and they can't get in because there's 3 or 4 cars and there's a lot of traffic going northbound on State Street, they're going to go down to one of those other entrances into development, which will take them down to the tattoo parlor or down to Burger King. They're going to turn in there, and then they're gonna have to race through our neighborhood to get back to the apartment complex. There's no way in the world you can control that. Unfortunately, there's only 3 entrances to this place, and only one of them has a light, and that light is at 8th South. And that means that people go to 8 South, they take— coming southbound on State Street, they go to 8 South, they take a left, and, and that's going to back up. So the City of Warren is going to have to deal with the traffic. I'll call bogus on the traffic study. I know what the traffic study says, but I'd like to take an in-depth look at it because I think it's bogus. And the City of Warren is going to have to deal with that. People turning left on 8 South, heading southbound on State Street, and the traffic backing up at that light. So you're gonna have to time that light a lot differently. Either that, or the people are gonna go down past 8 South to 9 South, and they're gonna have to wait and wait and wait. You get 3 or 4 cars piled up, they're just gonna go down to one of the next entrances down further south, and they're gonna turn through, which means they have to come through our neighborhood to get there up 4th— 4th, what is that, 4th East? So anyway, bottom line is I'm calling bogus on the traffic study. I'd like to take a look at that, and I think you should too.

That's it. Thank you.

My name is Linda Sheldon. I live kitty-corner to this development. A couple of months ago, I think I was out walking. I might have been in my car. I don't remember, but I saw— it's been mentioned that people will drive in trying to find the mall, and there's a stop sign coming in on 900 South. They whiz through the stop sign going over the speed limit all the way down to the wall that goes in the mall and came back. Way over the speed limit, and it scared me half to death. Another thing, something that people haven't brought up yet is we've got a car dealership there on 900 South. We have people test driving cars that come in and out of our neighborhood. People that we don't know don't always obey the speed limit or the speed speed dip. They park cars on both sides of 900 South, so sometimes I can't even get through 900 South. Because the car's parking. As a single, I often get invited to activities at these large apartment complexes, and I don't go. There is no visitor parking anytime there is an activity at these apartment complexes because there is no parking. Sometimes there's not even adjacent parking. So I'm going to end up with parking— people parking in front of my house, which makes me very nervous. I've got a rental property across the street from my house with more cars and people that are supposed to be there. It makes me nervous when people are parking in front of my house that I don't know. I'm all alone. Well, I should be all alone, another story. But it makes me nervous that we're gonna have weird people parking at our church. We don't— if we can block off Knight South, that would be great. But yeah, I do not want weird people parking in front of my house. I don't want people whizzing through going 90 miles an hour. So thank you.

My name's Annette Olson, and I respectfully request that you vote against the settlement. I agree with all of the other things that have been said. I think it will be a problem for Orem City because the traffic is already backed up so badly on State Street. And on 8th South, you add 600 more cars trying to get in and out of there, and it is going to be a much worse bottleneck than it already is.

Thank you.

Ralph Olson. My history in this neighborhood goes back to the early 1960s. When my older siblings were living on the very block where I live now. I've seen a lot of Aurum history since 1960, '61, and '62, and I love Aurum. I've always loved Aurum. I remember as a boy waking up in the morning where my sister and her husband lived, faced east, and I remember the sun coming up over the mountains. I'll never forget it. I was so impressed. I'd never seen that before. I want to register my vote that I'm very against the compromise. I don't think it solves anything to compromise compared to what was proposed before. I'm sorry, actually, that the original proposal way back when for a bank and other things was— I think it was previous city council. In a way, I feel Before you're trying to dig your way out of a previous city council mistake— mistake, in my opinion— to approve such a thing, forcing us into this kind of a compromise, no compromise, lawsuit, blah blah blah situation. On the way up the hill coming into Orem on the diagonal, there's a monument or a notice that says, Orem— welcome to Orem, Family City, USA. Is that going to be a tombstone, or is that going to be a prophecy? I hope it's a prophecy. And even though it's a difficult decision to proceed with a lawsuit, send me the bill. Send me my part of the bill. I'll be happy to put my money On the lawsuit and declare unequivocally that we've had way, way too much high-density housing, and it's not family-oriented.

It—

this kind of high-density housing, 12 units that have enough bedrooms to actually have a little family, that's not family city.

USA.

2/3 of the units either have no bedroom or one bedroom. Either you pull a bed down out of the wall, or you might have one bedroom. That's enough maybe for 2 people, but not what I would call a family. Let's get our values straight and correct the mistakes as best we can. that have been made in the past, move forward the best we can, but this compromise is not the way to do it. Thank you.

Hi, I know I came in with my little petty concerns at the start of the meeting, but in the last 4 hours Uh, that I've been here. I, I, I know, you know, it's fun for me to listen to these concerns, and, um, I haven't had a chance to go to the court building and change my name, so I'm still Mike Christensen. But, and, and I've lived here in Orem for 20 years, literally, um, up there. I don't live in that neighborhood, but I, you know, I've lived in low-density condos housing up by the Macy's grocery store. McDonald's knows where I live, I think. And, um, I— but, you know, I listen— listening to this, I, I, um, you're the neighbors back there have, uh— at first I kind of felt sort of neutral, but now I'm starting to kind of get the, the point. And this guy who brought up the Pottersville from It's a Wonderful Life, I love that movie too. And, and I don't want to see this become like a A Pottersville. And if I had— I don't know how feasible this would be, but I don't know, like, what our tax monies would allow. But if we had the ability to put our taxes towards turning that— buying that property from these guys, turning it into another park, because that lady was talking about they didn't have a park over there. It would be nice to see if we could kind of maybe get some fencing up and things and, and, and grass and a playground and whatever they kind of need over there.

I don't—

could our taxes afford that? Uh, so that's kind of a thought that I have, but even though I don't even have kids myself yet, so, um, think about that too. And I guess that's it for me.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Bruce Palmer. We own one of the 2 properties across the street on 4th East from this proposed development. Someone mentioned earlier in a prior part of the council not being able to see the sunset again. That would be us. We didn't have the afternoon sun. There are concerns, but I've heard nothing tonight about solutions except the last speaker, possibly. What would be the alternative? To buy them out? Can I afford that? No. Is the zoning gonna like that? No. Is the zoning probable to be put into a park? Not likely. If the dorm has deep pockets, those are all possibilities.

Thank you.

I have one proposal that may be considered. I checked with the city and it is zoned for medical. If the Wrights wanted to put 2 floors of medical, all of us have doctors. I'd find it much more agreeable if we could walk across the street to our doctor. If we have to go where we go now, there wouldn't be that much change in the blueprint. They may have to run oxygen lines or other things to make it work. But that would be more agreeable if they're willing to do something besides just suck it in. I don't know what the options are. If the lawsuit goes forward, I don't see any winning for the neighborhood either. If the city were to win, they still have the rights. There's going to be a settlement somewhere. I can't afford that. I don't want my taxes to go up. But I do want a good neighborhood. My roots go back there past 1947. I've lived there as a child and grew up. My wife and I owned a place on 8th South, and when the city wanted to enlarge the traffic for Costco, they came to us and said, guess what, we're buying your home. They gave us 10% of what what their appraisal was, and trying to be good citizens, since we've already moved out of that home, we complied. And we put the money towards that— towards this home, which we've had. After the last tenant, we spent thousands of dollars on upgrading this home with the hope that one day we could move back into it, back into the place we love. I want you to know that I love Orem City. I always have. I think I always will. But I want you to consider this. If you did make that kind of change, they could even name it the Wright Medical Art Community, whatever they wanted to do. But I hope it can be considered. Thank you.

May or may I have 1 minute? Okay, for the minute I lost getting up there.

We, we didn't— do need to bring this to a close.

Um, I just want to thank thee.

So I— so yeah, so I'll go, go ahead and go, but then yeah, we need to move forward. So go ahead.

I just want to thank the City Council for what you have accomplished in the last 2 years. I appreciate it greatly. You've turned things around. We need to keep it there. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Okay, I think we'll go ahead and close the public comment, and we appreciate all of your comments and thoughts. And we'll turn it back to the council. Is there anybody who wants to go first?

I'm not raising my hand, but I do have a question. Is it Spencer Wright? So quite a few of the citizens spoke about it may be a different project. And I know you're well into this project quite a bit, but is that something that you might be willing to look at, or to look at a different project, maybe a medical?

I don't know.

I know you're— I know you're well into this over 2 or 3 years, but I don't know, just a— it was a good question by the citizens.

Yeah, it's a reasonable question. I don't— I think the answer is no, not at this time.

Okay.

Okay. So is Jeff still up there? Okay. Nobody wants to talk. Nobody likes this. Maybe I'll just throw out some things just to start the conversation with the council.

Okay.

So I fully empathize with the neighbors here tonight. I mean, I really do. Um, I mean, the reason I ran for mayor 2 and a half years ago was because I was sick of all the high density. And no matter what we were told, it just kept coming and coming and coming. And, uh, but I feel like I'm up here with like one hand behind my back tonight because I can't tell you the full story of what's going on here. There's, there's more of the story. Um, at some point we can tell you the rest of the story, but right now we can't. We've had, um— We've been in meetings with attorneys at least, I don't know, 4 or 5 different times over the last couple years. And, um, and our attorneys have advised us that from a risk standpoint, a significant risk standpoint, we're much better off to settle this. Now, we don't want to. It makes us sick. But that's what we're being advised legally. And, and where we are tonight, I mean, to put it straight, where the blame lies is because of previous city leadership. From 2012 to through, through 2021, city leadership approved 3,336 apartments. They regularly promised to slow the growth of the apartments, but they never did. August 9th, 2021. I'm sure that's a date you remember. This all came to a head in the city council meeting when the council adopted a moratorium against future high density until the city could put in place a new plan regarding high density. And that came on the heels of so many citizens being so sick of just being this steamroller that kept adding high density. And I would encourage you to, you know, to get a context of what we're dealing with tonight. I'd encourage you to go back and watch that council meeting during the Bright Development portion, and you'll understand why we're in this situation tonight. Particularly watch the voting section in that, that August 9th meeting, because kind of what's going on here is Like I said, I fully understand where you're coming from. I can fully empathize with it. But it's, it's, you've only got part of the story because you're basically making the arguments that were made 2 and a half years ago when this all started. It's the same arguments, and I completely agree with them. But now we're in a completely different spot because We're in a legal battle, like I say, that's gone on ever since then. As you well know, upon taking the city, the new city council adopted a plan to stop the 10,000 apartments planned for State Street in the State Street master plan. This particular apartment project was one that got kind of in as that was all happening. And like I said before, our current city council has not approved any high-density apartments in the last 2 years. Any high-density apartments you see being built in the last couple years are the result of agreements made by the previous mayor and city council. So, like I say, my personal preference would be to not move the project forward. I mean, that's, that's how I'm wired, and that's how I— what I completely believe. But we're just not making that decision in a vacuum. We've got to look at— and different people have different opinions on this— but we have to look at the total liability to the city in the context of making this decision.

Mm-hmm.

So where we're at right now is we have to choose between basically 2 bad options. And I, and I believe it's my responsibility to the city of Orem to take the, the option that minimizes risk to our taxpayers and citizens as well as you folks. And On that premise, just like I haven't ever done any high density, and I don't—

this—

I don't accept this high density either because I had nothing to do with it. It's just like dropped in our lap. But just like I haven't done any high density, I haven't done any taxes. There have been no new taxes to Orem since this group got in. So our 2 options Option one, we refuse the settlement and the outcome's unknown, and that's where the legal risk comes in. And then you go into if we win the continuing lawsuit and the development stopped, they still own the property and we still have to go down a different path with them. If we if we lose. And, and as far as us winning the lawsuit, we have to look from a practical standpoint, you know, what are the probabilities in us winning versus us losing? We have to look at that. And but if we, if we do lose, then the city will pay the damages from that decision, and the development goes in anyway. So we basically lose twice. We lose The lawsuit, and we lose the control of the size, impact, and look of the project. Now, option 2, we accept the settlement agreement, and the outcome is known. The building height goes from 78 and 7 stories to 52 feet and 4 stories, and we don't impose any additional— any unknown additional costs on our citizens and taxpayers. So, like I say, I feel like we're, we're kind of fighting 2 different arguments. If it was black and white and we're sitting here 2 years ago and this is not requested, it would have never got approved with the current city council. So anyway, those are my thoughts. Everybody's gonna have their own opinion.

Thank you.

It really comes down to a risk-reward, how much risk we're willing to put the city through in order to not accept this settlement. It's a legal risk. So anyway, with that, feel free to say whatever you think. And, and, and, and let me say 2 more things, 2 more things. I would encourage the developer to take a hard thought about this whole thing. I think you've, you've heard the citizens, you've heard the impositions that would be in their lives, um, you've heard how they've lived here and that it's complicated things. But from, you know, just dig deep and think, is that what you want your legacy to be? Um, or is there something else that you could do? Or do we figure out You know, how do we, how do we have the least possible impact on the neighborhood? I, so I live over by Mountain View High School. Right after we built our house over there, we were informed that they were going to put a 500-unit apartment complex in there. That became a battle, and the city basically granted the family the right to build that gigantic apartment complex. We went back with that group, and I remember— and I understand your world completely. Not completely, but the development side. But when we did that, they got that approved. We sat down with them, we went through, and it made— it didn't make sense to do the gigantic apartment project they were proposing. And so they, they backpedaled and they put— that's where Target is now. So they put in Target, that Target went up, and basically the back of the building is just a concrete wall, but there's, I don't know, 50, 60 feet of landscaping all in there. So we don't even know the Target's there. So anyway, there's, there's options, there's things to think about. So you completely have my empathy. I'm in a very difficult situation, but we'll go ahead. Yeah, why don't we start with, um, however you want to do it, Mayor. Yeah, we can start with Jeff. Jeff.

Hi, uh, Mayor.

I, I, I think you expressed very well, uh, my feelings and my concerns, and, uh, the only thing that I would add to what you've said is that perhaps You know, going forward, depending on where this goes, if it is approved, if there are some things that the city can do as far as red curbing sidewalks and things like that, signage.

I know that we've talked about that a little bit before, but some things that we can do to mitigate the traffic going through those neighborhoods and to calm that situation and that concern. But I Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Mayor. As maybe the swing vote 2 years ago, one of 4 people who voted for the moratorium, we thought we were solving all problems. And I think you echoed the concerns that this had gotten far enough along that we were not in love with it, but we understand it.

So I would echo what you've said, Mayor. Thank you.

Terry.

I'm not pausing because I don't know what to say. I'm pausing because I'm so darn angry that I'm trying to keep my composure. To me, it's about quality of life, and it's about being respectful to the citizens in the city. And it's not about caving into a high-density developer. So, Mr. Wright, I feel sorry for your situation. I feel sorry for my understanding that at one time you wanted to do commercial, and the current city council didn't support that. Shame on them. So, I mean, I've got all sorts of random thoughts. Heather, I represent you and your 3 kids. Is that Heather right there? Um, I represent, uh, Chad Brown and your 3 children. I represent the 50 children that live in that area. Uh, I, I represent Debbie Lamb and her 6 children. I have an 8— it's either 6 or 8, I couldn't read my writing. Anyway, uh, I also grew up playing in the Sierra. I, I scraped the gum off the floor of the Sierra, so I understand Walking down to this, I lived. I lived up by the Orem High School and walked down Fourth East. I don't know what I'd say to you when someone says, "You know, don't worry about it, but you'll never see Timpanogos again. So probably take a picture of it and put it in your house because after this is built, you won't be able to see Timpanogos." I don't know what I'd say to that. After it's built. They're gonna have to widen 9th South, right? How? Yeah, how else are you gonna get in there? And 4th East. And please show me a high-density development in the city where there's adequate parking. Just show me one. Oh, let's go over to Ashton Apartments and see what that looks like at the mall where they're parked in Costco. Let's just drive around and see where we can find one. So a third of these apartments will be 2 and 3 bedroom.

Not—

we're talking about studios, but 89 are 2 bedroom, 12 are 3 bedroom. That's 20— that's 32.5%. That's a third of the places will be 2 and 3 bedroom. I don't know, I just got ranty. And Gerald's right, there was, there was no negotiation. Nothing was given up. I understand what the mayor's saying. I understand the risk. Litigation is interesting, and there's no guarantees. For example, now, maybe some of you will disagree with this, but O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend.

That's right.

I'm sorry, but I mean, and some people might disagree with that, but I think most of the people in our country would say absolutely.

Hmm.

But that went to litigation and he was found innocent. At least in the criminal trial, right? So I don't— litigation is interesting, right? Development— they're developers. I don't know why you'd want to take on people in this neighborhood and think that you might win this battle. You've got other properties in the city. Really, do you want— do you want to have that kind of reputation, or do you want to say, let's work something out, maybe we do commercial here? So State Street is definitely open for business. We really welcome commercial up and down State Street. It helps us with our tax base as citizens. So I'm strongly supportive of commercial up and down State Street. I will absolutely vote against any kind of compromise. I said that from the first. And I don't criticize my fellow members of City Council. I've sat in those closed meetings. With the attorneys like the rest of them. And I just think there's an issue called quality of life to me, which makes a big— is a bigger issue to me than somebody threatening that we might sue, or we are suing.

Okay, so that's—

Okay, I was part of the council when we did do the State Street Master Plan. And I have to tell you, the main premise of that was to protect neighborhoods from development and to move any development to State Street. I honestly promise you that was the thinking. We made it so that the most you could have, I think it was a PRD, which was 7 homes to the acre. Correct me, Jason, is it 7?

PRD, yeah.

The idea was that we would protect neighborhoods. We did not want apartments, high density, anything in your neighborhoods. It was to protect your neighbors, and I'm telling you, that was the main thinking. So to move things onto State Street was where we— the thinking was put it there, protect the neighborhoods. Okay, I'm just telling you, that's what was the thought. I am sensitive to the neighborhoods, the neighbor, and I would certainly encourage the developer to work with the neighbors. Seriously, if you want to change the plan, I think we'd be amenable to that. I am not willing, though, to risk more money on this particular lawsuit. I have weighed this. I've been into many meetings. I thought a lot about it, so I will be voting to settle this.

So thank you.

That's fine. You can boo me. I have thought about it a lot. Thank you.

Thank you.

So this is really a difficult issue for us as a council, and for me in particular. When I first moved to Orem over 30 years ago, I lived in this neighborhood. It has wonderful historic homes, and the one thing that I have heard mentioned before, but I didn't hear it tonight. Is in our quest and our emphasis and our constant chatter and talk and push from the governor and everybody else about affordable housing. This neighborhood has owner-occupied affordable housing.

Yeah.

It is providing that for our city. So to create a neighborhood to, to, to, to, to that has such a great quality of life to go along with that affordable housing. Is just amazing that we have that here in Orem. Having lived there, I understand the situation and the safety concerns that a high-density project would cause for this neighborhood. One of the reasons that I ran for city council was to protect the Orem neighborhoods against high-density housing. High-density apartments is what I'm gonna call them, because they're really not affordable housing at all. This proposed development is the definition of high-density apartments encroaching on a neighborhood. While the front of the development is on State Street, the 2 exits that will be most utilized will be— are on the back of the development and pour directly into 2 separate neighborhood streets. This access is invasive and dangerous. On the State Street side is the danger, too. Other apartments on State Street that we have here in Orem don't have access to the neighborhoods behind them. Traffic from high-density housing should not empty into neighborhoods. I have no doubt that this development will cause safety issues, as the increased traffic will expose the neighborhood children, and I've seen those neighborhood children as I've driven in the neighborhood, to increase possibilities of being struck by a car. I do believe that this development that's being proposed will reduce the quality of life and overall will increase the emotional distress for citizens, which is exactly One of the reasons that was stated in the reason for the moratorium, for the legal moratorium. Heaven forbid that the increased traffic which this development will undoubtedly cause will result in the injury of a child in this neighborhood. Now, just for historical context, we've talked about a little bit tonight, but I want to emphasize this. I was in a public meeting held with the neighbors for this development back in 2021. At the time I was running for At that meeting, the developer's representatives said that this was not even the development that they wanted to do, but was forced on them by the old State Street Master Plan. I wish the State Street Master Plan had never been voted into law by the previous city councils. Then this wonderful developer— I think they have good intentions— but this developer could have built the bank that they wanted.

Thank you.

And Wright Development— let me— I just want to clarify, when they purchased this property, it was zoned commercial. They knew it was zoned commercial. They wanted to build commercial. I'm going to say this, but they should be a good neighbor and build commercial. Now, at this point, the city has legal exposure. The proposed agreement is an attempt to settle a lawsuit, as the outcome is uncertain and could result in a worse outcome for the city and for the residents. I certainly feel a duty to protect the city and to safeguard the taxpayers' money. This is a no-win vote. Let's be perfectly clear. The reason we are faced with this difficult decision tonight is the failed State Street Master Plan, and those previous city council members Who supported it, and some of them are still out in the community supporting it. I wish they were here in this meeting to face you. For almost 5 years, the State Street Master Plan stifled redevelopment on State Street by limiting remodels, which was an unintended consequence that didn't respect the property rights of business owners. We talked property rights. Let's look at that too. I was opposed to the State Street Master Plan when it passed in 2018, and as a resident in 2021, I helped to bring awareness to these unintended consequences of unlimited height.

I could go on.

I won't go in and relitigate that, but I joined the council in January of 2022. My first month on the council, we made the needed tough decisions, which we took a lot of heat for, to set in motion the repeal of the State Street Master Plan. Before the moratorium expired. And once again, unfortunately, because of prior City Council's decision to implement the State Street Master Plan, I am forced to vote on this issue tonight, and it is truly a no-win. And that's all I have to say right now.

Thank you, Lenee, for that short speech. I, I called for the moratorium back in 2021, '21, because I'm against high density on State Street. I did vote for the State Street Master Plan back in 2015 or '18, or whatever it was. But what we were sold Was not what we had in the State Street Master Plan. We went to Oregon, and they showed us these apartments that were 3 stories, and they had commercial on the bottom, and it was nice, but not 100 feet. That's garbage. So that's why we put the moratorium on State Street. The key thing is, I think we need to keep the integrity of our neighborhood, and I would hope that right development Would in good faith go and meet with the neighbors and maybe come to a solution and take their ideas. Maybe you can implement that instead of, no, this is the way it is. We were 351, now we're 3 whatever 11, and maybe in good faith do that. And I think that would speak volumes for the citizens of Orem and also the city council in the city. So my advice would be Maybe you need to regroup and meet with the neighbors in good faith, and then go from there, and then see what you can come up with. And maybe it is a development, but maybe there's a wall or something, as the mayor said. But I do not like high density on State Street. I never will. And it's been said that if you're not growing, you're dying, which I don't believe that.

Thank you.

I think Orem is built out, and I think we're thriving, and people want to come to Orem, and businesses want to come to Orem.

Why?

Because we're Families of the USA, and we listen to the citizens.

Thank you.

Does anyone have any follow-ups on any of that? Jeff, do you have anything additional?

No, thanks, Mayor.

Would someone like to make a motion to move forward? Probably not.

Okay.

I move that we consider a proposed settlement agreement between Wright Development Group The City of Orem regarding development of the property located generally at 841 South State Street, former Metal Gold property.

So could I interject here? So I know that was the title of the agenda item to consider it, but right now you're— you'd be making a motion to either approve it or to deny it. And then if the motion is to approve it, could you possibly add and authorize the mayor to sign On behalf of the city.

Okay.

I move that we approve the proposed settlement agreement between Wright Development Group and the City of Orem regarding development of the property located generally at 841 South State Street, formerly Metal Gold property, and authorize the mayor to sign—

what am I saying?

To sign the proposed settlement.

To sign the proposed settlement.

Second.

Jeff, would you like to start?

Aye.

Aye.

This is really one sad day for Orem City.

No.

I agree, this is one sad day For our city.

Hi.

Hi.

While I'd like to protect the city and limit its exposure, I don't feel that I can in good conscience vote for this development agreement settlement. I support the moratorium. Since I've been on the council, I've stood firm to support the neighborhood. I'm voting no, and I'm urging An emerging right development to be a good neighbor and to bring us a development that is in harmony with the current zoning of commercial zoning.

I too would hope you'd meet in good faith with the neighbors. I'm never a flopper, but I've flipped my decision, and I'm gonna vote nay.

Okay.

The motion passes, and I would encourage Wright to, to seriously think about all this and think about how you're affecting the neighborhood and make this— do the right thing. So thank you. All right.

I move that we adjourn.

Okay, can I—

oh no, we have— yeah, sorry.

Oh, Brett.

I'll just quickly say on behalf of, of city staff, um, uh, heartfelt thank you to Council Members Debbie Luray and Terry Peterson for your selfless service and, uh, our appreciation for tackling difficult issues. And, and I'll also say in all sincerity that I know that Together, due to your help, we've been able to accomplish things that we couldn't have otherwise done on our own. So just thank you from, from staff.

Thank you, Brian. We'll adjourn this meeting. Thank you for coming.

I'll second.

Aye.

I thought we did that. We're adjourned. Thank you.

Aye.