City Council · 2026-09-08

I'd like to welcome council and those online and those who are in the room. Welcome you to our work session today, the Orem City Council. And we've got 3 items for our work session. The first one is a presentation on detached accessory dwelling units by Jared Hall, our planning director. It's a 20-minute presentation, 20-minute Q&A. So, Jared, I will turn it over to you.

Thanks. Um, and very much a discussion that we are grateful to be having again. And, um, want to start by thanking all of you for taking the time the last few weeks to get together with us and, and talk through some of the things that had, um, had surfaced in the conversations before. Um, What we're trying to do at this point is synthesize everybody's thoughts about the DADU text amendment and make it something that's palatable enough to be passed by that October 1st deadline that the state has given us. So, just by way of a reminder, a couple of basic things about the DADUs. These would be detached accessory dwelling units permitted on every Residentially zoned lot that's at least 11,000 square feet in size. So it's not tied to the zoning, it's tied to the lot size and allowance for residential dwellings. In our city, that is residential zoning. So, um, there are approximately 5,800 lots that are greater than 11,000 square feet in the city. Um, by contrast, there are 14,500 that are smaller than 11,000 square feet. So, you know, Um, there's 1 ADU, accessory dwelling unit, or detached accessory dwelling unit allowance per lot. Owner occupancy is a requirement. We want to demonstrate the utility capacity, and they need to meet building and safety requirements. Those are kind of undisputed things that haven't been an issue so far with anyone.

Can you just repeat the number above?

Above, uh, 5,800. Low. I don't have the exact number in my head. It's 4,300 and something.

And they're spread out over the city.

Yeah, and I apologize, I don't have GIS to show you, but you all saw in the meetings that— in the many meetings we had, I believe we showed you all this map. They're remarkably spread out through the city, throughout the zoning in the city. There's no, like, one area that stands out as kind of the void that doesn't allow, or where we wouldn't be able to See any attached accessory dwelling units. They're remarkably spread out. Apparently, we just disregarded the zoning size requirements, and people have done 11,000 square foot lots a lot of places that would have only required 6 or 7 or 8. They're just— they're out there. Um, those are kind of the basic lot requirements. Um, the first thing that we, we, we ought to talk about are setbacks. Going, um, back and forth a couple of different Couple of different ways, couple of different times talking about setbacks. 25 feet is the setback that's required for a rear yard in most cases in our zoning. R-8 zone requires 25 feet for setback. The zones going up from there, the R-6 and R-5 zones only require 20 feet for setbacks for the home, for the single-family home. What we've looked at, what we started out with, the Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council for consideration was a 20-foot rear yard setback. I'm sorry, they start with 10, but rear setback. Council talked about 20. We had looked at 25 or using the zone requirements as well. It seems as most folks have been more leaning toward the 20-foot requirement straight, not tying it to the zoning. Talked about that a little bit in the mini meetings. We can continue to talk about that, but this diagram is showing the 20-foot setback, 10 feet from sides. Uh, from side yards, he would, um, suggest that with 10-foot side yards, we put in a requirement that any ADU built in this kind of pad, this area that's available for it, would have to be 20 feet from a dwelling on an adjacent lot. Uh, we had talked in the mini meetings also about the— using a standard like 30 feet from, from a setback line. Uh, we showed that in the last set of slides that we did. In general, more folks were inclined to look at the 20-foot failsafe instead of the 30 from the setback lines and write some kind of an exception for lots that are already— or lots that haven't built to their limits yet. For example, if you're looking at this right here, 8 feet is the requirement side yard. So this house has not been built out to the required side yard. If these folks were building an ADU, and that would— they'd build to their 8 feet and then You build a 10-foot offset for an ADU and you're, you're not 20 feet away. So that would punish this, this lot, or this lot rather, they wouldn't be able to build out to their line. It's an easy enough thing to write an exception and say that wouldn't be the case. Existing homes get to respect their setback, their zoning setbacks, regardless of an ADU on an adjacent lot. That protects everybody. Do something like that. We also looked at and talked about exceptions for Setback requirements when the lot butts up against an open space like a park or a school or a commercial use, for example. They're still going to encounter problems. Just, I think this came up in the mini meetings as well, just as a reminder. You're still going to encounter problems even if you went to a 0 setback. You'd still encounter these public utility easements around the sides of lots that are going to keep people 8 or 10 feet off no matter what. Don't allow buildings in those spaces. So that's something to keep in mind. So the 10 feet probably still works, even with that adjacency to an open space or a commercial zone, for example. Corner sides would be anywhere where you're on a street. So 25 feet from any street. And then again, that minimum 20 feet from any primary dwelling on an adjacent lot. Any questions about setbacks? We can go through some more things and then see some visuals and talk more about some of the setbacks and Where we want to land on those. That work? I'll keep going if that works. Okay.

What do you mean if that works? What are we—

If I see some visuals and come— see some visuals and come back.

Continue in the discussion.

Yeah.

He wants to move on in the—

None of these setbacks work, but that for purposes of the discussion, we'll look at some visuals and come back because we're going to want to talk about it more. But that's kind of where we've been in a nutshell on the setbacks.

Um, the—

this is just a larger version of that, so you can see better when we're talking about it more. The other issue would be height. Uh, we talked about flat roofs and pitched roofs having different height allowances and having those heights, having that height allowance start at the minimum setbacks. So, assuming that the minimum setback was 10 feet from a side yard, uh, we would allow as a baseline 14 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit with a pitched roof and 12 feet for one with a flat roof. Um, that would accommodate most of the architecture of today. Nice ceilings inside. It's not cramped feeling and would accommodate some creativity with the rooflines as well. We do a 1-to-1 ratio that you get 1 foot of height in addition for every additional foot of setback that you produce for the, for the unit, up to 16 for the— sorry, 18 for the pitched roof and 14 for the flat roofs. Again, you wouldn't need a lot more than that. These are single-story structures, so we wouldn't be allowing 2 stories. So there's really no—

So this is 12 and 14, but you're saying that there's a different number then?

Yeah, so you'd be 14 at the— let me go back to this slide. So if you were building your ADU right here at the 10 feet, your first allowed height would be that minimum 12. If it's a flat roof, 12, or if it's a pitched roof, 14. If you move it away from that property line, Further into your setback, we'll give you 1 foot of height for 1 foot of setback. That work?

Yeah. Can you go back to the next slide?

Yes.

What is this?

18?

18, 18.

So that's up to 18.

Yeah. So this would be 1 foot with the 1:1 ratio, additional setbacks up to 18 feet for that pitch.

So if you want to be up to 18.

Yeah, so that's what got me to this. It's showing the minimum, or not minimum, but that's where that point, and then it can go up.

Right, that could get taller up to 18. So that allows you, if you're doing a pitch roof, you could get a little more creative with how that roofline goes, but you're going to have to scoot in a little bit for it.

Do that.

The space that's allowed for you. Um, just other things for height. Um, they shouldn't be any taller than the primary dwelling on the lot, no matter what the— there are some homes out there that are shorter. They shouldn't be any taller than those. Not allowing exterior balconies, not allowing— allowing interior loft space, but a maximum of 20%. And then single-story structures only. I thought It's important that we dictate that we're talking about not habitable structures on top, no rooftop decks when we're talking about these kind of things in rear yard areas. That makes some sense to me. If that doesn't make sense to everybody else, we can talk about that more. For me, that's kind of the— that comes from a lot of townhouse discussions over the years, rooftop decks, and whether that's great near property lines or not.

And what is your— I can't read that— your setback from the house?

From the house here, 6 feet from the home on the lots. So that's the, that's the setback from the primary home on the dwelling, or the primary dwelling lot would be 6 feet as a minimum. Um, size of units, never more than 50% of the dwelling, minimum of 200 square feet. So we can do building permits for them. And that's a dwelling kind of minimum that's allowed under codes. This is an area where we, we, there was some difference of opinions in the mini meeting. So we need to talk about it more. 11,000 to about 13,000 square feet. You do 650, or we had started with 850 in that category before. Um, wanting to shrink them down a little bit would be to 650. We could go 13 to 16 at 850, 16 to almost 20,000 square feet, which is how people normally think of close to a half-acre lot. It's actually a little less than that, but in people's minds, 20,000 is a half-acre lot. So now we go up to 1,200 square feet. And there's some talk of saying, if we have really large lots— there aren't that many in the city— but people with really large lots, half acres and greater, wanted to do something bigger than the 1,200 square feet. square feet won't look out of place on those really big lots with the really big houses. It wouldn't be more than 50% of the dwelling. Just not do a size for that at all. Let it be 50% of the dwelling if they want to build something that big on a lot that's that large. As you get to those larger lots and look at the aerials, impact just really starts to disappear for the neighboring adjacent homes.

Um, can I just clarify on that particular So, 20,000 square foot lot. Even if you had a primary dwelling that was 1,600 square feet.

Yeah.

They— I guess they're stuck at 800, right? Because it can't be more than 50%.

Yeah. Yep.

So, if it was a, you know, a 2,300 square foot home, they wouldn't be able to hit that 1,200.

Right.

So it's an interaction between the size of the home and the size of the lot.

Right. And that's a really good example. And most of the smaller lot cases, it doesn't really come into play.

But with these, yeah, those are going to have like a 6,000, 8,000 square foot home.

Really big lots.

Yeah.

Have a 3,000 to 4,000. Like another house.

Potentially, yeah, if they're the really, really big ones. Yeah. Some of the, some of the biggest lots are in the— I forget the name of the subdivision in my head because I need it. It's always there if I don't need it, but right now I need it there. It's a PD that allows the guest cottages already.

Berkshires.

Thank you, Berkshires. Those are some very big lots. And they already allow this in their own kind of, in their unique PD zone that they've got.

Everybody knows everybody can have them.

Right. It's already kind of that deal. Right.

The size of the primary dwelling based off of what's above grade, or the full size, including basement?

Above grade, or the footprint? That's a good distinction. We didn't really make yet, so we should talk about that. We're talking about the full, the full square footage of the home. Many of those are going to be larger homes, but I'm really thinking about the footprint.

But my footprint is 1,200 square feet, but I have a basement. So then I could have a 600— I have my lots over 11,000, so I could have a 600 square foot.

So if we said 650 or 850, you still might not make it based on that footprint on mine. And that's really— it's the visuals that we're trying to match up and keep the ones subordinate to the others.

Yeah, I think it's important if that's what the intent of the council, then it's important. I think that that's delineated in the ordinance that it's the actual footprint.

I think it was footprint. I keep saying square foot.

It's not what's up if it's a 2-story or above or below. It's just that.

Yeah, I should clarify that. I know that's how I've always viewed it, but I probably didn't make that clear saying square footage.

I think that would be wise to clarify that.

Does that work for folks?

Is that a concern? Footprint is what I view it as.

Comfortable with that. So, another question while you're writing that down. Yeah, if there were a lot that had a small home on it, a large lot with a small home. They actually had the size to build a larger home. Could they switch and make the new home become the primary home and then the smaller home for a—

The dadu as the attached potentially, but just the question is usually with that case setbacks. Um, is it going to be in the front yard area? Is it going to be— is it going to be located appropriately? And that question also, Brings up people with— this is bound to happen as we start implementing some of this. The first thing that's going to happen is someone's going to say, well, I want to build this size ADU. The ADU. Okay, well, you're— that's more than 50% of your home. Well, I have plans for an addition to the home that will make it 50% of the home. We're going to need to deal with the existing. That's going to happen. As well. But yeah, I don't see any reason that we wouldn't say, yeah, this— we don't care which one's the primary and which one's the accessory. If you have an older house that's there, you can put a new primary in front of it.

So you don't have the DADU in the front yard?

As long as the DADU is not in the front. Yeah, that makes sense. Does that answer your question, Jeff? Right. So let me go— some of the visuals might make sense again too, might help us with this conversation. So if it's okay, I'll buzz on to the next part. We'll come back around. Oh, here we are at the visuals. Look at that. So this, um, I got to thank Emma for cranking this out for us. Um, you're looking at— she's overlaid the top of the houses that exist right now on a block and then put in ADUs so you can look at where they would be and how they would fit into the kind of the makeup of that block. So this right here is a 600— or sorry, the 800. Square foot ADU, and this is the 650 square foot ADU. So 2 different sizes. They're located in the backyards in areas where they could meet their setbacks and function. And all the rest of these tops are houses that already exist there. So that gives you at least some idea spatially what we're talking about. And then we did some bird's eye views of this. So again, there's the smaller one, the 650. This is an 800 square foot unit there.

So what's that thing in the back of that?

Which one? So is this—

No, on the very top, but kind of the exact same idea.

This?

Down a little bit right there. Yeah, like a shed.

Yeah, that's a shed.

That's like totally on the easement.

Yeah, it's completely— whatever that is, both sides, it's probably in violation of certain rules. We'll be looking them up after this meeting is over.

Close enough.

Probably already had this in our office and they're taking care of that.

So, if I were on those, if I were to put a breezeway or some sort of interior, build a little hallway, I could do that and make that even bigger because that would be attached and attached. It's an addition to the house.

That's it. Our rules already don't consider that attached in our, um, In this, in this, in the code that was written for accessory apartments years and years ago, they anticipated exactly that maneuver. Said, no, that doesn't qualify. A corridor or breezeway does not qualify as attached in this case.

Okay.

So they wanted to keep it exactly. Left that language in as we moved it over. So if that's still the intent.

Okay, but I could build an addition to my house, your house. Absolutely. That'd be the apartment.

Yep.

Sure, I'm understanding this right. So I'm asking you to help with your spatial reasoning here. The one on the bottom, 2nd from the left, that one right there. That looks in scale to me like it's greater than 50% of the size of the footprint.

Footprint here.

So what I guess I want to understand—

Maybe that— maybe I'd have to—

I'd have to—

House might have been 2,400 square feet or whatever.

Yeah.

I just want to understand what—

and not on the 50.

This is 800. If you—

footprint's probably more than 1,600. Turn it 90 degrees when it's still—

I wish I could do that live for you. If I were Emma, I probably could.

I just want to make sure we know what we're doing.

Yeah, this is— this is, if not more than 50%, I don't think it actually is. I think it's probably real close. It's probably right. Just looking at it spatially, it's probably 40% of the house. I think it'd make 800 square feet. Um, that's one of the codes that I wasn't— I didn't explicitly say, hey, I'm gonna make sure it's not more than 50%, but it's part of the code anyway. This one's definitely less. You're right though. It's a good thing to point out. This is why we wanted to do this exercise, because it helps you see kind of how much of that in relation— how it fits in relation to the house. This one's close to that 50% line at 800 square feet. Maybe I don't know if it goes better there too.

So, are you just showing 2 on there?

Yeah, just 2.

All those other buildings are in the east.

These are just other accessory. Yeah, this is a good— this is a good example because it has other accessory structures where we keep talking about them. It's not really pristine. There aren't just a whole bunch of empty lots with single homes on them. They got detached garages and sheds. There's stuff back there.

So, the 2nd from the right, is that accessory dwelling unit? To the left, as far as it can go.

It could probably go a little further left.

Like, it's not on that.

It's probably more than 10 feet. It's— it could probably go a little further this way and get further from that unit there. From this shed, or whatever that is.

And then let's see, how does that affect the house adding on the one to the left?

This one here, they could add on. So this is a 25-foot rear.

So they would be able to add on all the way back until that, then the exception would have to pull in.

The exception would have to kick in, and that's why we'd want that for sure. Using a 30-foot offset from the buildable line, you want something like the exception to say, look, just because you put this 10 feet over here and I'm going to be 2 feet off, I'm not taking 2 feet off my sunroom because of your ADU. So that would, that would protect kind of the previous. That's why I would suggest the exception. And we don't have a coverage issue yet, but in the future there might be. This is a lot of coverage of the rear yard. Um, in that case there, but again, a lot of rear yard gets covered when you maximize your house too. This house is covering a lot of the rear yard, at least as much as this one is. So it's kind of— it's similar in impact.

Um, Jared, yeah, I'll say. Uh, the one with the shed came in, they applied to do a detached accessory dwelling unit. And then looking at the application, staff saw that it was a violation. For example, shed would tell them they'd have to come into compliance with other code regulations.

Yeah.

Won't be able to do that.

Yes, in fact, yes.

No, no, I'm just making it abundantly clear.

We're in this business. No, yeah, you're 100% right. That's the kind of thing that comes up. We say, look, it's great you want to do this. It has pointed out that you have a nonconforming structure on your property. Let's look at the permits. And I can't tell you, I mean, Just looking at it from the air doesn't really tell me. It could be that they built it with a roof drain system, and we permitted it in 1973 or whatever. It might be legal and nonconforming and can stay there. Um, we try to give people the benefit of the doubt until we know they're in violation, and then it's really—

We look at that every time a new permit comes in.

Yeah, we look at, we look at the conformance, especially where there are material implications for it, and this lot coverage is important.

There, there could fit one on that upper corner lot too.

Probably, yeah. You mean this one here?

The one on the left.

This one? Yeah.

No, about the one—

This one, this one would struggle. We've built a lot.

It's not your left.

Yeah, sorry.

Your right, our left.

Oh, okay.

All the way. Keep going.

Keep going. This one could definitely— yeah, there's room. In this area here.

Well, we are definitely not prohibiting—

no, we didn't—

hindering, or—

We didn't show like an ADU on every potential lot in the block.

Just out of 2, 4, 6, 8 houses, you're getting a third.

I'm glad you mentioned that. So we, in the, in the meetings that we talked about, and a third is almost exactly right. We looked at more lots. Emma pulled another 300. We actually have all of them pulled, but we run numbers on 400 of them in the spreadsheet. And when you, when you run the numbers with the— let me zip back up to here. When you run the numbers with, with these— I've got— I'm on the wrong page. I'm sorry. When you run the numbers with one of these things, with these setbacks and requirements, about 47% of the lots in that first 400 lots Um, are eligible, could get an ADU. Now, there might be other things that— there might be decks in the way, or sheds that are already there that would be in the way, but technically they'd be eligible for, um, to putting— they'd have a way to be able to put an ADU in there. So we're pretty good.

Or they could be owner occupied.

Or yeah, they might be owner occupied, and that does include some vacant parcels as well. If you pull the vacant parcels out, I think, and they haven't been built on, so who knows for sure, but technically, we include the vacant parcels, we get to 47%. You pull the vacant parcels out of that same grouping, and I think you're down to 43.5% or something. But the— it's a lot more than we expected. It's a greater percentage than we expected off our first numbers. We had a random sample that was 10%. Uh, we bumped that up to be a little more direct and, and, and, and did all the numbers in like 150 or 200 of them, got to like 30%. With 400 of them in, 47%. So fairly good.

Okay, so to build the ADU on your property, Have to be owner occupied on that property.

The owner needs to live in either the DADU or the primary dwelling.

So, let's say you build a DADU on your property, and then you sell that property, and that person buys it as an investment property. What happens then?

Well, what happens is the title work that comes through flags the affidavit that we make you record when we give you an ADU permit.

So, it Deed restricts it to owner occupied, essentially.

Yeah, because you're, you're, you're— you file an affidavit that says, I live in one of these units.

Okay.

And I will live on the property. So when you go to sell it, your investor or your buyer knows that we won't relicense them unless you're demonstrating that you live there. It flags it in the title searches.

So go back to the neighborhood photo, please.

This one, do you want— which one do you want? The area?

I saw a lot of you have one too.

So you can kind of see where that number kicks in. It's, it's half. There are all kinds of complications that might happen when people go to actually do it. Things can go wrong pretty quickly as you're looking at different scenarios. It might be that you don't want to do it where you want to do it because you've got a deck in the way or whatever else there is. But technically, 7%.

So, are those property lines? Is it jet?

Yeah, these kind of stick into this one a little bit. They probably just—

there's a lot going on.

There's shade.

Yeah, not great.

Sunshade.

Busy little neighborhood.

You look at the world from the air all the time. It looks messy and busy.

Okay, interesting.

A lot of cars parked back here. Google Earth changed everything. So, oh, we have this weird illegal parking situation. We'll be looking into all of their lives pretty soon. Yeah, I hope that we wanted it to show kind of the massing and how that works, and if that's acceptable, especially for the size. Oh, honestly, also, I should have said, these are, these are shown, these are accurate for height and stuff for the buildings that are there. And these are 14 feet for the homes, these pitched roofs. So these aren't the extra tall ones, but, you know, there you go. A couple other views of the same thing so you can get an idea how it looks or how it would look if you're looking at it from that angle. Just like that. I do have a few more. Just examples that Emma did of different homes that met the requirements. You can meet the requirements and still have quite a big area in the back. There are 10 of these just pulled at random to show that it can be done. These codes, even with the slightly larger rear setback, 20 feet. Again, you've got to provide parking. Things can go wrong. You've got to provide parking for it. You've got to be comfortable with how it's working on your— on the lot for your home itself. And And everything that's going. This is just strictly looking at whether you can meet the standards that we write for setback and height, et cetera.

So, how would it goof it up if we wrote something that didn't need an exception?

Which one? The 30— the 220, or to protect the rights of the property owner?

The rights of the near property owner.

Changes it a little bit. I don't have any of those included in this slide deck, but in the other slide decks that we had from before, those that you were seeing in the mini meetings, those are all based on 30 feet from a build-to line. And the percentage doesn't change a whole lot. It's just more complicated to measure. But you maintain that 20 feet and some of them, you know, there's homes that it shrinks some of those buildable areas, but it doesn't— it's not a make or break in most situations. There are a few. Drop off, might lose a little percentage. But in general, the ones that are making it are making it because they're pretty significantly easy to do. And that 30 feet versus the 20 separation or an exception doesn't make a huge difference. So basically, this is a good one to show. So if this home could be extended further back, you might need to be— this might It might carve, you know, 3 or 4 feet off of that buildable area. We were to keep that 30-foot— oh, sorry, it would be more than that because it increased this by the 20, but the 10, so it'd be— yeah, shrink this in 5, 6 feet.

So, and then if you flip that the other way, you would say if that house built a detached ADU, their detached ADU would be 3 to 6 feet closer to their addition than it would normally have been, if there wasn't an exception in there. So they'd be— there'd be a smaller buffer between the 2 neighbors.

Yes, that's right.

That's essentially the impact of that. It's hard to show that. Tried a couple of different ways to show the difference between the 2, and it's just hard to show it. There you go. Uh, any questions? It works on the cul-de-sac still. The cul-de-sacs get really weird. Areas where you could do an ADU.

I'm waiting for someone to say, hey, that's my house.

I was hoping. And so far, no.

I don't think mine is big enough.

Any questions, or is there more stuff you want to look at and talk about? Should we go back to some of those other slides?

I have a question for down the road. Once this is submitted to the state, Do they have somebody that reviews it and says you're good, or is there a chance they'll kick it back and say, you need to look at this again?

Their requirements were simple enough that if we pass something, they weren't— their requirements were we either passed it or theirs went into effect. So I don't think they're gonna have anybody checking necessarily. They didn't, they didn't write any of that. Sometimes they write that in with the moderate-income housing and such. We have to report somebody. We don't have a reporting requirement in this particular code. I suspect they'll check everybody's— keep an eye on everybody, or maybe they won't. I don't know. There's no mechanism built into the code they wrote.

So, right, council, any other questions?

Does the 20 to 30— I'm still with this side yard. That's my hangup right now, because I got people behind me right now fighting over— yeah, sure. That's if people care about their rights on their side of the fence.

Let me go back up to the diagram.

Someone's going to be a little miffed if they find out their neighbor's building 3 feet closer than they should. Is there an— if 30 isn't the right number, is there a number? Does 25 help protect that still? You know what I'm trying to say here, so we don't have those contentious moments that arise between neighbors.

I know what you're saying. I'm not sure how to do it other than the fundamental mechanism is what's difficult. Um, the number can be different. The way you measure it is really what you're talking about.

Yeah.

Um, you're talking about measuring it from this. This dotted line is where they could build to. And what you're talking about is, even if we were 20, do 20 from the dotted line where they can build to, as opposed to 20 from where they exist. And that's, that's, that's the real question. If, if the number is different, it's just different from that line instead of from the property line or from between the dwellings. You could say 25 feet between dwellings.

But you still might have a foot or 2 that somebody's feeling they're impinged upon or being— Yeah, that's why you came up with the 30, is because the 30 had good buffers.

30 is the arguments. If you're 30 feet off, it's going to shave. It's going to— what it does essentially is 30 feet from this build-to line. Just if you're going 30 feet from the build-to line on the adjacent lots, you're just pushing the buildable area of the ADU on whatever lot you're looking at toward the center of that lot, as opposed to toward the edges. That's the thinking behind 30 feet and the build-to. The, the, the build-to, or the setbacks of the, of the, of the potential for this lot, is really partially about protecting that lot, but also about pushing this further in and making it part of this lot's concern rather than as far over as here. Human nature is going to be to push things to the edges, right? of the allowance. So, if the allowance is 10 feet, you can assume that a lot of times they're going to be 10 feet unless there's a reason to do it otherwise. So, the 20 feet that we proposed initially with the Planning Commission, the 20 feet between any dwellings, it's just a failsafe to make sure there's at least 20 feet between my house and the person's new ADU, regardless of whether they're setback. That's, that's where we started. The 30 feet from the build-to line is a different kind of a A different kind of a proposition. It's a different way of looking at it.

So what did the—

okay, so we need to adopt an ordinance at our next meeting or else the state takes away our birthday.

Yes.

Okay, so we've got to do that. So what would the— what do you need from us this today to go forward to draft This ordinance. So it sounds like we maybe have some differences of opinion on what we just discussed. What would be helpful for you as you draft an ordinance for our next meeting, which will be a public hearing so residents can weigh in? But yeah.

The next, the next one would be, um, September 22nd would be the hearing. So we can hopefully get something adopted. So there's nothing outstanding and the state's rules don't apply.

What information from— what would you like from us today? Some thoughts?

Total unity and love on all points. The most important sticking points, I think, you can go through. If we could, let's do this. This will be helpful. I don't want to take up your whole evening or afternoon. The biggest sticking points, I think, seem to be— I don't think From the mini meetings, I would say the biggest sticking points were probably the distance as we're measuring it, like we were just talking about. That's a point that we need to have cleared. I may not be completely clear on that before the hearing, and I can accept that. I'll have to draft sort of the majority opinion on it, and that's what I would do in the event of no more information tonight. Draft on what I know. And that's what's represented here. The 20 feet is represented here because it seems to be the majority from the mini meetings. The other thing that was a point that I want to make sure I'm clear on is the size of the units allowed. That we were a little bit all over the map, not all over the map. That's not fair to say.

We were—

some folks were okay with just saying 850 is the basic number because people are going to be restricted because of the 50% rule and such. So there's no need to really get too fine with that point. Um, other folks feel like the 650 is a fine starting point too. Again, if you're a smaller lot and you're only going to get 650, okay.

What did the Planning Commission recommend?

Planning Commission recommended 850 as a starting point, or 800, sorry. 800 was the starting point.

Did they discuss different square footages, or were they just presented?

We showed 800, and then when we talked to the Planning Commission, okay, 800. looked a lot larger in real life as we looked at it than we'd kind of anticipated. Like that one, like Jen was pointing out, the 800 is bigger in real life than you think, as it sits on a lot. 650 is bigger than you think on a lot. So we, when we came to the council at first, we dropped down to 650. That's kind of where we— right now, the draft that I prepared for council's first work session on it, starting at 650. What I guess— I guess what I need to know is, is that still acceptable? We feel strongly about staying with 8 as a baseline and letting the 50% rule cover things. Are we okay with smaller lots?

Smaller?

I mean, they're all over 11,000, so they're not little lots, but are we okay with the smaller, like 11,000 to 12,000?

Go back to the slide that had the breakdown.

So, 11,000 to 13,000, leave them at $650. 13,000 to 16,000, go up to $850. 16,000 to 20,000, essentially.

Say maximum, maximum, not the minimum.

That's the maximum, not the minimum.

Okay, no minimum.

You can build them as small as 200 square feet if you want.

Okay.

No minimums, really, just maximum of the footprint.

Of the footprint, 50% of the footprint of the home. So a lot of homes are going to— that's going to come into play. That would come into this building right here, real close to 50, probably over it. This isn't some ADU that we have. This is just a random—

Another city, right?

This is a California city. So it's just going to come from California. But this is— it's probably larger than we would allow based on that 50-foot rule, regardless of our 800 or 650 or whatever. That's going to do some heavy lifting in some cases on the larger lots. On the smaller ones, I'm not sure it's going to come into play as much.

Council, what are you thinking?

I like the 650, like the no more than— well, I think that no more than 50% of the Footprint of the house is helpful, but when you get into the larger lot sizes with the larger homes, that could be a really big thing to do.

That would only apply to these exceptions at 20,000 grand, but those are the ones that are gonna have the really big houses. So I need to know if we should have that kind of an exception or not, or if you just cap it out at 1,200 and say, doesn't matter if you have an 8,000 square foot house on an acre and a half. You're, you're Your ADU, your ADU is still 1,200 square feet. That's the size of a home. That's plenty of footprint. But the question is whether that's even necessary when they're— when you're talking about that big of a lot. Why not just let them bigger? I need to know if we should have an exception like that.

Prefer it to be capped.

Some kind of cap.

Okay.

Any other thoughts about that?

Comfortable leaving it as you've written it here. I think the least amount of government regulation, the better, in that as long as it doesn't impact neighbors. But on a lot that size, I think that there will be safeguards in place so it won't impact neighbors.

Hard to impact neighbors on that size of a lot, even with—

I've seen them.

They will impact families with kids in the 80s.

Good point.

You know, good for our schools.

Well, Oh, can I ask a practical question?

Sure.

I think I've asked you this before, but I'm not sure if I fully remember the answer. Thinking about people who might build these, I assume there are some people who will build them from scratch and design them on their own. But I think a lot of people will use existing floor plans, maybe modular construction. And I'm wondering if that 650 is a square footage that works for a lot of those existing modular or other constructions, or if we're going to get somebody trouble through, you know, orders the 800 because that's the small one that they've seen and they're like, put it on there, and then they— I, I just am not familiar with the modular.

Sure, that's— no, that's a, that's a good— that's a great question. We did talk about it, I remember. Um, so I don't know about the modular kits and things, but there are 2 2 most popular— reason they came with these numbers is because of the 2 most popular. The 2 most popular Connex conversions that are sold, 650 and 850. There is an 800 one as well. 2 most popular, 650 and 850. So that's a, that's a big conversion. Which one is the most popular is— there are their 2 most popular models. So those work for both of those, and that's, I think, why so many codes use those numbers.

I don't know about anyone else, but my feed, my internet has filled up with floor plans for DADUs.

Yeah.

And I find it really interesting.

I, so I'm, I'm good with it. I mean, I feel comfortable with what you have there with the smaller 650s and going up from there.

Okay. I just find that really interesting that all of a sudden, like in the last 2 or 3 days, I keep getting these advertisements for My lot's not big enough.

Cell phone's listening to you advertising.

Yeah, it's actually listening to your thoughts.

Yeah, well, that's kind of creepy.

Any other, any other thoughts?

I would also be comfortable with this size, with the arrangement.

I'm not, but—

Well, it's good to know, at least as we kind of look forward. Um, that helps me, that helps with the draft.

I'd like to change— I'm just going to voice my opinion. I don't agree with the 50% of the larger lots. I think a detached ADU should be just that, a detached accessory dwelling unit, not a home behind a home. And on the 20,000-square-foot lots, we are opening up our city on those lots to a home behind a home, right? So I'm going to voice my opinion against that.

You'd be in favor of a cap of some kind?

Yeah, I, I like the 1,200. I think that's a huge— that's— I mean, you know, I lived in a nice little 900-square-foot apartment. It was big when I moved in out of college, you know, having my own room and stuff. So I think that's great for the purpose of what DADUs are. They're not supposed to be a house.

Subordinate to the house, second cottage or whatever.

Do you know how many 20,000-square-foot lots we have in the city? Like, how many are we talking?

I don't know that number. I know that 20 of the 5,800 that are over 11,000 square feet 2,000-something of them are between 11 and 12. So it's— I don't know the breakdown.

I'm sorry.

And I just want to say, I think the reason why I'm against that is because of people who built homes on those size of lots have an expectation of what their neighborhood's going to look like. The Berkshires, they know because they've agreed to that in their PD zone. They've seen that that's already there. But I don't know if that— where— if this is going to affect other areas or how. But if, you know, if I— that big of an estate place that I obviously intentionally purchased and built my home and designed my landscaping, everything, and then my neighbor puts in a— I don't know if I'm a 6,000 and a 3,000 square foot detached ADU. Um, that, that will impact me, and I just don't feel like— I feel like there's property rights on both sides of the fence, and too many times we just look at the one, the one property, and we don't consider the neighbors, and then we hear about it later.

It's, it's, it's— you have to kind of imagine this in a way. We didn't— those numbers, the percentages of That work go up as you get bigger, obviously, right? But we didn't do a visual of that kind of thing. We don't have anything to shoot for. I don't know what to expect if we don't have a cap. If we do have a cap, it's hard to say.

So, it would be helpful to see what that looks like.

I mean, like, generally, how many lots are we talking about in the city? And then also be able to see visually, this is a lot— is the home is, you know, 7,000 square feet, 3,500 square feet home on the lot. What does that look like? I'd appreciate seeing that if that's a thing.

We can do that. And this is helpful for the hearing. And we might have to— might have to approve the— an amendment with modifications specific that night, if that's— if that'll work. And then we can make sure that's what gets adopted and signed. We'll have gigantic window of almost 8 days after that meeting to get it signed. If you were to—

Oh, it's only going to be 2 or 3. Until you're living next to that, that happened.

So, let me do that, then I'll put together some, some numbers about how many lots it would be, and we'll do some visuals about what sizes might be if they were like, based on the 50%. Let's pick some of those. There might not be that many.

I'm okay with— I mean, I don't— I guess, do you want— does anybody else want to see it? I don't know that he needs to spend more time, staff time.

Curious.

This is just whether you agree with that or not, basically.

I don't know.

I would be curious because I, I, I'm just looking at the plat maps, look, and looks like most of our big lots are down the river bottoms. We have a few larger parcels that have just not been subdivided yet.

There's gonna be some of those.

They're gonna be curious because I do understand your concern.

Perfect Homes up by me.

Yep, up by you.

A half acre. What? How big are those?

3 quarters?

Um, let me take a look.

Lots different.

Some of them are Some are large, some are pretty big. They're R-8, but some are larger, right?

Yeah, I don't, I don't think we mind doing a little more of the drawings and getting, and getting some numbers together. We can give that to you in the work session. I'm assuming that, that we'll want to show, go through the draft that's on your agenda in the work session as well, and we can give you those.

Anybody's mind?

I don't know.

Just like, well, it's not going to change your mind, folks.

Let's not make the staff do the But I can't tell which one I prefer, so that would be helpful.

No, it's no problem. It's just writing. It's just typing words. We can do it. We'll get some numbers together too, just so we'll draft it one way and show you the things. And if we want to change it, make that part of whatever condition of whatever approval gets done. My main concern is getting— I want to get as close to what will be the best for everybody's wants for this as we can, get it adopted in time for October 1st deadline, and we will fix it from there as well. The first, you know, we have problems, we'll fix them as we go. But to have something at least that approximates what everybody wants to see on the books is our main goal. We'll do that. And, uh, that helps me. I can at least draft something, and we'll get it out to you as early as possible and then present it in work session if we get time for it.

So, what else? She has 2 more things.

Nope, that's it. Let's see, square footage, the height. I think we're okay. I think everyone, if I'm reading the room right, the height's okay. Size of the units was one thing, and then the setbacks, the different setbacks.

So I'm going to voice my opposition also to the 20-foot. I see no reason to cut off by feet. When we spoke, Jared, you said once again, you said that's not going to make any real difference.

25 doesn't make a huge difference. It just shrinks them.

Just stay with the zone.

The setback of the zone. It doesn't, it doesn't. In most cases, it's not going to say— it's not going to mean yes or no. It's just going to shrink the building envelope. It's going to shrink the building envelope by the 5 feet or 10 feet. There's the— there are zones that require 30 feet. So it does, it does shrink it some. It'll shrink it 5 or 10 feet. And then there are cases where it'll say— it'll mean you can't do it, but there aren't that many of those. It's the majority of them will just be shrinking the buildable envelope. That's true.

So, do y'all want to stay with the 20 feet, or do you want to do the 25?

The 20 feet is—

Didn't have an— is the 20 with an exception?

The exception would be for the 3.

Yeah. Okay.

20 between units, or the 20 between dwelling units would be with an exception.

Got it. Okay. Sorry.

This is the rear setback that Renee's talking about, right?

Yes.

Rear setback requirement. We've written as to— we had written as 20. Everyone seemed comfortable with that. We talked about looking at it using the zones setbacks. So that's 20 or 25 or 30, depending on the zone you're in. And the question is, does that really make that big a difference in how many lots are available or not? I don't think it really does. Looking at some of them side by side mostly shrinks the building footprints. But yeah, it does shrink building footprints, and there will be those cases that just looking at them randomly, there will be those cases that we can't anticipate yet that does make it not available. But again, you're not available to DAU, you're available still to do an AD inside. The question is just whether 20 feet seems like a reasonable, um, just catch-all, everything's got to be 20 for the rears, or if you want to go with the requirement of the zone.

Can you go back to the slide that talks about them?

Yeah.

All right.

So right now, the 20 represents what everyone, or the majority of folks in the mini meetings felt comfortable with, as opposed to using the setbacks of the zone. Well, today's asking is, do you feel differently about that at this point? If it doesn't really move the needle that much.

Why wouldn't we just go with the setbacks of the zone? You buy your property knowing that that was the setback requirements. I don't know if you just stay with that. Some would be 20, right? There are some.

There are. Yeah, the R-6 and R-6.5 would be 20s. The others, 7, 8, and above would be 25s. And then the really big buildings that you don't see very much of in the city are 30 setbacks. There'd be a few of those. But again, those are the really big— those are bigger lots.

That protects the property rights on both sides of the fence a lot better to do. At least the setback of the zone.

I support the 20 because I think a few things. One, again, this whole idea of government regulation that tells you where you can and can't put this little thing on your property. But 2, we're not talking about a whole, a whole big primary dwelling unit that could be, you know, however tall and however big and however wide. It's just a much smaller footprint. So it has much less impact. So I want to give them a little bit more flexibility about where they put it on their lot.

Sure. Yeah, I can understand that. Any other thoughts?

In the pictures that you showed us before, looking down, are those at 20 feet or 25?

That's a good question. I think she's shown these at— they're just in the— I don't, I don't have dimensions on that. I apologize.

More than 20. I think she just dropped them in.

Yeah, it's more than 20.

The front's the 20.

It looks like it's the same as the front yard, the one you're just on.

25 minimum, showing 25s. It's probably showing 25s again. That's, that's the thing is there's— if you, if you went to 25, it just shrinks the area where you can do this as opposed to the 20, which gives you a little more flexibility. I mean, both arguments, Neither argument is invalid. They're just different.

Well, those even look like they're 10 feet away from the house proportionally.

They're further from the houses than the 6 feet too. No, they're not set up. They're not done it. I mean, there's really no way to, because they can't be— they can't fill up the whole buildable area. So we had to just put them down somewhere. And the direction I gave them was plunk them down somewhere. Trying to—

where they fit.

What we're trying to show is Kind of the, in general, what the massing, what they would look like generally in terms of mass in the rear yard areas.

So, Jared, what's your guess in terms of the zoning of this neighborhood?

R-8.

So that would be 25s.

These would be 25s. These are 11,000 greater square foot lots in the R-8 zone.

That home on the front, that's large.

On the left.

Yeah, that side.

I'll keep going. All of those have a much closer to their fence.

Yeah, they're all—

it looks almost like 10 feet. Yeah, these are not.

Well, this one, this one's fairly close. This is probably a patio cover of some kind. I don't know. Shade. But yeah, these are meeting setbacks to the rear because this one, this lot line jogs a little bit.

You have to be 25, right?

They should be 25. Good call.

Just trying to determine approximations of spacing in feet.

Yeah.

And you said there really isn't any— there wouldn't be much difference in them?

There's no difference. It shrinks that envelope, and there will be some cases where it becomes ineligible, but it'll be on the Smaller lots with larger homes that are going to be most impacted. And a lot of the, a lot of the lots, 11,000 square feet, most of them are not like, like this gentleman here, this, this lot, for example. It's not going to make it for an ADU in the rear yard area. In either case, they'd have to put it over in this area somewhere. So 25 feet might kill this one, but I don't think it's going to be eligible at 20 either. It's going to have trouble locating one. Most of them are going to be like that. You're going to wind up seeing 5 feet isn't making the difference. That's not to say that there will not be cases where that 5 feet or 10 feet means doing it or not doing it. Those will happen, but they're not going to be— it's not going to be a sea change of, oh, now we're down to 20% of eligible lots or something. That's not going to happen.

And if, if we found that that was a problem, we could always change it to give more allowance. We can't put it back in once we've decided it. So, if it's not, in your opinion, it sounds like it's not going to change.

Well, yes, you can change it, even if you decide it's a problem. It's just you can't change it without making something nonconforming. The other direction, if you start— if you started at the zoning setbacks and then got and said, yeah, this is, this is too much, it's being too hard for people, we want to go the other direction, you can make a change with no impact. No one's going to be nonconforming. Yeah, if you start the other way and say, oh, this is terrible. We've got 4 of these, or 6 of these, that they're too close to cause problems. We want to go to the zoning setbacks instead. I've got half a dozen nonconforming ADUs. So, yeah, it's easier to go the other way.

People complaining that this was prohibiting them, then we could revisit that and adjust the ordinance to be more lenient, but we can't easily make it go the other way.

It's true. And I still, as far as I know, I still work for you after October 1st, so I can make any changes you want to make after that. You want to go either direction, I'll go either direction. It's pretty much established I will do anything. No problem.

Can you go back to the slide again, Jared?

Which one?

The one with that.

Nope.

This one?

Yes, that one. So all we're talking about here is rear setbacks.

Yes, we—

you feel like you have good support on the rest of those?

Yes. The others, I think I know what to do without, without there being too many differences that we couldn't resolve in the meeting.

Step back.

I'm still having a problem with it. Why not have a clean— I mean, we could— I still want to talk about the other one.

Well, which one?

30-foot, because I mean, anyway.

That's okay. Do you want to get— do you want to talk about that one?

Let him finish.

Let's finish this one and then move to that one.

What I'm hearing on the rear setbacks is this is going to make a marginal difference.

Yes.

And in that case, I think whatever is easiest to manage and for property owners, because it's not going to make a big difference either way. Um, for me, the more consequential one is, is the distance between Dwelling on an adjacent lot. Um, and, you know, 20 feet sounds about right to me on that. Okay.

So you're more comfortable with the 20 feet between dwellings as opposed to the 30 feet. But so we're kind of segueing.

Did we just shift over from the build?

I just waited on both. Sorry.

Okay, let's go back to the— thank you, which is— you're fine. You're fine to do that. Let's get this one wrapped up. If it's the negligible difference, I'm fine either way. I, I, I'm okay with 25 or 20 feet. I have whatever works. What Quinn said, I agree with him on that. It's the other one that I want to have some more discussion on.

So, anybody else talk about the 30 feet? Is it, is it making sense?

Jeff and Chris?

Yeah, I mean, I'm I could, I could be persuaded to go 25.

I don't know that it's going to make that much difference. Um, so it would be 25 in an R-8, right?

Yeah. Yeah.

And, but at the same time, I'm thinking of the people that are going to be living closer together inside the lot.

But that's their choice.

You know what you're getting into?

You're the one doing it, right? You're the one creating that.

So.

And I'm still good with the 20 feet on the sides. Okay, helpful.

Anybody else?

Probably the same.

I don't—

it's not a strong—

Okay, so my— I just want to just clarify, the 25 feet is not just about the person, the lot we're looking at. It's about the lot behind you. The lot behind you, behind that person, has 25 feet. They, they have an expectation of 25 feet on both sides of the fence. So that's why I'm saying the impact, the ability, the impact, everything, everything should be absorbed by the person who's benefiting from detached ADU or not benefiting from the detached ADU, choosing to have the detached ADU.

I'm hearing that, that there would be people are comfortable with a 25, they'd be okay with a 25-foot.

So, can we go to 25 rear setback?

Well, the setback of the zone.

I mean, that's what I'm hearing. It sounds like the discussion is on the buildable, the other.

No, I think we're still on the 25, so I'm okay with that.

Oh, oh, we're talking rear setback, 25 feet, or whatever the underlying zone is.

Rear setback being the setback of the zone.

That's currently what it is, is 25 feet.

Or just in the ordinance, whatever the underlying, the current. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah, I heard from you, Jen, that you're uncomfortable with that.

Is that not my preference? But I'm one person. So my preference is that we go with 20 for several reasons. One I didn't mention was that it's like 20 is really generous standard compared to the neighboring cities around us that have made similar ordinances that are 3 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet, 15 feet. So the 20, I think, is adequate. But, um, I, whatever the majority council wants is what we'll do. So, a couple of—

so, again, I think if we go with the setback of the zone, if we find that this is not allowing people to build them that really want to, we do have the option of changing it and making it more allowable later. But we can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.

We can. We just lose— we have to— for anybody who builds in the meantime, it's a lot of nonconforming.

Out there, which then—

potential.

Yeah, that's the reason you would do that is because you have had the house on Palisade.

Oh yeah, you know what I mean?

It's the same scenario. I'd rather inch out on this than just jump in completely with, yeah, do whatever you want.

That's helpful.

So we got that one. So now let's go to the one that everyone wants to talk about.

So, this— is that making sense to folks? The difference between the 2 you're looking at in this diagram, the buildable pad of an ADU in the backyard of this home with a 10-foot setback to the property line and a 20-foot required setback to any dwelling on the adjacent lot. What, what Lynette is talking about is the, the other version of this, which would be instead of saying you have to— your ADU must be 20 feet from this house. It's got to be 30 feet from where this house could be expanded to. So that dotted line there is where you could— this house is just a little bit smaller than it could be. You could build it out into this area. And what you would do is then say 30 feet. So you'd take this 30 feet from that line and come in here like that. Somewhere in here, you would have a smaller buildable area. And if you've got the same thing over here, you know, it's shrunk a little bit. So it moves things toward the center for the 30 feet.

That's the 20 feet off total of that.

So instead of that big long whole thing being built, right? No one's going to build that. No, but it moves it more. So they're condensing it more to the—

Instead of being built out here, it might have to be built here.

The size it could be built would still be dependent on exactly the size of the footprint of the house and the lot size anyways. But it pushes it to be closer to the house on the lot it exists on than the neighboring property.

And in this scenario, that's— this is a really simple lot setup, right? Lot setups are complicated. Lots are shaped weird. There's lots of instances where that 30 feet from a build-to line would be more impactful than in this one. But that's the general— the general way it would work is that. It's easier to talk about what's not a complicated lot. 30 feet would push you more in this area here. Build 2 lines.

Now that we're talking about it, nobody's talking about it.

Currently build up.

Are we all thinking about it?

I just say this.

If someone built their house, they could go to 8 feet from the fence.

If this gentleman wanted to add on to his house, he could add on in this area. Area up to 8 feet with a setback of 8 feet. So it would be 2 feet short of that 20-foot deal. But in the, in the case we're talking about, we would, we would be talking about a code that said he might ever build in this area. So when you place your ADU, we're going to make sure you're 30 feet away from that line that he could build to.

There are a couple of cases where the home on the right is Much further away from the property line, the 20 feet becomes irrelevant, right?

Right.

But is the homeowner on the left still required to build at least 10 feet away from the property line in that case?

Yes, he's still required to stay 10 feet from the property line no matter what. That's the minimum, no matter what.

And we're going to have utility easements.

Utility easements are going to be in most of that 10 feet.

So, so I guess my question is this, maybe I'm not quite understanding this, but my question is why then the way you're explaining it looks like there's not going to be any overstep on other people's rights of buffering, or what you want to call it. But, but we have to put an exception in the code. If that's true, then we don't need the exception in the code. So that's why I asked earlier, is 30 feet the needed amount to provide to protect those? Opportunities to use the property how they want, both neighbors. So I thought that's why we came up with the 30 feet, because that was the solution to impinging on someone else's buildable area.

Well, I, yeah, I don't know if it's quite that on the nose.

It's—

30 feet is a greater setback to assure that the ADU in the backyard, because it's in the backyard. Doesn't impact the potential future enjoyment of that potential addition neighbor. And that's— I think that's— that's— it's kind of a— this one's really a question of principle. I'm way over.

I'm sorry.

This one is really a question of how you're looking at it. If the intent is to say, um, there's no— you need to be far away from anybody's potential home. Then you want something like the 30-foot deal. If 20 feet between any dwelling and anybody's accessory dwelling unit is acceptable.

We're switching from buildable area to dwelling, and that's the thing I'm having a problem with is I think those buildable areas should be protected.

Right? So the principal part I'm talking about.

So when you switch to then making the distance between a dwelling, then you have that opportunity to impinge on somebody else's buildable area. So, how do we get something that doesn't create that exclusion needing to be in the law? How can we just have clean law without any opportunity for someone affecting someone else's enjoyment of their property?

Well, if you're talking about in terms of code, somebody's house, this house, for example. So this house right here. As it was pointed out, has not been built up to this 8-foot line. Neither has this one, right?

So there's only—

there's 16 feet potentially between these homes all the way back to 25 feet for the rear lots. So most of that space hasn't been used up. So I'm not sure how it— It doesn't really translate exactly that way. It's because he could build 8 feet right here, build this, build this house out to right that point, fill up his 8 feet and only be 16 feet from this house. So, 20 feet is already more than that. 30 feet is significantly— well, 10 feet again more than that. So it just does more to keep the ADU away from him. The house could potentially be a lot closer to his house than the ADU could be. So it's, it's sort of recognizing that the ADU is a different animal. And is not expected, like you've said in the past, no one signed up for having something in the backyard as a house. So we want to keep that further away. From the home than it would be otherwise, than actually the main dwelling can be. The same point, though. It's the same point on the other side of that argument. That's the problem is they're not— they're both good arguments. Same point on the other side of that argument is the house can— the house can be 2 stories and have 35 feet, and it's already— it's already only got to be 16 feet from your home if you're built to 8 feet. So why does— what do we really gain by pushing the ADU further? It's just if you, if you view the ADA as needing, or the ADU as needing to stay subordinate to the primary home and not impact as much as possible, then something like the 30 feet from the building line is a better way to go. The 20 feet is a failsafe protection saying, you know, subordinate, it's just not as subordinate. The other person, does that make sense? Yeah, it's, it's just a different way of looking at it.

Can I just make sure my math is correct on this, Jared? You're always going to have 16 feet between dwelling units because that's the buildable line.

Yes.

When you add an ADU, according to this plan, you're always going to have at least 18 feet. Yes, because you have 10 on your side and 8 on their side. And if they do not build up to the buildable line, you're always going to have at least 20 feet. Yes, I get that right. That's right.

So, why do we need the exclusion?

To give them the other 2 feet from the 18. If they, if they build it, if they build an AU here at 10 feet and he wants to build right here, he's going to be violating the 20-foot rule by 2 feet.

Why don't we just do 10 feet from the property line side property lines?

Well, we'd have to adjust the regular R-8 zoning to say you don't get an 8-foot side yard. You gotta have a 10-foot side yard.

So, what— but that doesn't really— I mean, 2 feet for that, then that puts 2 feet on the owner who wants the ADU. They feel the impact by 2 more feet.

Wait, the way that you could— more simple way that you could make it. I mean, it was just changing the number. You could call the number, the side setback, 12 feet, and then you would protect forever the kind of expected 8-foot side yard.

So that's an easy write-up with no having to put an exception in the code.

You could say side yards are 12 feet to worry about that.

But if we're going to go with the 25-foot setback to match the zone, why would we change the side setback to not protecting the buildable area?

The side yard is because they have a difference between 8-foot or a choice between 8 or 10. Build your house, you can move your house. You just have to have the combined 20, I thought.

But, well, 20 is— 20 is the failsafe.

That's why, right? Is—

Yeah, that's what it would do is it would say it won't impact anybody's— your ADU couldn't impact anybody's ability to build on their lot if you were 12 feet off your property.

12 just protects both people without having to worry about an exception in the code.

I think in the 2 feet. Yeah, yeah, that's, that's true. If we made it 12, you wouldn't worry about an exception.

What's the height on, for example, if I wanted to build a 3-story home on the 8-foot setback line on my home? How high is that? I mean, how high can I go now that we've, we've made—

that's a good question. We made changes to how high, right?

But I'm just saying, so if I'm 8 feet away, so it would adjust out, but how high can I go if I'm on the 8-foot line?

30 feet.

Okay, so I can go up 30 feet on my personal residential home. My ADU is set at 14. So, I think for me personally, the discussion of the 20 or 30 is, is almost germane based on the size of my regular primary home will impinge much more on my neighbor at 30 feet than this little 14 feet so far away.

Anyway, our height ordinances have been written. That's a good point. The height ordinances that we've written now are attempting to address that. So, 30 feet is your baseline. But again, we've got that buildable envelope that might impact that a little bit. You might only be at 24-somethings if you can get that and put a gable on it. We're going to make you do all kinds of stuff, but could go.

I think that, Chris, I think the issue is neighbor relations, because, you know, I can't really say anything about my neighbor adding on to their house, right? But I can get hot under the collar about my neighbor adding an apartment behind their house. Because for some reason, that's going to bug me more.

Right?

Well, I think it might bug you more, but I don't know if it'd bug everybody more. That's, that's the, that's the question I'm asking.

It's going to bug the property, the next-door property owner more because it's a different housing product that has been placed next to their house. It's no longer single-family dwelling. Okay, taking up that space.

I can see what you're saying.

That's what I'm trying to say.

I agree with what you're saying. I, my opinion is slightly different, but I understand.

Thank you.

I'm just trying to throw that out.

Yes, thank you.

Come up against.

Super.

Thank you.

Great.

Anything else?

And I— to me, 10 feet, that feels like it's 2 feet more than what it would have been.

So I'm good with the 10 feet. Okay. Other thoughts that I should take into consideration here for the—

I'm good with it as you— did you say 10 feet from the property line then?

10 feet for the interior property.

Okay.

Any other cover? I think I understand the kind of everybody's positions on it, where we are, and I can try to write for that. So, yeah, it'll be fun.

It will be fun.

Do you have any thoughts as we go forward, as we go toward the Hold on a second. Let me know, shoot me any thoughts, and I'll try to—

okay.

And yeah, and we can hash it out and be ready. The most important thing is that we get something in place. And like Crystal said, we can always make modifications.

We can make modifications.

Make any kind of modifications we need to.

Okay.

All right.

I'll shut up and let you move on to work. Thanks, guys.

All right. The next item on our agenda is a Central Dispatch Solution, 10-minute presentation, 10-minute Q&A.

You can—

if I just—

Go for it.

We've got Jake too, and we're going to cleanse your palate from all this ADU stuff, and we'll talk about something else for a minute, and then we'll get back into the main course of the ADUs with Jake. So we rock-paper-scissors, and I'll talk about dispatch and he'll talk about ADUs. With that, I just— we don't need to take the full 20 minutes. I'll go be very brief so that you can have more time to discuss the ADUs with Jake. But I do want to give a little bit of history to our newer council members as to what brought us here to transferring over from Metro dispatch to central dispatch and the reasons behind that so that when we bring it to the consent for the next council meeting, we'll be prepared to make that decision. So in 2022, we had some historical issues with dispatching, retaining and attracting and recruiting dispatchers. And it was nationwide that we were having issues with that. And with that, we met with Provo and decided to join with Provo to create Metro dispatch. And that was a consolidation that we gave up our public safety answering point, our PSAP, because the state has requirements that if you join another agency, you can only have one PSAP. And once you give up your PSAP, you're not able to get it back. So with that, the provisional agreement that we made with Provo would be that we would share one PSAP and work together As an interlocal agency. And from 2022 to 2025 was the timeframe that we were supposed to create the interlocal agency. During that time, Provo had some hesitation and reservation to create the interlocal agency and has decided that they would prefer that we were a customer of Provo Dispatch rather than an interlocal agency. That impacts not just Orem residents, but Lyndon residents as well. So we met with Provo administration and tried to work out some ways that we could continue forward working with Provo for dispatch. And we weren't able to come to a resolution there. And our biggest issues were being able to control the budget, having administrative control over the decisions that were made with Provo dispatch or Metro dispatch. And then also just our public safety control with the decisions that were made with how many radios we had for each location. So with that and the state's requirements for— with PSAPs, our only other option was to look at central dispatch. Central dispatch dispatches for Utah County and most of the cities, the surrounding cities. We went to them and asked them for a bid on how much it would cost for us to move over to that. There is a significant savings to Orem and Linden cities to make that transition. There will be a startup cost, like a buy-in cost, that will impact us the first year. In speaking with Brandon, his preference would be that we would do that all up front in the first year. But then moving forward, we would see about $500,000 in savings. year over year over, uh, and move away from, from Metro Dispatch. So with that, we can answer any questions you have, but our— we will be bringing forward a resolution next council meeting to approve the transition February 10th over to Central Dispatch.

I have a question. I just want to make sure I understand. When you say Central Dispatch resolution, is there any type of— are we talking about formal vote on a resolution that we receive, or are you talking about— is this resolution meaning that we're getting it resolved?

The resolution is that we are agreeing to join the interlocal agency of Central Dispatch.

Okay.

Yes, we would be looking for a vote from the City Council proving, resolving that Orem moved to Central.

Okay, so there'll be a formal action starting on February 10th, is that what you said?

February 10th, 2027 is when we would move over. We wanted to have a full year, which is what was in our original agreement, is that we would give Metro Dispatch a full year. But Provost's preference would be that we would leave sooner, as soon as possible. It will have a significant impact to Central to move us over quicker than the year.

Okay.

On Thursday, there will be a Central Dispatch Administrative Board meeting where they will vote to let us come in.

Sure, our intent is to move on February 10th.

The board just needs to codify that.

And so when will we see this resolution?

The 22nd.

22nd, okay. Council, do you have any questions?

Yes, I do.

Oh, thanks.

Um, so with the new structure, if we go to Central, um, what will be the leadership structure? Will we become part of the board? Um, will we have control on access and part of the the budget based on the number of dispatchers or positions that we sponsor in their current system?

That's a great question. So right now, with the structure that we've been currently working under with Provo, we don't have any administrative control as far as budgeting, personnel decisions, any of those things.

When we move over to Central, we will have a governing member of—

on the administrative board, as well as the Operations Board. So police and fire will have a member on the Operations Board, and then we will have an administrator on, on the Administrative Board.

We also have the option, if necessary, weighted vote based off of calls and population. That's the— those are the questions that would be critical for us to go anywhere. Those would be all the questions, and it sounds like Central has all of those answers. And Provo just wants us to not have those options currently in our current situation. So I'm just trying to make sure I weigh and understand both so I can make that voter decision. So that's helpful too. So, Chris, yeah, contextually, when we did the original agreement, the agreement was that we would be forming a local agency where we would have that equal partnership. In the interim, we would just have an advisory board, but ultimately would be Provo's Municipal Council that had final say. So we have had an advisory board, but it's just been that advisory. It hasn't had actual control.

Thank you. What about— I know when we first joined Provo, we had issues with the way that our culture handled calls and Provo handled calls, and we had to work through just some of that. What kind of— what do we have with Central? Can we get those same helpful culture know that we're used to when our people go in. Tell me, how's that work?

What is very nice is that when dispatchers from Metro who used to be OREM dispatchers found out that we were looking to move to Central, a lot of our OREM dispatchers have actually gone over to Central in anticipation of us coming over. So a lot of our previous dispatchers, OREM dispatchers, are at Central now. anticipating us coming over. And with us being by far the largest city coming over, every city will see a cost savings because of the economies of scale. And so with that, we were able to negotiate an extra fire channel for, um, the fire department and some things that, um, that our requests were when we moved over. So we, we are actually going to see a higher level of service from Nice.

Also, just to pigtail or piggyback on that, we also negotiated a little bit of potentially a credit or reduction in our buy-in based on those economies of scale. And we'll see that on an audit a year into our membership in Central 911.

And just to kind of, you know, not belabor the point, but prior to moving to Provo, we had a very helpful dispatch. Someone would call in, they would be helped. We had issues when we went with Provo that it was, call back on Monday at 8:00 AM. No, it's an issue with something. So you're telling me then is we have influence, we have a voice to say, this is this level of service that we expect. We can, you know, work on those types of—

So are you talking about non-emergency dispatch?

Yes.

And talking about how does that work, Chief, you might be able to answer that.

I would say with all changes, there will be some growing pains, and I would say we'd be able to work through those. Um, what the end goal, uh, what it actually ends up being and finalized after months or years, I, I would hope would be to a level of where we're at and where we expect, and that's where we would continue to work from. Just the change is going to be a change. And I think this is the best thing for us as a police and a fire and a city. But I would expect some growing pains and some change, but not so drastic that we're going to be dreading it.

I'm comfortable with their ability and how they operate.

That will be well served.

And I would just add to that that our former dispatch manager, when OREM was functioning very well here, is the operations manager over at Central.

Oh, that's huge.

So not only are our dispatchers there, but the administration is, is some of them.

So the interesting clarity there.

I mean, of course the emergency comes first, right? But just that culture of service that you're talking about is what I'm hoping that we can be able to have a voice in.

Those are my concerns. Just naturally go from being advisory customer best to a proportional share of decision-making on the governing— Is the largest population entity.

So most decisions will not be a weighted decision, but equal unless we invoke the weighted.

Can you do that decision by decision?

Yeah, you can choose that depending upon what the decision is that they— so I don't anticipate that we would need to invoke that often at all, but we do have that ability.

So it is—

it's a—

it's discretionary on the board member if there's a vote that comes up and the city— the board member wants to call for a weighted vote. They can make that call under their structure.

And then it becomes a weighted vote, or do they vote on whether it's a weighted vote?

Well, it becomes a weighted vote.

Yeah. Really wait to wait.

I mean, we would want to be very careful in that. We don't want to come in and act like we're the big dogs on campus because that's not our intention.

Exactly.

Jay, can I follow up on something you said?

Yeah.

I'm just wondering if you could give us a little bit more of time horizons in terms of operational impact. So between now and February, do you see any operational impacts? February to 6 months in, do you see operational impacts? And then long-term, it sounds like you think it will be better, and I'm just wondering what we anticipate will be better.

Isn't that from cost savings?

Besides cost, yeah.

I was talking about operations. Yes. Um, I think you will have—

it will change, and there will be some growing pains as to how we operate in the sense of just how we talk on the radio. Um, it's very nuanced. It becomes muscle memory. Uh, that's going to change a little bit with a new dispatcher, new dispatch system. And then that will become the new muscle memory. So I'm only worried about just, you know, terms and, uh, how we're used to responding to them on the radio. So it's those type of things that I'm—

I'm more—

the finer nuanced things that citizens won't even see, more just from operations of an individual officer and how he calls out on a traffic stop or, or that type of stuff. Um, it's going to be working through that process.

Uh, now that we kind of have the month, anticipated month, as to what we're doing, we're now beginning those type of preparations of, okay, the transitioning away from Provo, and then what it's going to look like transitioning into Central 911. Um, I don't have a lot of those answers nuanced, uh, to give you some very specifics. Um, cost is a big thing right now, just figuring out how Provo is going to be able to provide us the level of service that they currently are with the anticipation of us leaving. So where's that sweet spot? Um, and that's where we've landed on with February. And so, um, I will make it work. I'm confident of that.

Some of the things we're trying to balance too here is it's not simply flipping a switch and take one cable and plug it into another cable. We have Motorola as the main provider cutover, so we've got to work with private providers to make sure that those cutovers, when somebody calls 911, instead of getting routed to Provo's PSAP, it actually hits central so they can be dispatched correctly. We have also private computer providers, L3 and Harris, whose main offices are up in Salt Lake. They're actually going to be Physically moving components from Provo over to central dispatch, making sure those are tested, making sure those are running correctly before any of these cutovers are made. So that's one of the implications when Provo's saying, well, we want you to cut over quicker. Well, again, we would like to make that move too, but there's a lot of moving parts and a lot of— once the ball gets rolling, there's a lot of moving parts that go downhill too.

And then staffing on top of that too. It takes a significant amount of time to onboard a new dispatcher to make sure that they meet all the requirements to be able to go live. And so it takes some time for them to ramp up because they will have to hire several dispatchers to answer the size of our 2 cities.

Like, February 10th gives us enough time to do all of those things?

So as we've negotiated with Central and Provo, It was always our intent to give a full 12 months. That way it provided Central Dispatch 12 months to ramp up new dispatchers and then make sure that we could do all of these, you know, all of the third-party cutovers. Provo, however, would like us to make that cutover much quicker. So it's a little bit of balancing, and as we've worked with Central, they feel like they could February is about the earliest they could accommodate that, and that's kind of the window we're trying to hit.

With that, though, we want to make sure— with that, we want to make sure that we don't impact negatively too much the other cities that have already agreed to let us come in. We want to make sure that we're good partners from day one. So there will be a ramp-up cost to us by transitioning over earlier in February. We will have to pay some overtime costs and maybe some travel dispatchers just to make make sure that we, we have the level of services that we need.

It's also a balance in terms of being a good neighbor to Provo as they ramp down, because they need to ramp down their staffing so that that means they can't hire new additional staff. So I've said multiple times in these meetings, our top priorities are peace, positive relationships, and protection. And so we're trying to do that both with Central and with Provo in this transitionary period.

And that's what I'm talking about with, like, where's that sweet spot? I would say worst-case scenario, we're doubled up with another agency that we ordinarily wouldn't be just for radio time, like Pleasant Grove, Palatine, Alpine for a period of time until they get enough dispatchers. It's not ideal. It's not the worst thing in the world.

Done that before.

Make it work.

That's helpful. And where are we in terms of the formalizing of separation agreement?

We've already given that to them. So we, we stayed true to what the original agreement was, and that was a full year. So we gave that to them the end of July. Um, so they've, they've been on notice since.

Are there things still to negotiate?

Uh, there will be, yes.

Um, there's things still to follow through on, make sure that there's no standing devils in the details.

Where is Central Dispatch located physically?

It's in Spanish Fork, west of the freeway, where all Utah County West Complex, the West Campus of the Utah County Jail. It's a beautiful location. They're looking at making the consoles, because they'll have to bring in new consoles with us coming in and fitting it in in a better way that has better communication for all employees. So the current employees are excited about this transition.

Too, because it's going to give them a little upgrade.

Yeah, yeah, upgrade plus more personnel.

This is going to be better for—

I mean, just, you know, better coverage and everything.

Win-win.

I'll also just highlight from a budgetary standpoint, our intent would be to reinvest, uh, these public safety cost savings into future public safety operational It needs— which we need.

Yes.

Anything else that I could help answer or not answer?

Sorry.

Great.

Thank you. As I learned, again, I apologize for missing the morning of 2 Mondays ago, but afternoon, my experience In the fire aspect, there's always a lot more than one piece in handling public safety. And I— this is, again, we saw some of that firsthand as far as the actual operations out there in the field, but behind the scenes, there's a lot, a lot of nuance. There's a lot that goes on. And so appreciate it. Appreciate the work you've done.

On, on this.

They know that it was—

We're always looking at both sides of the ledger, um, that comes from Bren and from you all. And so with this, we're excited about the potential savings too, as we're always trying to find, um, ways to be more fiscally responsible.

Oh, thank you.

All right, Council, it is, um, I hate to break it to you, Jake, but I don't think you're going to have 90 minutes.

Figured.

So what I, what I envisioned, um, it is— so it's like, tell me something new, Mayor. Um, at 5, I'm guessing dinner is going to be ready at 5. Is it 5 o'clock? Is that— that will take a quick break at 5, and I've asked Councilmember Millett to offer a blessing on the food at 5 o'clock. And then we'll continue. So if you can quickly get your food, it's from Mr. Dog. It's— is it Mr. Dog?

Mr. Dog.

Is that hot dog?

They're one of our, uh, Feast of Warum.

They're hot dogs. They're Venezuelan hot dogs.

Venezuelan.

Venezuelan hot dogs.

I saw her at the OVA.

And so appreciate them as a member of our community. So we'll then— we'll quickly get that, come back, and then we'll resume Discussion, and I would like to have us end our discussion at about 10 minutes to 6, so we can kind of regroup and figure that. Um, just quickly before I turn the time over to you, just want to give a little update on where we're at as far as how I see where we're at, and you can tell me if I'm out in the night, that's fine. We've come a long way. In fact, this afternoon I was interviewed by one of our employees for a newsletter, and she asked, what is— what would you like to get done at the end of the year? Before she finished the sentence, I said, the short-term rental ordinance. But we've come a long way. I know that we've had a lot of discussion. There's been compromise. There have been so many issues that we've discussed, and And I appreciate all of you so far. Well, I'll appreciate you even after today. So, so far sounds like I'm going to stop appreciating you. No, I do appreciate you and the compromises and the discussions that we've had. We've had different opportunities to visit with staff. I know that some, as we were trying to figure out the step going forward, one of our work sessions, we talked about maybe possibly 2 different ordinances. So, council members, um, Millett and Muehlstein and I met with, with Jake to talk about some things, and I know others have talked, Jake, but everybody's opinion matters on this. Everybody— I know people are coming into this that I, I think, and as we go through this ordinance as council members and what we're, what we're concerned about and what we hope, our hopes for it. I hope we get— we all get most of what we want. I do recognize that there are some sacrifices, and each of us does have the interests of the community at heart, wanting in their definition and feeling of being fair to people in the community, those who in good faith started businesses, short-term rental businesses. I think everybody wants— as I've talked to you, All about it. Everybody wants to protect our community and wants to protect neighborhoods. Everybody wants to respect property rights. I don't see any disagreement. I've not seen any disagreement in that as far as we go on that. So appreciate the staff. You're juggling everybody because we have, we have definitely 7 different opinions as I've, as I've talked to council members, and that puts, puts y'all in a, in a in a position to hear 7 different opinions, and maybe we, maybe we gotta have a test. Who, which council member thinks this? No, I'm just joking. Um, but anyway, where we left off on our last discussion is my, my understanding was we were going to— we actually started off with the majority of the council was comfortable with owner occupied. And so we actually came along and we talked about having 2 separate drafts come forward, one with the owner occupied component only, and one that had a non-owner occupied piece as well. So you're in recollection, is that where we— that's where we were then as discussions took place. I know, as I've discussed with Jake, The thought of maybe having a base ordinance that was owner occupied and had— and we had a lot of our standards that we talked about, and then have a section for exceptions or additions where the possibility of non-owner occupied could be discussed as well. Is that— is that your understanding? Is that everybody's understanding? Okay, I'm seeing heads nodding.

And you're saying that to the point of Decision-making.

What do you mean?

Discussions?

Discussion?

Discussion thus far?

Yeah, that's a discussion so far.

So I guess I'm saying, are you saying the direction to have to write 2 different ordinances?

I thought that we shifted to one. I thought as we discussed it, I don't know. I don't know how we officially shifted over to it. Did it make more sense to have one?

Let me just answer kind of where I am at.

Okay, if you can answer where you're at, then that's a great segue. Then after that, then I'm going to turn the time over to you. And I understand we're going to continue our, our hike.

Yes.

Okay, as, as a group, and we all want to stay on the trail. Okay, I don't want anybody— I don't want to leave anyone behind. I don't want to have anyone fall off or anything like that.

You, Jake, sometimes it feels that way.

You got cat— oh, look at the cats! So, hi.

I just cannot do cats.

You're all on the path. Trying to keep all the cats on the path. Some aren't even on leashes.

I love that picture. I like dogs.

So, so they— there is— I feel that there's not— there's some consensus on some basic points, and then there's not enough consensus really to come forward with 2 different drafts, because I feel like there are a lot of diverging opinions, or some of the opinions are close to the same, but there's just enough of a tweak to it that it doesn't really fit nicely within 2 competing ordinances. So really, I want to, um, kind of walk through tonight a couple different waypoints. Um, I say on here 8. I know I'm not going to get to all 8. In fact, I didn't prepare all 8 because I didn't think we would get through all You've been on this hike before. I have. He's a trail guide. This feels like, you know, we're trying to go to Everest, the summit of Everest, and you have to acclimatize. So you go up to Camp 1 and come on back down and go up to Camp 2 and come on back down. So it takes a little bit of time. We'll get there. Um, but the 8 different waypoints that I look at it as a way to, to frame the discussion moving forward are Establishing that we, yes, we are moving forward on an owner-occupied framework. From there, defining some of the terms. So we have a common language. So when we talk about something, we're all talking about it from the same viewpoint or the same perspective. And then addressing licensing and enforcement mechanisms. From there, addressing some of, um, some clarity of, are we applying density, spacing, ADU requirements to the owner-occupied? Um, license. Then going back to some of our qualitative restrictions, the 24/7 urgent response, um, our quiet hours times, um, and then addressing parking and other rental restrictions. The other 2 that I've not prepared for tonight, because I didn't think we'd get there, is ultimately conversations on occupancy and what occupancy limits would look like. And then any exceptions to the owner-occupied restriction within the framework. So that's kind of the different waypoints as I see them to, to build a common language and framework from where we can build the ordinance and see where there is consensus and where there's still work to do. Because we're having hot dogs, I guess, for dinner tonight, I won't really go about my metaphor that I was thinking of. You know, oftentimes legislation is you're making sausage and nobody really wants to see how it's made. They just want to see it at the end and it's good. Nobody wants to see it being made. But that's exactly what we're doing. We're doing this in public meetings with divergent opinions and perspectives. And so because of that, it may feel like the draft ordinance keeps getting beat up or getting reborn or changed. And Feels a bit battered, but that's just part of the process of doing this in a public meeting. If this was at the state Capitol, some legislator would have gone to a staff attorney and said, draft me a draft bill that will say this. That attorney gets to work, drafts it up, hands it off to the legislator, and they go to committee. It might get tweaked in committee, and then it makes it to the floor of the House. At least that's how Schoolhouse Rock taught me how it works.

I'm just a bill.

Yep.

Here we are in a public meeting, and we're trying to decide what this bill really should be and what it should look like. So there is quite a bit of work still to do, but we have done a lot as far as part of the framing. And I agree with the mayor, based on our last work session, It felt like the consensus of the council was that we would build off of an owner-occupied framework. I just want to ask the general question, is that where the council still sits? Is that where the consensus still is? If there's anybody in disagreement, I would love to hear, and we can pivot.

I'm in disagreement, and I'm happy to— I'll just do it now. I was trying to figure out when I state this. I'm just gonna do it in a nutshell. But the reason I just want to explain, I totally get the short-term rental desire. And, but just short, just very briefly for me, I feel like I want to look more long-term. I want to look at solving issues that we can solve. This is an opportunity that we have not had. And to help with our affordable housing is if we can keep them illegal and actually enforce our illegal short-term rental ordinance, we could have up to, you know, numbers are disputed, but 500 additional housing opportunities on our market. We could have— we don't have to approve any new zoning. We don't have to increase any density. We don't have to have more land, you know. We could have this opportunity to see if we can pull that lever to see if that makes a difference in our housing crisis that we're having right now. So I guess my— the reason I am kind of— I get owner occupied, and I've been trying to work on this ordinance because I think if we have a buttoned-up ordinance, it could be a good thing. But before we move to that step, I'm of the idea that, you know, let's finish up this ordinance. Let's put it in the file cabinet. For a couple years, and let's see what happens if we get all of these housing opportunities back to our city. See if it helps bring kids to our schools. See if it helps young couples find places to live. See what it actually does, because so much of housing we can't control, and this is such an opportunity for— to see what we can. And it's not permanent. It's a, it's a It's a, you know, new horizon, Star Trek, going out there seeking new opportunities. Um, that I think we should seize. I think we should. Um, that's why I'm in the camp that I'm in. I'm not against short-term rentals, but I am in this camp of, wow, let's see what this could do to our city and how it could help our city bring families, bring children, bring Young couples who can't find housing anywhere. You know, just that narrative is kind of where I am. And once again, I just want to emphasize it's not an anti-short-term rental opinion. It's a— wow, this has been dropped in our laps. We have learned that there are a number of these in our city that we weren't aware of. So let's pull it back.

Let's get all of them off the thing.

And then when we, you know, discontinue them, close them up. And then if in a couple of years we're not seeing these all selling and creating more housing opportunities, then we roll it out, what we've created, and we license everyone in an orderly fashion. And we are— everything is in line, and we've tried the opportunity that was placed before us. So just, I felt like I had to kind of say that. That's kind of my pitch, my thoughts right now.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Well, maybe I'll just say, Lynnae, that I think we do care about housing affordability. I think that's important. I'm not a pro-modeler on this. I think that if our— from the basic modeling I've done, which should be reviewed, that We might— if all of those houses were free to purchase for only single families, we might gain a percentage or 2 of the cost of an average house. But I think that the bigger opportunity for housing affordability is actually for people to purchase a home and help with their mortgage by having a short-term rental in their basement or something. So I think that will have a much bigger impact on people's ability to purchase homes.

Right.

But I'm just going to push back on that because it doesn't mean they can't rent out their basement for long-term rental. We're not taking away an income-producing opportunity from them. It's just the one that they're choosing to do, which I think negatively impacts our housing supply by allowing short-term rental. That's one couple that can't— I had a couple in my ward that he looked for 4 months. They wanted to live in Orem. Took them 4 months. They lived with their uncle for 4 months. Um, so anyway, that's— so I understand what you're saying on, on the assisting affordability. I'm just kind of, once again, I'm like, ah, there's this opportunity here.

Do we know?

We don't know.

Yeah, I think there are pluses and minuses to short-term rental versus long-term rental for a homeowner.

It totally is.

Yeah.

And they're both fixable.

Yeah.

And one of the things that has been on my mind the entire time we've been discussing this is, are we turning our housing stock into Investment opportunity rather than stabilizing force in their life. If, if, you know, lots of houses even just have an ADU as a short-term rental, and it's this investment thing, all the houses around them go up in price, making it more unaffordable for people to get into the market in the first place. And are we just creating this upward spiral of housing cost is making it harder and harder and harder for the next generations to get their foot in the door. So I, I agree with Renee's point of view on that, that we, we are seeing housing prices starting to come down. Would this help some way to equalize the housing prices for our community? And there's might not be the right word, but bring it down some. So yeah, just something to think about.

Thanks.

Thanks for sharing those things.

So based on what I had felt was the consensus of the council, kind of In my mind is what does an owner-occupied framework look like? And so with that, I want to kind of talk about a couple different provisions here that I've drafted that help kind of really lay out what I would think a baseline owner-occupied framework ordinance looks like. The first is You would basically—

by—

you would adopt this ordinance, and by adopting it, you're going to prohibit all short-term rentals within the city unless the operator comes in and obtains a license. You would have to come through an application process. During that application process, they would have to show that they're owner-occupied. And would not allow anybody to rent an STR for a period of time less than 24 hours, and it would not allow somebody to operate or rent an STR for more than 30 days. So basically what you're doing is you're defining really narrowly what an STR is. It's a rental of more than 24 hours. in less than 30 days, and you have to have a license. So other than that, it would be prohibited within the city. Are there any questions about that baseline?

Just a question about the C, Jake.

Yes.

So if someone is renting for 60 days, for example, we have a provision in our landlord licensing That would allow them to do that. It would be the landlord that exists, right?

Yes, the landlord dwelling, uh, the residential dwelling license would be applicable there. It's a rental for more than 30 days.

So anything more than 30 days, we do have a pathway for that.

So this, this language C is really to address what we had talked about in a previous work session of how do we ensure that somebody is not using this, um, to go around like our student housing zone? So no guest or any—

what is it?

So no single guest or any group of guests can stay in an STR for more than 30 consecutive days. That way you don't have the dead time windows that we had been proposing previously. That's what this language does. Are there any other questions on this?

So do you want us to, as we go along, as we go on our trail, say, Okay, are we all at this point? Are we— do you want to— do you want us to say we're comfortable with— we're okay proceeding with this?

That'd be great. Um, I'm also going to try to do a vibe check, I guess would be the phrase the kids say, um, and see where, you know, if I feel like there's a lot of pushback, then I know that there's not consensus. But if there's not a lot of questions, um, I'm just kind of gauging based on reactions.

I do have a question, because a lot of cities are doing minimum 2-night rent. In order to avoid the party house. So we are not doing that anymore. I thought we had that in our— um, we talked about that.

We had talked about that several work sessions ago. Um, there was quite a bit of public or personal appearance, um, comments that came out in regards to that, talking about how feasible that is, what that impact is on operators. Based on that, again, my feeling from the consensus of the council was But it was not— it wasn't going to be a minimum nightly stay or a period of time that an STR needed to remain vacant in between rentals. And so that is not currently what I'm proposing here tonight.

So, I'm sorry, I don't know when those conversations happened.

Those were in work sessions. We've— again, I can't point you to the date of which those are. I just—

So we pulled that one off. We now no longer— okay, can I just make sure everybody's okay with that? Let's get everybody on the record here of saying they're—

I'll just ask the question. Is there, is there a consensus amongst the council that want to have a minimum stay of 2 days, 3 days? Is there a consensus that wants to have a vacancy requirement in between stays and supportive of this language?

So I have done this for 2 years now. This is interesting to me, but, um, the reason we did the 2 days is because so many other neighboring cities, we had data and evidence that that was how they stopped party houses that were occurring with the 24 consecutive— with the minimum 24 hours.

So the minimum 24 hours is, is to, to tackle a different problem. That is so, so nobody comes and uses it for like a wedding reception for 3 hours as a reception center, or they use it as a place to do something that's nefarious for 2 to 3 hours. It's basically— it's meant to address what our intent is for STRs, is to be overnight accommodations. So there would be a rental of a 24-hour period.

Okay, so do you have a 1-day then, or we don't?

I don't have anything in In this draft that I'm presenting tonight. If it is the consensus of the council that I can look at adding that. Right now, the minimum is 24 hours. Minimum is 24 hours.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 24 hours would force them into a 2-day rental though, because you're checking in.

At 3.

You check in at 3 and out by 11.

So I guess that's technically—

if you're checking in 1 hour, then out by 11 or 10 or whatever the owner's Things are, you would have to do 2 days to get the 24 hours anyways.

So that would need to be changed to 21. So yeah, we could adjust that. I mean, again, the intent is that it was to be for an overnight stay.

Yes, I support that. Right. And I'm talking about something different. So you're saying—

I think, Linda, I think what you're asking for is more than a 1-night stay.

I'm talking, how do we avoid the party house? We've had those discussions. How do we avoid the party house?

But I think that was the point of the owner occupied.

Yes, and I think, I think Jeff's point—

hey, so is this owner occupied then?

Yes, this is only tonight. We're only talking about owner occupied as the sole framework of this. Okay.

Yes, thank you for that clarification.

Then it's 5, so you mind? Okay, now we've got— take just a second.

We can take our time.

2-minute break, 3-minute break, and put your dinner— um, Lynnae, do you mind?

I'm so happy to. Thanks.

Thank you.

Our beloved Father in Heaven, we're grateful for this opportunity we have to meet together today and discuss these important issues of our community. We pray for thy blessings to be upon this food that's for us, that it may give us nourishment and strength, strength to serve thee and those around us. We're so grateful for The blessings of where we live and pray for thy guidance in all that we do.

So these things in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Thank you. Sorry to just go off the start. Turn on information, turn on cameras or recorders.

Camera's good. Let me check.

What?

What? Hey, a little bit of Shift in the direction here. We have Jake just give us— go through and give us information now, and then we've got time after he gets through what he wants to get through today. Well, we'll, we'll go from there, but let's— we'll just go ahead and let Jake— let's see, we're still at the first waypoint, right?

Or not?

Or we're approaching the first waypoint?

We're in the first waypoint.

Yay!

Okay.

So again, talking about what this framework looks like. So they would have to come in and provide, as I said, proof of ownership. And what that looks like is they have to bring in a copy of a deed listing them as a fee title— the fee title owner, and it has to show that that deed has been recorded with Utah County Recorder's Office. So that's how we're going to see, are they truly the owner of the property that they're coming in to apply for short-term rental? The next is we're going to require also that they provide proof that they're occupying that parcel, home they own, as they operate the short-term rental. And what we're looking for as far as ownership is they would have to provide their most recent state and federal tax returns Listing the property as their primary residence. And they'd also have to show government-issued identification listing that address as their residence. And we'd also require an affidavit indicating that they dwell at that residence and that they live there for 304 days a year. That is roughly Now trying to remember my math. So do not hold me. 9 months. 10 months. Thank you. I am a lawyer. I'm not an accountant. Um, and that was put in based on the concern was we had it originally at 183 days, which was basically halfway through the year or 6 months. Uh, there was concern from the council that was not enough. I've upped it to the 10-month mark.

Okay.

Um, then, okay, um, on the con— um, we would also require them to provide a certification of compliance indicating if they understand what the requirements are and that they have to maintain this in compliance with what they're applying for. The reason we're doing these 4 steps is if we come to find out after that they've applied Um, for this STR license as an owner-occupied STR operator, if they're not in compliance with it, that gives us the grounds to go ahead and revoke short-term rental license because they're not in compliance with those standards, those requirements. That gives us the basis in and of itself to revoke the license. We've talked about this as well, and this is just how it relates into code, is that, you know, the STR, the short-term rental license, will continue to be valid for the term that it was issued. The base term is 12 months. So it would be good for the remainder of the year, and it would remain valid until it expires. Or If the owner sells the land or transfers the land to somebody else, upon transference, that, that license is suspended. It's revoked. It is no longer a valid license. And that is because we have this language in there, which just basically says that by granting this license, it's a discretionary decision made by our business licensing official. It is not a land use decision. It does not create any vested rights. This right to operate a short-term rental doesn't run with the land. It's only a privilege during which the license is valid. And again, if the owner transfers the land or sells the land, that license expires upon transfer. So you cannot transfer the right to use the short-term rental license to somebody else. And then there's a catch-all provision as well, that if the council, a couple of years down the road, or a year down the road decides, you know, we tried this as an experiment, we don't like the results we're seeing, we want to discontinue the program. We've written in language that allows the council to come back and say, we've considered this, it is not in the best interest in the public health, safety, or welfare of the city. to grant STR licenses, and we're going to discontinue the program. That provides that language and authority for the council to do so in the future. Um, this became a concern, um, in talking through with individual council members. The concern is Okay, I own an STR as an owner occupied. I'm going to go out of town for a month. And while I'm gone, I want to rent my home, my home out as a— as an STR. So we no longer have the owner occupied buffer there because the owner's not present at the property at the time it's being used as a vacation rental. So, it kind of defies a little bit of some of the intent of what I heard the council saying, some of the reasons that we would be more lenient towards an owner occupied, because the owner would be there present while it's, while it's being rented. And so, what I've come up with here is language that requires the owner to be physically present during any time. The home is being rented out as a short-term rental. What that doesn't mean is it doesn't mean that the owner can't go about their normal life. It doesn't require them to stay home from work. It doesn't require them not to run their kids to school or go out and run errands. It does require them to be physically present overnight while the home is being used as an STR. Um, it also requires them to designate somebody that could respond 24/7 in case of any issue there at the property. If they've gone to work, if they're out running kids to the soccer practice, or they're out running errands and something's occurring at the home, there have to be a contact person the city could reach out to and say, we have a noise disturbance at your home. From one of your STR tenants, we need you to respond to the home. We respond within the next 20 minutes. So we have that contact person still, even for the owner. And then ultimately, just because they give that responsible person, that doesn't substitute the physical presence requirement. It would still be that they have to be physically present there during the stay, which means staying overnight. And then lastly, that again, this is the intent, um, from what I could gather from the council, is that the intent here is to allow short-term rentals to be operated as overnight accommodations, not as event centers, not as places where people come to hold a party or a concert, hold fundraisers, but really to be overnight accommodations. So that is the basic skeleton of what we mean when, when I say a framework of owner-occupied, knowing that every STR that I'm talking about in this world is owner-occupied. Are there any questions about those specific Subpoints. Okay, I'm going to move on to the next waypoint, which is building common language. And that is, what do we mean when we talk about a short-term rental? What do we mean when we say owner or owner-occupied? What are those definitions? What do they mean? The owner is an individual who is a fee title owner possessing 50% or more of ownership in the short-term rental property, or a trust ownership. And then I define what that means. It was created— trust was created primarily for estate planning purposes, placed the STR into the said trust, and they retain at least 50% of the primary beneficial interest. In the STR property.

The interpretation of trust, uh, primarily for estate planning purposes, that like there need to be other things besides the STR in the trust.

So it would be the home. It could be also anything else that the, the, the families decided to put into family.

That, but does it have to have more than just the home?

Yes.

So how do you prove estate planning purposes?

At the end of the day, we're putting a qualifier on here that it is for primarily estate planning purposes. It's the intent here. Could somebody still try to get around that? Yes, they could. But again, we're trying to at least state what our purpose is for this. This is language I think we've used elsewhere. Yeah, trying to remember where this is coming from.

Yeah, that's for our accessory apartments.

So, we just—

owner-occupied accessory apartments. Um, now, when it comes to owner occupancy, again, this is the place where they live. Well, uh, their primary residence. And it's their primary residence for at least 10 months of the year. Person just means individual. It also includes the corporate individual, the individual, any sort of trust, corporation, association, any, any person that the law generally identifies as a person. A renter is any single group, any single person or group of people whose primary residence is at some other location, coming to stay at that location in exchange of some sort of compensation in any form.

Short-term rental?

Short-term rental is just the adoption of what we all have identified as what a short-term rental is. It's the common acceptance of any stay, transient lodging, which is any stay less than 30 days. And then the acronyms STR is a short-term rental, STRL is the short-term rental business license. This definition is a little bit longer, and I'm just going to abbreviate it. At the end of the day, there was questions about what a violation is or what a strike is. Um, it is any sort of administrative regulatory action against an STR, um, under our city code, um, under any state law, um, that was issued by either the department, the Community Development Department, or the Attorney's Office, anybody who has the authority to enforce such law. Um, what we're doing is we're saying we're looking at the date that the violation occurred. We're not necessarily looking at the date when the violation was later confirmed. It was on what day did the violation occur. For purposes of if NIT goes out and we have a noise disturbance and also a lighting issue, and a parking issue. If all of those violations occurred at the same time, we're counting that as 1 single strike. That's just for simplicity of, you know, not trying to tack on or show that, you know, 5 violations all occurred at the same time. So now we're going to not only revoke the license then, but also prohibit you from operating because of a 1-time occurrence. Um, then I'm going to stop here. Are there any questions about the firms as they currently stand? Is there?

I do.

Yes, you said violations with substantial evidence. What does that mean?

Like, what kind of burden of proof is there?

We would use what we use for our ALJ, which is a preponderance of evidence. So I'm probably going to actually go back and rephrase this to the evidence so I'm consistent with what we use in our ALJ system.

And does that include an online listing?

Does that include that they reported it or had it confirmed, or like what kind of standard is there?

So that would be, again, we would use the violation and we confirm that. We would issue the violation notice if they want to appeal that. You go through the ALJ, and at that point, you would have a finding. If they don't appeal it, that's the finding in and of itself. Yes, Quinn.

I guess I haven't read every word of this, but according to this language, is every type of violation treated equally? In other words, you know, something that's relatively benign versus something that's egregious, they all get the same treatment in this language?

They do. Are there any other terms or any other— as we've talked about this, is there anything else that you feel like needs to be defined? Is there something out there that you're like, You know, I don't know if this is a rope or if this is a snake. Sorry, our family calls snakes nope ropes, so that, that's my joke. I'm just taking a note on changes.

Thank you.

Okay. Moving on then to the next waypoint, which is licensing and enforcement. So we've talked a little bit about this. I still don't know of any real good way that doesn't require, at the end of the day, us relying on somebody to make a complaint and/or requiring either a police officer or an NIT officer to go out and confirm or do some investigation. That is kind of just the nature of the beast when it comes to working city code, state law. Most of the time that we're engaging in sort of law enforcement agency, law enforcement action, is an officer notices something and takes action on it, receive a complaint of something, and an officer follows up on it. With that said, we're trying to put a lot of work at the front end of this, and that is by requiring the application to be pretty thorough here.

Okay.

I'm not going to necessarily go through each definition unless there's a specific request, just so I can keep moving forward here, but the STR license application would require them to describe with particularity the property in which they are renting out as the short-term rental. That includes putting forward a floor plan, identifying the bedrooms, identifying the square footage, and putting all of that at the outset of the application. So, when that application comes into the community development or business licensing, They can review it. They can see exactly what is going to be operated as the short-term rental unit. As we've already kind of talked about, there's proof of ownership, proof of occupancy. Those are also required at the outset of the application. They also have to sign an affidavit or a declaration saying that there are no private restrictions. that wouldn't prevent them from operating an STR. That would be your HOA or any sort of restrictive covenants within the neighborhood. The STR community talked about, you know, what make— what would make an STR operator successful, and they were pretty compelling as to the idea that there should be some sort of course, some sort of training for STR operators to know what those obligations are, what— how to be a good STR host. Still kind of looking around the community to try to find what we could use as far as a resource to require an STR rental management course. Looking at potentially trying to reach out with UVU to do this through their extended learning program. And have it be particular inclusive about what OREM's regulations are. A parking plan would have to be submitted at downset, identifying based on occupancy of the STR, how many people will be using the STR. Also, the lot, the parcel itself, what the parking plan would be for off-street parking. If there's the need to provide additional spots where those spots would be paved, those would have to be done prior to the issuance of the license. And then lastly, they would be— they would certify that they're in compliance with all of the regulations that we're setting out. Again, the basis is if we find that an STR license was issued in error because of misrepresentation in the application, That can be used as the basis to then revoke that STR license. Um, there would also be a requirement for inspections to make sure that the space is habitable and that it's safe, that there's a working carbon monoxide detector on each floor, that there's a smoke alarm operating there in the, in the STR as well. Again, just to ensure that those that are coming to visit Orem are coming and they're visiting in a safe space. Then we would be requiring applications. Fee is yet to be decided upon. Again, I know that the city intends to go to council that this fee be administered in such a way that it helps offset some of the costs to administer the program.

Okay.

And so we would be looking at doing that. These licenses would be an annual license. The window for renewal— I'm sorry, the window to start would be July 1st. They would be good from July 1st until June 30th. They would automatically expire on that June 30th date, so it would run with the fiscal calendar. If they renew, they would have a renewal window to do so. They'd be required to show proof of all payment of taxes. And provide any other documents that are required. So if the business licensing official is like, hey, I need to see an update of your parking plan, or I need to see an update of the floor plan, those could be requested. Those would be required to be resubmitted.

Well, I think we—

that had 12 months. Didn't we decide on a longer period for complaints? How many complaints are we doing?

Yeah, um, 2 strikes is what I've, I've altered it to. Do you want a period of—

I would say 2 years.

Is that where the council—

The problem was, I think when we talked about it, it was, well, there's the summer season, so if you get one in July and one in June, tax 2 months in a row, but it goes on 2 different licenses.

Didn't it say earlier there was a rolling?

Yeah, so I had it as a rolling period. If we can make it a rolling period, and I need to clarify that it is a rolling 12-month period as opposed to if it drops off in that previous fiscal cycle, then it doesn't get counted. It would be a rolling 12 months. I can just clarify it that way.

Yeah, one question, Jake. Is there an advantage to the city to do it in the fiscal year versus, uh, calendar year?

Uh, not necessarily. I just— I had done it with the fiscal year in case there's an increase in the fees. That's what typically adopted and changed the fiscal— the fiscal cycle. That's why I went July 1st to June 30th. I might throw in if they had to physically make any sort of construction type of changes, or obviously that's going to be easier to do in the summer periods than potentially in winter periods.

The only thought that crossed my mind is that the summer period may be a busier time, right? And therefore, if they are getting a renewal of the license or they're making any adjustments that I'm guessing we have fewer people coming in July, but that was my only thought.

Will you only be—

is there—

is it only open to be getting a short-term rental license in July? Could you get them anytime? Is the cost prorated if you buy them outside of that?

No. So the way It would be a fee if you picked it up. Let's say you— if we kept the July 1st date, right? So if you were to apply for an STR license and be approved in April, you would pay the fee and you would have to renew again. So you wouldn't be prorated for that.

Kind of like the Disney Channel, doesn't matter when you cancel, you pay the whole year.

This is how state park passes used to be. Yeah, it was a calendar year, and no matter when you bought it, but now they changed it back to when it's—

It rolls from the month that you do it. So does this put— having it all be done in June and July, does that put an undue burden on, you know, whatever department this falls under for them to get all of this done? Is it easier to have it be throughout the year, and then when you get it, is it easier to keep track of them?

I, I'm a little bit leery of having it be tracked. I don't want one to fall through. I rather would have a window of time that a staff person knows that this is coming up for renewal, and we're sending out notices as a, as a, you know, as a deadline saying, okay, I know that come May, I'm going to send out the STRL renewal notices. And then we have that renewal window, and if somebody misses, then they have to just reapply. I would rather administer it that way than have it be some staff member constantly trying to check, did this one expire yet? And then I go in and do something with that one or not.

I am sensitive to the possibility that We pass an ordinance, um, and they— every— everyone gets less than a year. So it may need to be prorated of some kind.

Prorate the first— the first as we implement?

If we do this cycle, yeah.

Just on your own, or prorate all the time?

Um, no, you know, imagine that this ordinance gets passed in October.

Yeah, okay.

And everybody's expires in End of June. They may not feel like they got their year's worth.

Thank you.

Um, and then again, we've, we've, we've hit on this one already. Um, there is no, no vested right here. Um, if the program is discontinued in the future for any reason by the council, That there's no right of reimbursement.

There's—

it's just, this is what it is. It was a discretionary decision made by the business licensing, and there's no vested rights here. Now I'm going to switch over to the enforcement side. Again, some of the things that I already hit on is the overnight accommodation only. The reason I have this under the enforcement again is it's to really again identify what the nature of this use is. The nature of this use is meant to be for somebody coming in and staying inside of a home, using a home as a place to stay, and not necessarily as an event center. Hopefully that reduces the impact to neighborhoods and the character of neighborhoods. Because again, it should be a family or a group of people coming in and using that home as any other person would.

use a home.

So like inviting Cosmo?

Yeah, not—

that would be a strike.

Or it would be a party, an event.

Cosmo staying overnight, less cost.

He goes over and stays overnight unless he's the renter without revealing who he is.

Better take that costume off.

Nero. Nero, it could be. That's right, that would be a hit. And we'll get into this slide in a little bit more detail later. But again, some of the— the idea is we'd be looking at making sure that the property is maintained and trying to maintain that same character of a home within a neighborhood, that there's snow removal, that there's noise and nuisance control, that there are quiet hours. So if a home has some great amenities like a pool or a sports court, that that doesn't become a nuisance because somebody's on vacation and And so, of course, they don't have a bedtime, and they're— they can sleep in the next day that they're not playing, you know, pig at 2 o'clock in the morning on the sports court, having a great time, which I think everybody would want to do, but also have to get up and go to work the next morning. Noise management plan, lighting, and then also some noticing and posting requirements. And I'll just highlight this real quick. Real quickly is there would be a placard on each home that if a neighbor has an issue, it'd identify who they can contact rather than immediately going to the— calling the non-emergency line or calling NIT, that they can try to be neighborly, reach out to the neighbor and say, hey, you've got some tenants. Can you address this with your tenants? Uh, the posting requirements is, um, that there be some sort of manual inside the home. That provides the tenant with identified expectations, what the home rules are, what some of the safety— identify where the fire escape is for the home, or what the evacuation plan is for the home. So just giving some basic ideas of, you know, what are the— what's the lay of the land here? And we'll get into this later as well. Um, but a parking plan, and this parking plan would be used to help enforce the off-street parking. Um, because at the end of the day, we are going to require under this framework all tenants of a short-term rental to park off-street. Um, I know there's a question of, well, you know, streets are legal. It's legal to park on a street. How do you stop that? But because this is a specific use, what we are putting is we're putting the ownership of the instruction of having those tenants to park off street. We're putting that ownership on the owner itself and saying, if you're going to use your property in this way, this is the expectation. And that is that you provide parking spaces for your guests and your guests and their guests use those parking spaces. Um, and that their parking spaces meet our city code for dimensions and maintenance. And again, that there'd be an expectation that the owner of the STR help enforce that as the first line of defense by informing their guests, you're to park off street. This is where you are to park.

Do we—

I can't remember what we decided here, but like parking in the backyard and cars pull in at night, 1 AM, the backyard where it's not tended for single-family Residence area. How are we allowing it to go past parking, to go past a certain part in the side yard?

So I can go a little bit into— this is a little bit more in the ADU area. So I know this is probably small, but I was envisioning some sort of requirement here as we talk in more depth about parking. Where do you allow parking? How do we define where it goes on the lot? That is still an area of work to be done. In our ADU, this is kind of what we've identified as where you can add additional parking for your ADU. I would look to try to mirror that. So we're consistent. with the different types of regulations we do with these types of leases. We've talked about this in prior work sessions, but this is just the, the actual language now. We would require anybody who was operating an STR, when they list this on any STR marketplace, that they include language specifically that identifies that they have a Short-term rental license. They give that license number, and then they contain some verbiage saying, if you do not see an STR license listed in that permit, it is not a licensed, you know, short-term rental. Renter beware. Just basically to put tenants and guests on notice that there is a requirement here to rent from somebody who is licensed to rent within the city. And that if they're not listing that language, that that could be used as a potential violation or strike. So I have— I've done it underlined, bold, and italicized because again, I want to check, is the consensus to go to 2? Is it to stay at 3? Is it to go to 1? Go to 4? I want to kind of know where the consensus of the council is on strikes. And I don't know if you want to straw poll. I don't know if you want to do a straw poll, or—

The mayor said 2.

I like 2, but on one vote.

I like 3 because not all violations are created equal. So if they had a light bulb go out or the light was on too long, that's way different than, hey, we threw a big party. So to, to take their license because they had a light bulb 3, for similar logic.

I prefer 3.

You have an opinion? I like—

I like 3 strikes, you're out. He's a baseball guy. So, but with the caveat that if that becomes problematic, then we can reduce that if needed.

Same, 3.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a light, wouldn't you have had to have that, like, inspected or whatever before, and before being given a license, that it's not shining in the wrong place anyways?

Yeah, so we require light shielding. And so that would be something that they would— I don't know that it would be inspected that way, but there is language that you're requiring light shielding so there isn't light trespass onto other properties.

So problems are not going to be with the building and the, and the premises. The problems are going to be with the tenants and their impact on the neighbors. So I would say too, because things like they're not all created equal, it's very clearly stated in the requirements for an STR what that should be and that maintenance be kept up. So I, I don't see that as being an issue if you're doing due diligence as an owner. I think that's why we narrowed the thing to 12, is because 3 would be so hard to get in a 12-month unless you were really— so each neighborhood consistently have a problem every couple months, you know, every 4 months, whatever, with that. So, um, and the, and the land, and the owner couldn't They're less. I mean, they have to do anything because they know they don't have their 3 in 12 months.

I also think there's a qualitative difference between different types of strikes. So I think some strikes are so egregious I wouldn't even go to 1 on a particular kind of violation. But if we're flattening all violations, all violations are equal, then I worry that 2 minor violations may be okay.

I mean, I've been in an STR, and you, you're— you read the instructions and they're like, do not park on the street. If you park on the street, you will get towed. You know, you could make me lose my license.

You—

I mean, they write that in the, you know, app, or it's also in the premises. So when we Florida, very sensitive to that.

Um, having just recently stayed at one, I contacted the owner and said, I don't see that there are any quiet hours for your hot tub before I bring my family down. I don't want to get evicted in the middle of the night. You have quiet hours so my family knows whether we can or cannot use any of the amenities.

You were very special.

I know, because I've got this on my—

I want to know what—

if you're all— what y'all are doing during the non-quiet hours. If you're going to—

you might be.

That be written down and that there be those rules.

And so, even to the tenants, that is what we're requiring under the noticing provision, is that we are— we're asking them to have a binder placed in a conspicuous location that sets the right expectations for the tenant.

And I guess my point with all of that is people should not be caught off guard. Short-term rental, here's the rules to our short-term rental, put it on there.

And along with that, I think it should be on the licensing agreement, or not the licensing agreement, people register to rent that. It should be in writing as they sign it so that it's in black and white. I'm seeing this and I'm signing and agreeing to that before I even Yeah, so we're—

I feel like I'm walking a little bit into a gray area with already what we're requiring for that language in the advertisement. Um, I think by requiring them to say also they agree to all of the city's regulations, um, as far as the ad, that they're putting all of these regulations in the ad, that might be a little bit of an overreach. Um, I think it would be good practice of an STR operator to be like, These are what our quiet hours are. These are the expectations, and they're putting that in their ad, but I don't know that I can make the operator put it in there.

So we can't make them put these rules on the wall?

But we could have them located in, in a conspicuous location within the home.

Because I think a binder is not gonna— conspicuous location means, oh, I'm walking by this, I—

oh, I better read.

So I don't know if I'm wrong, but that— I wouldn't— I'm on vacation.

What I say is a conspicuous location is— that's the language that's in the code.

Yeah, I think it's too easy to get away. You're never going to shut anything down, period. They're not going to get—

Okay, I kind of have an idea where everybody is on that now. Um, gonna go to Um, the enforcement.

Um, oh, can I say one more thing? Can we say, uh, because we had a request, we had some emails from residents about sex offender registry.

Haven't gotten it.

Is that another portion?

Um, so under enforcement violations and fines, um, I know that in previous board sessions there was a desire to, you know, put fines and have them, uh, placed really, really high because this is a monetary business operation. Um, at the end of the day though, we are capped by what the state code allows us to fine somebody for, for a city code violation. We are capped at $1,000, um, under state law.

Recurrence or—

Recurrence.

Okay, so what I have done is for the first violation is a $750 fine And then second is $1,000. Third is $1,000 again, depending on where the council ends up. That third would be $1,000, and then also the revocation of the STRL. Okay.

That's per stay or per day?

That is per violation. So—

You have a violation.

So again, going back to the definition of violation, if If we had 3 violations occur at the same night, same time, we're treating that as 1 strike. We could fine $750, $750, $750 for each of the different violations, but for strike purpose, it would be 1 strike.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you for clarifying. Okay.

Are you saying that if they had a day of violations and just really went to town, and they had 3 separate things, you know, the curb, the big party, and the lights were pointing in the wrong direction, that would be $750 for each of those things?

Correct.

But it would only count as 1 strike for purposes of losing the license.

3 fines, 1 strike.

Yep. Um, and then an appeal provision that if they, um, feel that there's that their citation or their strike was issued in error, they have a due process right to come in and challenge that. They would go through our ALJ process. And then the last part is kind of a catch-all provision that notwithstanding, you know, if they were to violate, we don't always have to go through the ALJ. We could choose to, you know, go after them criminally if we so choose, but We don't often do that with these types because, you know, general perception is that it's too heavy-handed. But that's really a catch-all if we have somebody continuing to violate the law in violation of our, you know, previous actions we've done against them in ALJ. Okay.

Yeah, you need to ask one before you go to density.

Right.

Oh, anonymous complaints. Do we have a— do we have a way that people can complain anonymously?

Uh, yes, we do. Uh, we have a provision under our NIT, uh, code that they could make a complaint, that we do not release the name unless we have to have them as a witness. And then we only release the name of the witness because of the purposes of confrontation. But other than that, if somebody was to grandma A complaint. Generally, we take the complainant's name out because of the provision in our code that says complainants' names are not released. And counsel, conceivably, we could come back and start here next work session and continue to walk along this trail. I will say, really appreciate Jake taking us through Switzerland. Yes, and not a path through Death Valley.

It's scenic, and it's— but it's uphill.

That's a great summary. Done a great job.

So what—

how far—

what waypoint did we make it to?

We are at 4.

Oh, we made it to 3!

No, I mean, I mean that not like sarcastic. I'm like Yeah.

Jake, what's the format you would like feedback on what we've seen so far? Um, I—

you would email me.

What did you ask?

If there's any feedback.

How he would like to receive feedback from us.

So we're not making decisions outside of public view, right?

No.

We can't give direction.

Is questions like, for example, clarify what you shared in this.

I wrote a question that I need to ask him.

Or if we want to send it in for discussion, hopefully the next discussion.

Email would be great.

Okay.

Thank you.

And will we have access to the slides?

Yeah, I will send the slides out tonight.

Up to Waypoint 3, or do you want to send it up? Do you want to send it?

I'll send out what I have prepared for tonight.

Oh, okay. So those of you who get ahead of us, the rest of us on the trail, just remember we're still back there. I'm at 3. I'll look ahead at the map. But, all right, um, council, I just want to go very quickly over a couple of things. Jake, first of all, thank you. Appreciate you and all the work you're doing on this. We've Uh, Quinn, if it's okay if we postpone, that'd be okay. Uh, well, unless we have time. Uh, we do have some presentations this evening. Central Utah Water Conservancy District recognition. We have our Build a Better Orem competition month. We have a Library Advisory Commission report. We have our summer reading wrap-up. And I did see some Neighborhood Advisory Commission and beautification awards folks in there. And then we have some items on consent, one of which is the, uh, rental dwelling license exception amendment that Brandon brought before us at our last, uh, work meeting. Plus we have some commission appointments and some meeting approval and some payment approval. Yeah, sorry. And then we have personal appearances. So we've Uh, you do have people I did see out there signed up to speak to the resolution expressing opposition to the proposed Vesper Amphitheater development. In our public appearances, it's specifically that, um, to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. The Vesper is not a public hearing, but I would like to move. If anybody wants to speak to that, I would rather have them speak to it at that point in the, in the meeting rather than in personal appearances.

Do you think we can get to that part of the meeting expeditiously so that they don't stay late?

Well, it depends how long it takes somebody to read this motion that Erin McKnight has drafted.

Jen says she reads very quickly.

That's great. We do have a public hearing, and the possible motion language is, I think, the longest I've ever seen. In my experience in municipal governance. So, but yes, I think that that would be— it depends, depends how many we have for personal appearances on other items too. But yes, we'll move, we'll move along. And then we do have a resolution. Steve, do you have a— I saw, I did see your draft.

Yes.

Are we wanting— how do you want to handle that in the meeting?

In terms of—

let's just say this is the resolu— because— can I read it?

Can I read it?

Oh, uh, it's really up to you however you want to do it. I mean, the title kind of summarizes it, I think, what you're doing.

Okay.

But if you want to, uh, read the whole thing or parts of it, um, or also if you want to add to or subtract from it, change it, that as well.

Okay, councilmen, are there any of you— are you comfortable with it?

Are you—

do you want any changes?

I saw the I just added that one little one about parking because a lot of people said to me that's a big one in our letter. So Palisade is our other park that's going to be seriously impacted. So I'm open to whatever it's—

So I would just suggest if there's, uh, changes you want to have made, whoever makes the motion, just say you're voting to approve the resolution with these changes or additions or whatever.

Okay.

And so yes, the, the plan— listen, we don't have a closed door. We have some city, um, manager information items, and then we adjourn.

No, we got to have the meeting before we can adjourn, Mr.

Galpack.

Bye.

No, well, it should be interesting evening. Appreciate all of you, and we'll see you in there.

I think I can answer real quick.

It was Yeah, so now I'll have a seat.

Let me get you on the camera.

Hard to wait to read this.

Perhaps. Pete, Pete, we test the sound. Oh, you can hear it from there?

You can hear— I was just gonna try to get a little battery charge.

It's at 30%.

Just because we're going to be talking about it.

How would you rather talk about it?

Right.

I just wanted to make sure.

Thank you.

And so I'm here.

Yeah.

Thank you. All right, I'd like to welcome you to this evening's— to each— this evening's edition of the Orem City Council meeting. Welcome, I'm glad you're all here. this, this evening and look forward to hearing from you if you'd like to and conduct some city business. We'll go ahead and start with an invocation or an inspirational thought, and that is going to be given by Michael Bendio. And then after Mr. Bendio, Deda Bendio will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. So Welcome. So come on up and— Dear Father in Heaven, we're thankful for this city of Orem that is our home.

We're thankful for the state of Utah and the United States of America and all the blessings and privileges that come to us of being citizens and residents.

We're thankful for our government, federal, state, and city, and we ask Thee to bless our city government. The mayor, the city council, the employees of the city.

Bless them in their responsibilities and their jobs, that they'll make wise decisions on our behalf. We're thankful to thee, Father, for thy good blessings for this beautiful earth that thou hast made for us.

And for Thy love that we feel so often in our lives.

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

For an inspirational thought— Oh, they just— it was just one or the other. So, okay, you do have to do both, though you are inspirational. I do know that.

Thank you, Karen.

All right, uh, Deb, if you'd like to come up and lead us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Bendios. Appreciate you coming this evening and participating in our, in our council meeting. Right, we have several items under number 7, mayor's report items referred by the council. Our first is going to be a presentation, Central Utah Water Conservancy District recognition. And our presenter, let's see, we have Mike. I saw Mike somewhere. Mike Wimpey, Assistant General Manager for the district, and Art— oh, Leaf. Okay. Leaf Lang, Assistant General Manager.

It's Bart. Bart Leaf Lang.

BART?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Thank you. All right, we'll turn the time— I turn the time over to these fine gentlemen.

Perfect.

Perfect.

Well, Mayor, uh, Council, we're grateful to be with y'all. I'm Bryce Merrill. I'm the Community Services Executive Director, uh, joined by Chris Shirkey. with Public Works. And we were just thrilled to come together with some of our friends from the Central Utah Water Conservation District and highlight a couple of the really cool aspects of the partnership that we've enjoyed with them, both historically and lately. And so I'd love to turn the time over to Chris and these gentlemen and talk a little bit about that.

I think it's Dan.

Thank you. Yes, my name is Mike Wimpey, Assistant General Manager at Central Utah Water. I'm joined by my counterpart, Bart Leifling, with a B. The agenda has it incorrect, Art, but he'll go by either. Also would like to just recognize a couple of my peers at Central Utah Water. So we have Amanda Strack. Amanda, if you'll stack up, stand up.

There we go.

She's our water conservation manager.

And then we have Kirk Beecher.

And Kirk is our lands manager. He's been very involved in some of these partnerships with the city. And then also Zach Seifert, he's our communications manager.

Stay up here. Let's review a couple of these things on here.

Yeah, thanks.

We've done it. So we've done—

we've had the opportunity over the last— well, since the '70s, not you and me, but the City Council and then also Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the relationship started in the mid-'70s, and we'd just like to note a few of the key milestones of this relationship over the last, well, 4 decades, 5 decades. In '77 to '79, the Water Reclamation— excuse me, the Utah Valley Water Purification Plant was constructed from '77 to '79.

The Don A. Christianson Regional Water Treatment was the new name given to that about 6 years ago. And then at that same time, we constructed with them a 15 million gallon water tank.

Since then, we have engaged in an agreement with them for 7,500 acre-feet of water.

That's through the Central Utah Project or the Jordan L Water contract that we have with them.

Mike, do you want to read a couple of these just to mention?

Sure. Yeah, like Chris said, I think the thing that we really treasure and value is our wonderful partnership with the City of Orem. We are right here within the same area. We are all serving the needs and the interests of the public. And so the relationship that we've been able to develop with city staff to work together to be able to meet the needs of our public with water needs has just been— it has been tremendous. And like Kirk said, or like I think Chris mentioned, it goes back almost before I was born.

Okay.

But anyway, but in the time that I've worked at Central, we've been able to work on joint water storage reservoirs up at the treatment plant, 20 million gallon reservoir. We've installed pipelines down 1000 East and 800 North in conjunction with the city and with UDOT. We've also more recently in the past Few years, we've been able to work together on some water supply studies, both with Orm City and with Vineyard City. We've had some conservation rebates that have come to the city through our conservation program with irrigation controllers, as well as replacement just outside here with the new construction here at the city, where we were able to provide some financial incentives to get rid of some unused turf. Um, one of the more recent projects that we were able to coordinate with the city on is at the Bike Skills Park Phase 3 up in the canyon, where we had some surplus property that was not of use for the district. And so, but we had a need for some access to a project that we're currently constructing. And so we were able to work together with city staff and the council to come up with a really a great solution for the public.

Um.

More recently, we also have a very large main water transmission line in the northeast part of the city that's being replaced. And without the city's cooperation, there's no way we would be able to accomplish that project. We're also looking at some water reuse out of the upgraded Orem City Wastewater Treatment Plant so that we can stretch every last drop of this limited resource. And yeah. Just, just, we have a long history of working together, both the staff of Central Utah Water and the staff of the city, as well as our elected officials, to, in my opinion, really come up with solutions that are ultimately serving the end user, the public. And so we very much value and appreciate our relationship.

Thank you, Mike.

So what we have here is a certificate of appreciation presented to Central Utah Water Conservancy District. This is signed by Mayor McCandless.

We won't read everything that's on here, but we've hit some of the highlights that we've accomplished over the last 50 years.

And like Mike said, it's not all just about projects, it's about relationships and building future— So, future amenities and infrastructure for generations to come. So we're grateful to be able to team with them over the last 5 decades. So, With that, I'd like to present this— Bryce and I would like to present this on behalf of Mayor McCandless and the City Council, the certificate of appreciation to Central Utah Water Conservancy District.

Right. Thank you. Yes, Councilmember.

I just wanted to say, okay, I think Amanda helped us out 3 or 4 years ago on Some conservation ordinance things we were trying to work through, did just perfectly for Orem. You were wonderful. And I just want to say to y'all, thank you for the tour that we got of the dams. And when we went down the elevator of the Jordan L Dam, I have never had such an experience. So that was so fun to see everything that you guys are doing and just feel secure in water that we have and you have planned so well.

Thank you.

So thank you, all of you, for— thank you so much for your hard work.

Better Orem. And so, like the term, Amy, Focus a little bit.

Our 2020 state priorities, the residents are voting to build cities that hold better up. The awards start to submit when you should further all reviews.

Deciding who ultimately wins will never—

is never easy and requires a lot of deliberation.

The nice thing about the process is that even if an employee doesn't win, they will receive a copy of their nomination as a Babo honorable mention. We want everyone to know that their efforts to build a better Orem are seen and appreciated.

One interesting fact about the Babo Awards is that the trophy itself is made from the wood of the ponderosa pine tree that stood in front of the old city center for over 70 years. When the tree came down, we wanted to do something meaningful meaningful with it, and making awards to honor and celebrate our exceptional employees felt like the perfect fit.

That tree was a local landmark and a great symbol of strength and resilience. The employees honored this year are a lot like that tree.

They are the roots that keep this great organization nourished, grounded, and growing. I'd now like to recognize our 2026 BAPL awardees, so please come up as your names are read.

First, we have our Rising Star Award, recognizing outstanding contributions from part-time employees who make a full-time impact.

This year, our Rising Stars are Ali Peterson with the Police Department and Tiffany Farnsworth with Community Development.

Next, we have our Rookie of the Year.

New employees bring new ideas, new energy, and new life to the team, and this award recognizes those who have been with the city for 2 years or less.

The Rookie of the Year awards went to Pip Sanders in Management Services and Paige Garner in Legal Services.

And next we have our Babel Awards. There's more than one way to build a better Orem, and this award recognizes full-time employees in every department for the many great things they do to make Orem a place where families can thrive. The 11 Babel Awards went to Glenn Giles, Police. Stephen Cannon, Management Services.

Roger Dunn, Public Services. Brandon Stevens, Library.

Paul Ashton, Community Development. Lake Jolly, Fire.

Sydney Wong, Recreation.

Rosemary Alcalde, Community Development. Nate Klinger, Community Development. Greg Hicken, Fire.

And Jacob Bowlby in Finance. And Jacob was presented with the first ever Keep Smilin', Git 'Er Done Award that was created this year in memory of the legendary career of Lane Gray.

This award is given by the executive staff team and celebrates an employee who efficiently and effectively makes great things happen, all while keeping a great attitude. And finally, our Employee of the Year. This award is the big one and is given to the employee who arguably had the most impact on the organization over the last year. This year's Employee of the Year went to Trevor Bell in Finance. Building a better OREM is our motto, and these employees live it each and every day. That is why we love the BABA Awards.

They give us an opportunity to recognize those who bring the city's mission to life. So let's—

can we get a quick photo?

Can everybody slide down?

We'll take a quick picture, and then we've got a short video that we'd like to share with you.

Here in the shot. All right, here we go.

1, 2, 3.

Okay, thank you.

And can we get one last round of applause for all of our awardees?

A lot going to Babble Board, especially coming from the finance department as a support position. Spend the majority of my time worrying about spreadsheets and policy compliance.

It's really nice to have my employer, the mayor and council, and my peers recognize me and say, hey, what you're doing matters and you're doing a good job at it. It definitely makes me feel appreciated for the work that I do.

I love the people that I work with.

I I love the projects that I get to work on.

It is a reminder of not just how much my efforts to make Orem a better place are felt by the citizens, but also by the different departments that I interact with on a daily basis.

It meant a lot.

Orem and the legal department is really good at consistently noting good performance and appreciating it.

I, I was really surprised.

At first I was like, hey, that's, that is, that's my name.

Yeah, it was the longest walk I had to do was from my chair to the stage.

I was slightly surprised. I will say a little birdie named Pete might have given a little clue.

I was quite surprised in receiving the Babbel Award.

So I actually was at a training during the employee party, so I was really surprised. I didn't find out until the next week when I came back, I felt bad that my team had to awkwardly accept on my behalf. But yeah, it was awesome. I feel like these awards in general do such a good job at recognizing all of us as employees each year.

I hope that in the future, as more Babbel Awards are distributed to others within the city, we'll be able to continue to recognize the greatness of the many people that build a better world.

Thank you all. Congratulations.

I tell—

it's like, once I'm out in the community, I, I say that our employees here at the City of Orem make it easy to represent Orem and makes me proud to be representing Orem. Thank you for all you do. The next item on the agenda is a presentation on Constitution Month, and the presenter— she needs to, she needs to wait until personal appearances before she, she keeps saying stuff. Um, turn the time over to Pete Wolfley, our Civic Engagement Executive Director and our Public Information Okay, thank you, Council.

Uh, each year we celebrate Constitution Month in September with the rest of the nation, and this year it feels extra special because of America 250.

So I just wanted to run through real quick what we're going to be celebrating and what we're doing to celebrate our founding document as a nation.

So over at University Place, they have the Utah County Remembrance Display.

This is mainly about September 11th, but there are some Constitution overtones there, so I'd encourage everyone to do that.

That'll be there until the 14th.

On September 15th, the UVU Center for Constitutional Studies is holding a conference, and they've got some amazing speakers lined up that helps the residents and the public learn more about the Constitution and appreciate it on a deeper level.

From September 16th through the end of the month, the Orem Public Library will have a special display on the south entrance celebrating the Constitution, showing all kinds— showing all kinds of different constitutional resources that we have in our collection. On September 22nd, our City Council meeting, the American Legion's gonna come and do a special flag ceremony. And then on September 30th is when our art— our Constitution art contest is due. So we've done this a couple years. It's always really cool to see what people come up with, the art that's inspired by the Constitution.

We used to do an essay contest, but in the age of AI, that just doesn't feel right anymore.

So, but art still feels good.

We also will, throughout the month, we'll be sharing some constitutional resources on our social media channels and just helping people celebrate our great founding document and, you know, appreciate it more and dive more into it.

All right.

Thank you. Excited to celebrate this wonderful document that is the foundation for our country. Thank you. The next item is a report from the Library Advisory Commission. I'd like to invite Bryce Merrill, Community Services Executive Director and the Library Advisory Commission, forward.

Welcome.

Mayor, Council, thank you, uh, for having us back. Um, I have the pleasure of introducing Matt Brown, who currently serves as the chair of our Library Advisory Commission, and so I will Turn it over to him.

Hello, good evening.

Thank you so much.

There we go.

Hello, good evening, and thank you so much for your time.

And we have a video presentation put together.

We're going to start with kind of covering the highlights from the— this, this year with the library. Thank you for putting that together and getting me to show it.

But if you look at the last year, might have—

the theme might have been construction and patience.

But as we've come seeing the benefits of these projects finishing up, I looked through that video and I was looking through the stuff through the year and I thought the resources are being spent to improve engagement with the community. And the community that it serves.

And I look forward to how these changes are bringing new programming and new access for people to be able to access this resource, because the library is so much more than just a place for books.

It's a place where we're finding community, and it's really helping define Orem. So I really love serving here and watching this advancement.

So thank you so much for this time.

Yeah, I just wanted to add a quick note. Uh, first off, thank you to Matt, our maker. If you want to learn how to do really cool transitions, In your slideshows, stop by the makerspace and we'll get you taken care of. This, this video highlighted so much of the what that is happening at our library, and we just couldn't be more proud. Matt said it really well. This is about becoming a community space, a 3rd space, a place to gather, exchange ideas, have experiences. And I just, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the staff work that has gone into making that a reality. It's been so cool. The first thing I want wanted to highlight was just better training. As we've had the chance to retool and become an experiential library for our residents, we've wanted to replicate that for our staff. And so we have online digital training. We have folks that are signed up with classes across the country to bring those experiences back. Architectural library classes that they're bringing in, or project management classes for librarians, all of that's coming back to us. We host our Living Library conference later this month, which is a peer-to-peer library training. We have different membership structures with our state library and our library organizations that better help us get those access to our staff. And so many of our management staff— Mary, who's in charge of our staff engagement committee— have done just an incredible job of bringing these experiences to our residents. The second thing is the focus on spaces. The video showed just a couple of cool spaces at the Hub where Shannon and her team help circulate, you know, the 1.3 million books or items that come through, get them back into the shelves, back out to the residents as quickly as possible. And we can— we hope to continue with patience that, that process that helps get our staff aligned and able to operate in the most efficient way. And then the last thing I'm most proud of for our staff is just doing more with the the budgets that we have available, the resources, the time that we have available. I could— so many of our staff working with the commission, working with y'all as a council, have wanted to find new ways to retool what is the most important part of the services that a library can offer. And so I look to, again, what happened in Makerspace with additional hours. So much that's happening out at Library Hall with the shows. We've been able to, like, significantly reduce fines and fees over the last 3 years for families that are just using the books really the way they were intended, because we're able to offset that with some new revenues maybe out at Library Hall for folks that want to rent the facility or they want to pay a ticket to a show. And so that to me is really meaningful. We've been able to save with some of the construction spaces and move those dollars to our collection budgets. So, you know, this year we will have added about $225,000 more to our collection budgets than we were at 4 years ago to buy more books and more materials without increasing our impact on the general fund. So just by changing our operation and moving that back. And so I love to see the what, but I just wanted to make sure we shout out the staff, the incredible librarians that are over at OPL that are doing a ton of behind-the-scenes work to make that happen so that we can keep showing off cool videos like that. So we work with a great team over there. Uh, they're incredible what they do. We're grateful to Matt, and, um, I know I saw Lorraine, and, uh, just the rest of our Library Advisory Commission, uh, for the leadership that they provide alongside y'all. So thank you.

All right, thank you. Let's give a round of applause. Are there other Library Advisory Commission members here this evening? Okay, just raise your hand or— all right, thank you. Thank you for your service. Um, I love the library. I, I may not remember my credit card numbers, but I can tell you my library card number off the top of my head. So, which is handy because today I went and joined— is it Hoopla? And checked out a book.

So yes.

I was pretty proud of myself. Anyway, but thank you. I love the library. All right, next up we've got another item with the— speaking of the library, we've got Megan Flinders-Pay with Patron Experience who's going to give a presentation on the summer reading wrap-up.

Mayor, can I do a shout out while we're Sure. Okay, I just want to do a shout out in that video, a couple other things. First of all, I loved how Bryce and whoever was involved, Ryan, saving the floor from our old City Hall. How historic and nostalgic that is, right, Mark? You've got to appreciate that. And then also the police— the library brings books to the Reading with the Police, and that's a great cooperative there. So thanks for setting all that up. Is it working now?

Okay, thank you. My name is Meg Flinders, and I'm the programming librarian. And I had the privilege of heading summer reading again this year. And I'm happy to report that we had a fabulous summer, thanks to the amazing team at the library and all of their hard work.

theme this year was Unearth a Story.

We highlighted paleontology and archaeology to encourage children and teens to read over the summer. We had 1,909 readers ages 0 to 18 register for the challenge, and we created over 30 programs for patrons of all ages to enjoy. And in total, our readers read 1,374,800 345 minutes, which is equal to one person reading for 31 months nonstop. So that was pretty awesome to see them read that much over the summer. We had some great partnerships for our programs this year. Our kickoff featured actors from live history shows, so they actually researched the library and then wrote games and challenges for patrons to play at the kickoff. And then they came as performers from Orem History including Walter C. Orem, and they interacted with the kids and taught them a lot about Orem history, which was really fun. And then we also partnered with Library Hall to hold a family concert called the Buddy System, and that was a really fun night of music for all of our patrons. We also got to highlight Miro this year with our Mammoth Day, where patrons learned about ancient history. They put their handprints on a rock wall. They studied how mammoths horns, glue, and had a lot of fun just celebrating mammoths.

Um, I love that mammoth that was made, right? The little one.

This was crafted by one of my part-time team members. They created this, and it was a lot of fun, and the kids absolutely loved making it. Um, we also had a really fun program called Dino Tracks, uh, which featured local magician and entertainer Jason Fun Magic. This was a really interactive, hands-on experience, and patrons got to touch paleontology tools and dig in sand kits. And then in this image here, that is a mechanical dinosaur puppet, and the kids just absolutely loved it and were waiting in line to meet it. It was really fun. And those are just a few of the programs that we did. We did so many programs. this summer. We did some just for teens where they dug it through trash and learned how you can learn about a civilization based on their trash. Just tons of fun things. Um, and then we concluded with our annual summer reading pool party. Um, and this is always a huge hit, and year after year our patrons let us know that it's one of their favorite parts of ending their summer. And we were able to give away over 1,100 prizes to completionists who completed the challenge. And we got some great feedback from the community about the program. One survey responder said this, and I absolutely love it. They said, my children love to read, but the summer reading program is something we love to do in the summer. It gives us something to look forward to. We loved the theme. My kids got really into dinosaurs, and we even went to Vernal to top off the fun dino theme. Thank you for all that you do. So I love I love hearing that people are making connections with what we do at the library in other aspects and areas of their life. That just means a lot because it means that we're really having a big impact on our families. We love doing summer reading, and we've already started working hard on next year's. So I'd love to announce our theme for next year, and it is Mysteries Await at Your Library. So stay tuned. We'll have a lot of really fun mystery-themed things for our patrons next summer, um, including, uh, our hero who will be named Herlock, for anyone who's familiar with Sherlock Holmes, and our little villain Mousey Arty. So that'll be a lot of fun. Stay tuned for more about that. Uh, thank you to the city council, the city staff, and especially to everyone who works at the library for their continued support of literacy and the summer reading program.

Thank you. Congratulations. That was a successful program. So, Mr. Bybee, it sounds like the hero in next year's theme might be feline.

It should. Just, just don't— let's just not let anyone look through my trash to find out more about— oh my gosh, as part of the Yes.

So, well, Mr. Bybee and I, we, we have, we have cat residents with us, and so it's kind of a, kind of a joke with us about cats. So yes, I don't want anyone going through my trash either. Um, all right, Council, we now have come to the consent items. We've got 5. Oh, oh my gosh, I am so sorry. Do you know what? I got, I got ahead of It's nothing— no offense. It is our Neighborhood Advisory Commission and our beautification awards. I'm sorry. You know, you've been here for a while. I mean, you've been waiting. And so welcome. We have our presenter be Bradley Day, our Community and Sustainability Officer, and our Neighborhood Advisory Commission. Welcome. And again, I apologize for— I checked that off prematurely.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll turn the time over to our Neighborhood Advisory Commission Chair, Amy Green, and we will begin with the beautification awards.

Okay, the Neighborhood Advisory Commission is pleased to acknowledge the recipients of the 2026 beautification awards. The Orem Neighborhood Advisory Commission presents annual awards to Orem residents who go above and beyond to beautify and improved their neighborhood through landscaping. Members of the commission toured their districts to evaluate the landscaping in front of homes. They recognized up to 5 homes per district with a nomination, meaning that home would be in the running to be voted on to be best in each respective district. The nomination consisted of a yard sign which the nominees could keep in their yards throughout the season. A total of 31 homes received a nomination with a variety of impressive appearances and styles. The Neighborhood Advisory Commission reviewed all nominations and voted on the best in each district. They also selected one overall city winner from all of the nominations. Tonight we have several— 7 district winners and one overall city winner to recognize. Several of these winners are in the audience today, and we are very happy to have the opportunity to recognize them in person. Before we begin, though, I would like to take a moment to thank the members of the Neighborhood Advisory Commission for all the work they did to make these awards possible. They took the time to tour their districts, locate and photograph the homes, and carefully review the nominations. And we really appreciate the time and the effort that they put into recognizing the residents who help make our neighborhood so beautiful. We'll recognize each winner. When we call your name, please come forward. Where we'll have— we'll hand you an award and a gift card to Cook's Farm and Greenhouse. We're happy to be able to do that. After naming each winner, we would like to have a group photo with all the winners and the city council. So please stay up at the front. We'd like to announce that the District Number 2 winner is Steven Weber of the Orem North and Sharon Park neighborhoods. Uh, District 3 winner is Mike Fortune of the Northridge, Heatheridge, and Windsor neighborhoods. District number 4 winner Are the Bantas of the Aspen and Temp View neighborhoods. I don't believe they're in attendance tonight, but we're happy for them. Thank you. District number 5 winner, Kimberly Blackham of the Geneva Heights, Suncrest, and Orem Park neighborhoods, who also I don't believe is in attendance tonight.

Uh-oh.

One more winner not in attendance. District number 6 winner, Mrs. Marks of the Hillcrest, Sharon, and Orem neighborhoods. And District 7 winner, Jackie Rydman of the Lakeridge and Stonewood neighborhoods. Our District 9 winner was not able to make it. They are the Miners of Lakeview. Oh, are they here? Oh, they are here.

Great.

The District 9 winners are the Miners of the Lakeview and Cherry Hill neighborhood. And the overall city winner are the Parker family, who reside in District 3.

Thank you.

We would like to congra— congratulate all of our winners. Thank you for your time and care, the care you put into your homes and yards, and for helping make your neighborhoods such beautiful places to live. And of course, thank you to all the residents throughout Orem who take so much time and care of their yards. Your efforts really do make a difference. You help improve our neighborhoods and keep Orem looking Great, and we are very grateful for the pride and care that you put into our community. A big thank you to all of the winners. We would like to invite all of you to have a picture taken now.

All right, here we go.

1, 2, 3. Congratulations. I have yard envy. I know that a lot of work goes into that, into that effort, and appreciate it. Are there any other members of the Neighborhood Advisory Commission here this evening?

We recognize you right here, Tammy.

Oh, all right. Thank you.

Hi.

So, for being here.

Okay, you get to hear from me more. Are you so excited?

I am.

Oh, well, actually, I'm really excited to be here. Uh, Mayor and City Council— Mayor and City Council members, I know this last month has been kind of a difficult month. We've had lots of hot topics in our city, but I would first just like to say that I am genuinely happy to see all of you. And although we may not always see eye to eye on every issue, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you put into serving our city. I know that you have difficult decisions to make, and I appreciate that you do your best to represent all of us as you consider the important issues facing Orem City. So, thank you. I thank you for your time and for your service to our community as the chair of the Neighborhood Advisory Commission. I am pleased to present our 2026 annual report. The Neighborhood Advisory Commission serves as an appointed body. The purpose of the Orem City Neighborhood Advisory Commission is to support local neighborhoods, help shape neighborhood plans and projects, and serve as an inform— information link between residents and city leaders. Our commission is divided into 9 geographic districts Covering all of Orem's neighborhoods, each district has 2 representatives, and each district covers 2 to 3 neighborhoods. Our representatives help plan and guide local neighborhood projects and community building efforts. They also serve as a direct resource for residents, helping educate and inform them about city programs, safety updates, and community events, including cleanup days and police picnics. I think one of the greatest strengths of this community, of this commission, is that we have the opportunity to help connect the city with the people who live here. The following events highlight some of the ways that we have worked this year to communicate with residents, build connections, and strengthen the relationship between the city and our community. Uh, short-term rental perspectives. In early 2026, the City Council invited the city's legal department to present to the commission regarding short-term rentals. Our commission members were able to share their insights with legal, and we also had the opportunity to present to the City Council during a work session. I appreciate that the commission was able to be part of that conversation and provide a neighborhood perspective. My Hometown— another wonderful example of community connection has been our involvement with My Hometown. Orem City's My Hometown initiative directly operationalizes the city's longstanding motto of Family City USA by fostering neighborhood, neighborhood-level connection, volunteer service, and educational empowerment. Orem's My Hometown program is a community-led initiative that partners residents, the city, local churches, nonprofits, and businesses to revitalize aging neighborhoods And build stronger community connections. Its purpose aligns strongly with the Neighborhood Advisory Commission, and several commission members participate in My Hometown's activities, including monthly service— including monthly service projects to revitalize homes and events that bring neighbors together. Uh, it has been exciting to see residents come together, serve one another, and build relationships right in their own neighborhoods.

neighborhoods.

MyOrem, not to be confused with MyHometown. MyOrem is the city's new platform for utilities payments and more. The city software team presented MyOrem to the commission, and the commission is in the process of communicating with residents to encourage them to set up new accounts. This has given us another opportunity to help residents understand a new city resource and make the transition as easy as possible. Recently, My Hometown volunteers took the city's MyOrem flyers door-to-door in their areas to help spread information about the new MyOrem platform. Orem's 107th birthday. In May, the commission celebrated Orem's 107th birthday by giving away 1,070 slices of cake at the first farmers market of the season, complete with a mariachi band. It was a fun experience for everyone. And a few days after the celebration— after celebrating Orem's birthday, we met up with residents again to serve by planting flowers in Nelson's Grove Park. It was a wonderful opportunity to celebrate our city while also giving back to the community that we love. Oremfest 2026. Neighborhood Commission members also attended the Oremfest annual car show and sat at a table to give information to residents about About who their area commission members are and how they could sign up to receive communication about city events, planning, and other information. It was a simple way to be out among the residents, introduce ourselves, answer questions, and let people know that we are available to them. The 2026 Beautification Awards— of course, we conducted the 2026 Beautification Awards. This was such a fun and rewarding experience. It gave us the— it gave us the opportunity to explore our community, visit the different neighborhoods, and get to know our neighbors even better. More importantly, it gave us an opportunity to recognize residents who put so much time, effort, and care into their homes and yards. Their efforts truly make a difference and contribute to the beauty and character of Orem. On behalf of all the commission members, I want to express our sincere gratitude for the opportunity to Serve on the Neighborhood Advisory Commission. We are grateful for the support of the city, for the opportunity to work with residents, and for the many ways we are able to help strengthen the connection between our neighborhoods and our city. We look forward to continuing our service and doing our part to help make Orem an even better place to live, serve, and raise our families. Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you. Amy, for your service. Um, I know you're also— you also serve with my hometown as well, and you were like the person at the swim party. Oh, getting coordinating all the— but thank you for your personally, for your community service.

Thank you.

And thank you to the other commissioners as well. And we're grateful to have, have our neighborhood commission and to have that connection and, and to work to build Community Council, do you have any other—

do you have any questions for me?

Questions, comments?

All right.

All right, now is the time for our consent items, and we have 5 items on our consent calendar this evening. Approval of the meeting Minutes for July 28th, August 12th, August 25th, August 26th, which was a joint Timpanoga School District-Orem City Council meeting, and August 27th, which was a Truth in Taxation hearing. We also have the reappointment of Public Works Advisory Commission member Mike Wimpey, appointment to the Recreation Advisory Commission Linda Coy. Appointment to the Transportation Advisory Commission, Norman Fobert, and an ordinance rental dwelling license exception amendment. And so before I ask for a motion, are any of the individuals being appointed— Linda, Norman, or Mike, are you here? All right, thank you. Thank you for being willing to serve our community, and we'd like to welcome you. And I know we haven't voted yet, but I have a Feeling it's gonna, it's gonna pass, but appreciate your willingness to serve, to serve our community. All right, I'd entertain a motion to approve the consent items.

Mayor, I move that we approve the consent items as listed, 8.1 through 8.5.

All right, thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second that.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Muelstein. All right, um, we'll go ahead and start— we'll start voting down at this end this evening. How do you vote?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, motion carries. Thank you. All right, the next item on our agenda are public personal appearances.

Mayor and council, uh, as you have heard, we're having a little bit of IT trouble, and, uh, Carlo, our IT director, is looking at it. He, he He recommends that in order to fix it, we take a 5-10 minute break and completely reboot, restart the system.

Um, okay.

I wonder if you want to do that before we get into personal appearances to make sure there's nothing lost in the recording or anything.

Yeah, I would, I would rather have— I want to make sure we have everything recorded. So, all right, so I apologize for our, our technical Difficulty here, so we're going to take a short break, and then when Carlo gives the word, we'll, we'll reconvene and continue with our meeting.

Thank you.

Yes.

All right, we're going ahead and getting started now. So if you— we do have a few individuals who would like to, like to speak to us this evening in our personal appearance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everyone. I'm here to speak on public comment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your kind words. Thank you for your appearance. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak are encouraged to show respect for those who serve the city. Comments, comments need to focus on issues concerning the city. Those wishing to speak should have signed in, which I do have a list here before the beginning of the meeting, and please limit your comments to up to 3 minutes or less. Now, we do have an item, an upcoming item on the agenda this evening, which is not a public hearing, and that's item 10.2, a resolution expressing opposition to the proposed Vesper Amphitheater development. So, um, in consultation with the council, we've decided as a council that we, even though it's not a public hearing, that we will take public comment during that time for that. And I'll talk more about that later as we get to that. And we did, we did have one person sign up on personal appearances to speak to that, and I've spoken with her, and so she'll be the first one to speak when we do get to that point in the agenda. So this is for items not On the agenda. So the first individual we have, Haley. And Haley, I'm sorry, I can't read your writing. Is Haley here? All right, come on up, Haley. And if you could just say your, your last name for the record too, and apologize that I couldn't read that. And then after Haley, we have Claudia Stokes, if you can get ready.

Okay, no problem. My name is Haley Helston. I'm a resident of Orem, Utah. I have emailed each of you, um, about my concerns about ICE, and I'm pleased to be here in person today, um, once again requesting that the council issue a formal resolution banning ICE agents from entering our Orem public property, including schools, libraries, parks, and rec centers. Um, these places should remain safe havens for our families and children Regardless of where they were born or the color of their skin, Orem prides itself on being called Family City, USA. Orem.gov reads, at the heart of Orem is a clear mission to create a community where families can thrive. Orem is built on values that prioritize strong neighborhoods, safe environments, and opportunities for growth and connection. I personally have friends and neighbors who are scared when they leave their homes because of illegal and inhumane abductions they have witnessed around our country and state.

And if our values are safety, belonging, family, and growth, then this resolution will reflect that.

Thank you.

All right, thank you. All right, Claudia Stokes, you're up next. And then after, uh, Ms. Stokes, we have Ali So welcome.

Thank you.

Um, hello council members and mayor. Um, I wanted to say something about the, um, uh, about the Muslim, the mosque that's coming in. Um, I know several years ago I had an opportunity when my neighbor was saying they wanted it in their neighborhood, and my first thought was, you know, freedom of religion is part of what we are. But I have since learned that there are 2 factors in Muslim, uh, in the Muslim faith. And one is, uh, religious Muslim and the other is political. And I actually have a little snippet here that one of the leaders of the political Muslim is world dominance of Muslim. Uh, they're to get rid of the Jews, the Christians, um, any other faith, and that all people must submit to Islam Muslim. That is their belief. That's That's their political belief. Also, women, if all the— all they have to do is say, I divorced you 3 times, and a woman has no rights. The reason she has no rights is because of their political agenda in their own religion, that that woman has never— she's not on our records as being married. She never got a license. She has no proof that she was married. So she's not able to get any help or assistance. for her life as she's kicked out. Also, these Muslim men have the right to have sex with children, young girls, young as 4, um, and it's okay. Um, this isn't— we talked about these books that people can read. Look at what the library does. But once they take their political agenda in the area where they get enough people, that disappears because then they become dominant. I would ask each of you to look at, um, stoptheconquest.com. It's factual. I've been educating myself on it. I would do all I could to stop it because it isn't just, um, it isn't just a religion that supports our government. It's a religion that wants to take over our government. Sorry, I'm getting a phone call. Um, and if you want, it's less than a minute. I can play what this man from— um, I videoed it off the TV today, and I can play it, and it's less than a minute, so I will try.

And they will keep urging them.

There are some—

he says, Lord, wouldn't you like to see everybody realize that Jesus Christ is the Savior and you can change your life and the sense of your life? Yeah, but not enforced.

Hey, so that's what we're looking at. And I would, I would ask anybody and anybody you know to really understand political Muslims. political Islam, because it's not what it appears to be on face value. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next up is Ali Acey. Welcome.

Hello, I'm Ali Acey, obviously. I wanted to— my main thing I want to talk about is ICE in Utah County and in Orem specifically.

But I did want to quickly just say I'm really grateful about the comment you guys made about the Vesper Amphitheater, about your not support of it.

That's something that I know a lot of people are really against, so I wanted to thank you guys for that. Um, and also I just feel obligated to say I do not agree with Islamophobia, so—

but we'll move on. Uh, um, the— I've talked about this, uh, a few city council meetings ago, if not the last one, And I asked that Orem, because of the way ICE operates is unacceptable.

They are allowed to racially profile.

They treat people who have committed a civil offense with less than human dignity, and they separate families and make people of color live in fear no matter their immigration status. I'm here to ask that my city do what it can to make things better.

One of the easiest ways you can do this is to make the rule of law stand as it is.

And To do this, you can pass a formal policy directing local law enforcement not to honor ICE civil immigration detainers without a judicial warrant signed by a judge, not an administrative warrant signed by ICE alone. We must support the Fourth Amendment and protect people to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. We might say that this right doesn't belong to noncitizens, but that argument makes the ideas of the idea of rights fall apart at the same time. If law enforcement does not have to go through the proper channels, they can claim anyone isn't a citizen and abuse them.

Also, basic human dignity demands that, demands that all people be treated with respect, especially when they have not committed violent crimes.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you. All right, that concludes our personal appearances. Next item we have on our agenda is a public hearing. Oh boy, do I need to read what this public hearing—

Okay, no, you can just refer to the agenda.

Okay, friends, refer— please refer to the agenda to see what, what— or their variety of ordinance amendments that Mr. McKnight from our attorney's office will, will present. And just so you know, if you do have a copy of the agenda, I have been Municipal government for a long time, off and on in different capacities, and this has got to be the longest possible motion I have ever seen in my entire life. I know it's not you. This is just some things that we need to get done. There'll be a— there'll be a chance for—

It's okay.

Let's— all right, we'll go ahead and—

or do we have Can you put it up there?

Can you put it up? Can you put up the— oh, look, there's a copy right there. Okay. All right. Well, I will go ahead and read this. It's a public hearing ordinance amending 22-14-7 of the Orem City Code relating to conservation of values, allowing 1 unregistered and/or inoperable vehicle to be parked in a driveway, amending Section 22-14-7. 22-6-10 of the Orem City Code relating to miscellaneous regulations for residential zones, modifying parking requirements in residential zones, amending Section 22-18-8 of the Orem City Code relating to trailer houses, clarifying that RVs and camper trailers cannot be used for human habitation, amending Section 22-6-8 of the Orem City Code relating to residential zone development standards, clarifying the Permitted use of moving containers. Amending Section 22-14-21 of the Orem City Code regarding regulations governing particular uses requiring that vehicle sales and repair business submit a site plan and park vehicles according to their site plan. Amending 11-2-3, amending the definition of a nuisance. Amending 16-1-4, allowing the city to remove vegetation obstructing a traffic control device and Providing an appeal hearing for property owners. Amending 16-1-6, providing deadline for snow removal. Creating 19-3-11, prohibiting automobile-related businesses from using public streets for storage or parking. Amending 19-6-11, removing incorrect court jurisdiction for violations. Amending 13-1-6, prohibiting the use of city parking lots after curfew. Amending 11-2-26, creating progressively higher fines for nuisances that are not timely abated. Amending 19-5-3, defining public streets. Amending 19-3-5, clarifying that trailers, unattached campers, and boats may not be stored on public streets. Amending 19-3-6, requiring vehicles to be moved at least 200 Feed every 72 hours, and amending 11-1-2, clarifying the definition of habitual nuisance. That is what's before us.

You are welcome.

We're good. All right, so we'll turn the time over to Mr. McKnight.

All right, thank you. So we are here, um, uh, for the last time with the council to address changes to our NIT policies and codes. Um, as, as we've discussed several times already, we've, we've worked in many meetings with city staff to determine what changes ought to be made. Um, and tonight is kind of the culmination of that, where we will pass the code changes that have been requested and agreed upon by staff and council. Um, uh, I have up here again, we, we kind of separate and Neighborhood improvement or code enforcement from parking enforcement. They're often conflated together in citizens' minds because a lot of the issues are the same and a lot of the purposes are the same in terms of keeping the neighborhoods clean and safe. But I've got it categorized as NIT code changes and parking changes. And what I have up here are just the changes Um, uh, number 1, they're allowing an unregistered vehicle in the driveway, allowing an inoperable vehicle in the driveway as long as it's covered by vehicle cover and there are no junk parts, flat tires, suspension on blocks, jacks, or other visible body damage. Um, no parking in a front yard except for on a driveway or parking strip. Again, just kind of emphasizing that you're not to be parking in the front yard.

Thank you.

Uh, we, we amend— we're amending our code that allows, uh, the city to remove vegetation, um, that's obstructing traffic control signals, such as stop signs or speed limit signs or whatever. Um, we are creating higher fines under our administrative law judge process. Um, we're creating higher fines under our administrative law judge process. For repeat offenders. And just for the council's benefit on that specifically, we, we do that in 2 different ways. If you've been summonsed into your— to the administrative law judge and you take too much time to come into compliance, we're considering that kind of a repeat because it's an ongoing violation and you're not getting it fixed And so the fines progressively increase. We're also increasing fines for repeat offenders. If you get called in, you fix the problem, and then you offend again, you get called in and fix it, and then violate again, that will also be classified as a repeat offender subject to higher fines. And the point of that again is we're trying to create incentives so that people aren't using their property in ways that are harmful to the neighborhood. And we're just trying to get compliance. And if higher fines helps create that incentive, that's what, that's what we're going for here. Um, we're also, we're also making it explicit in our definition of nuisance that an illegal home occupation is classified as a nuisance. So is using an RV or really any other vehicle for human habitation. We don't want people living out of their RVs, campers, or cars, or whatever in the driveway, um, or in the backyard. Uh, uh, clarification as to, uh, how storage pods can be used. Our code said that they weren't allowed to be used at all, but it seemed reasonable to allow them for, for a certain period of time for people to move. So we clarified that and then added it to the definition of a nuisance if it, if it violates that. Snow removal was something that we also explicitly put under the definition of nuisance, because it's something that our, our NIT officers often run into. And then, um, storing, having junk or storing things in vacant lots as well is one of those things that happens frequently. But, um, our NIT officers thought would be helpful to have explicitly listed as a nuisance rather than having to Connect all the dots through the code, which is how we did it before. And then finally, on the parking code changes, we're allowing a vehicle for sale parked in front of a registered owner's address. Actually, that should not be in there. We talked about doing that, but that was already permitted. So that's not changing. That's, that's an error in my presentation there. We are clarifying that campers, boats, and trailers cannot be stored on public streets. They can be parked on public streets for a temporary period, up to 72 hours for loading and unloading, but not to be stored there. Um, uh, increased fines for repeat offenders, uh, is another thing that traffic will be, um, implementing. That, that did not require a code change, but that is something they'll be doing. Um, we are making it illegal to park in city parks after curfew. Um, It's already illegal to be in a city parking lot after curfew, but we're saying that you also can't park your car and leave it there during the hours of curfew. We have some people who are storing RVs and stuff in city parks. And so that's, that's been, um, added. Uh, another one that was requested was not allowing car dealerships, mechanics, and other auto-related businesses, uh, to park on public streets. And then just some, um, that, that last bullet point there, code update on jurisdiction and definition of public streets, is more, more of a housekeeping thing. Um, we had the wrong jurisdiction for, um, parking ticket violations in terms of which court it should go to. So we fixed that. And then, uh, we refer to public streets a lot, but it was never defined anywhere. So we defined it based on the state definition of, a highway, a public highway. So, um, anyway, with that, I don't know if you have any questions or how you'd like to handle that, Mayor, but that's—

That was shorter than me reading that thing. Now I understand why we had to put it that way. All right, Councilmember Millett has a question.

A few questions.

Go—

would you go to your first slide? So when you referred to parking strip, can't remember where that was. Oh, the 3rd dot down. Um, is that what we defined as the acceptable? You know, it didn't have to be paved necessarily. 4 inches of gravel was acceptable.

Yes, so exactly that on my presentation. It could be ambiguously interpreted in terms of that specific code section where we made an exception for gravel strip where people can park. You could also interpret that as the park strip, which is in front of someone's house usually. Um, it refers to the former, and the code specifically references that code section.

Okay. Because, and just to clarify, so our public knows that you can't do— it can't be dirt. You can't just park your car. We're requiring some beautification there. Some, some—

that is correct.

The gravel.

Yeah. Yeah.

So, um, there's fairly specific regulations required to qualify for for a parking strip under the code, um, which again, is referenced in this, in this code change that I'm making, saying, hey, you have to comply with these specific requirements.

Okay.

And then for clarification, also illegal home occupation, is that the no more than 3 unrelated?

What, what do you, what do you refer to home occupation in this context is referring to businesses that people are running out of their homes?

Oh, okay.

Yeah. So, Um, that's an issue that we often run into in the code enforcement world is someone is running a business out of their home, but they're doing it contrary to our ordinances. And, um, so we've explicitly listed that as a nuisance. Technically, it already was, but, um, again, the explicit listing helps code enforcement when they have those conversations with people who are running that.

Because that limits how many employees can go to the home, how many cars can be parked outside. Out of the home, that type of thing.

It addresses many of those things.

Yeah.

Okay.

That would disrupt the neighborhoods.

Okay.

And then the last thing I just want to kind of clarify and emphasize that our NIT, our neighborhood improvement team, or we're kind of calling them code enforcement, I think now, are we transitioning to that?

I've talked to them about working on the transition to that.

Yes, I see Chief going yes.

Okay.

Okay.

I just want to know when we're actually doing that transition. We've talked about a lot. So. that they work very hard to work with people.

Yes.

Our goal is to bring everyone into compliance with kindness and encouragement. And we also put people in, I wanna say contact with, but like if you need a dump trailer or something, I've seen our police, our code enforcement do so much to help someone come into compliance. So I just wanna do a shout out to that and just say thank you and also Please, this sounds kind of harsh, but we do try to really work with residents and help them do this.

So, yes, yes, and that's been part of this whole process as we discussed the NIT matrix, where we went over, like, the, the most common violations that they run into and talk about a reasonable time that, that they should be giving people in order to correct those violations rather than just, hey, very first visit, here's your fine. We're saying, hey, here's a warning, you got this much time and all of that. So, yeah, we're doing everything we can to enforce kindly but firmly.

Thank you. Councilmember Meekham.

Thanks for the hard work on this, Aaron. I am impressed how systematically you've kind of gone through our code and been very thoughtful about bringing some of these issues to work session and just Uh, being thoughtful about what's working and what's not working. Uh, it's my understanding, um, and I think I just wanted you to confirm this, that some of the, the changes that we're supposed to make tonight are actually making things more possible for residents, maybe because we, we saw that we had some restrictions that Didn't necessarily make sense for the city and other things where we felt like some of the, the codes were not doing their job and putting a little bit more teeth into those, like the escalating fines and, and some of those things. So we're trying to strike a balance between, is it reasonable to do this right? And what are the situations in which a person would do this? And where are we? Experiencing ongoing problems where we need clarification and greater specificity and perhaps greater enforcement. Is that accurate?

I think that's, that's exactly right. Yes, there are certain areas where we— it was just a matter of clarifying, um, so that everybody's on the same page, what's allowed, what's not, uh, without actually changing the meaning of the code. Um, there were— there are several several places where we are being more permissive in what we're doing. Um, and then there are a couple of situations where we're, we're being a little bit more restrictive, but, but overall, we're— this, this was a process about, um, being reasonable and helping our code enforcement.

Being more specific, updating, um, making sure we've thought through things carefully. And I really appreciate that, that process. Uh, one thing that would be helpful, I think, For me, and perhaps for our audience, is which of all of these things that the mayor read out are likely to have a significant impact on our residents? Are there things where you think this will actually change the way we do things as a city more than others?

Um, it really all depends, I think, on, on what What seat you're sitting in, right? I think for a homeowner who lives near a car dealership that's parking its inventory all up and down the street, this is going to make a big difference in their lives, right? Because they're going to be able to drive down their street and, and see the side of the street and not be worried about running over a kid running between the cars. They're going to have a place to park, which they didn't before. Um, you know, the very first, uh, the very first couple of things up here will create greater flexibility for people who are working on cars, or maybe who, who have a car and, uh, for a year or 2 have a good reason not to have it registered, but want to be able to hold on to it and not have to sell it because they're going to get a ticket from the city for maintaining that car. So, so I, again, for, for those individuals, I think it'll change a lot.

In good ways.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Lamson.

Thank you, Aaron, for your work in this monumental task. Um, I just have a question. In fact, I received an email recently from one of our residents, and that bottom bullet Point, they're junk storage and vacant lots. Now, this was not in a vacant lot. They had some new neighbors move in. They share a backyard fence, and it's a chain-link fence. And the new neighbors were nice enough when they moved in, they brought some cars. They have 2 or 3 cars that are now parked in the backyard that are not operating. And this citizen's comment was, Are they okay to park these junk cars in their backyard? Because I don't appreciate waking up in the morning and looking at their junk. Um, does that cover someone's backyard? I know that's different than a vacant lot. Um, is there some protection for stuff in your backyard? Uh, does this cover that?

So, so our, our code, um, Nothing in this— these changes would necessarily cover that. Our code does already address whether you can store inoperable vehicles in your backyard. You are allowed to store up to 2 in your backyard. They have to be behind an opaque fence. What I don't know is whether our code distinguishes between whether the opaque fence needs to be just front forward-facing, or if it includes all the way around the backyard. That's Something I'd have to look into.

Thank you.

Right. Any other? And I, and I appreciate this. I've just on that same bullet point, I received an email from, or actually a message from a resident concerned about the illegal home occupations. Um, basically on their street on the weekends, one of their house, the house in their neighborhood turns into a restaurant. And And had concerns about, about that. So I, I see what— and that maybe it might be helpful for them as well. All right, I see no other comments from the council. I'm going to go ahead and open up this to a public— our public hearing. If you would like to speak to this proposed ordinance, these ordinance changes. I invite you to come up, state your name and the city you live in, and you will have up to 3 minutes to, uh, to make comment. All right, welcome.

What a good-looking group. Mark Allen, address protected, but grew up in Orem and I didn't plan on speaking to this issue tonight, but I will, and I'll do so with candor, with no intent to offend. Our Father in Heaven gave us 10 Commandments. Do unto others. Have any of you been homeless? This ordinance has unintended consequences. It will displace those that could live Adjacent to a family member, and I'll push them to Lyndon, or I'll push them down to Marcia. 2218-8 should be stricken. Have has the attorney worked with Tyler Clancy, who is the czar for homelessness in Utah? I would encourage that to happen before you move forward on this at all. Have you ever driven past a horse barn and wished you had a horse barn to sleep in?

I have.

Have you ever walked— driven past a dumpster seeing somebody climbing in for shelter from the storm? I have. It was right across the street. A year ago, you had a gentleman and 2 ladies that were over at Caesar's Pizza, unsheltered. And I asked them, why don't you go down to Provo? They said it's too dangerous. Have you ever lived in a tent for a year, grateful to have the temperature 45 degrees? I have. I've been homeless for 3 years. I'm speaking in front of you. Do not pass this as written. I'm an unsheltered individual. How many of your citizens are hard-pressed for income? The economy's failing. Why would you want to displace them? I don't know what your jails are like, but you probably don't want to be enforcing this and pulling a young mother and her kids out of a motorhome and make them criminals. So please give some more consideration to this. Get the people that would be affected by this, all those that live in nice homes. I've lived in a nice home. I've also lived 6 years underneath the starry night skies. I've also been homeless. As a county delegate, I'm standing in front of you right now. If this were applied up in Wasatch County, you would overflow the jail. Please give consideration to that. Thank you very much.

Right, thank you. Anybody else would like to speak to this ordinance? All right, welcome. If you can state your name and city of residence, or if you live in Orem, that's all we need to know for a record.

My name's Beverly Kingsford.

I live in Orem, and I happen to agree with what this man said, but I want to not only talk about cars in front yards, but we have some houses with just a bunch of junk in their front yard that it's stayed there for ages and ages. We have one house on 4 South and 1200 West that has a huge pile of dirt Right in the front yard. It's not a car, but it's an eyesore. Um, the city of Orem is going downhill, and I own a home here, and I hate to see it go downhill, and something needs to be done to help clean it up. Um, other than just cars, uh, people invest in cars, and people need someplace to park them.

Thank you.

But we also need to get people to clean up their yards, water their grass, cut down dead trees and haul the stumps, you know, haul the trimmings away. Maybe they need some help doing this or something. I don't know. I've wondered sometimes if these homes were drug homes because nobody is taking care of the yard. Um, we need to upgrade our homes in Orem, and, and that's it. Thank you.

Anybody else? Oh, yes. If you could state your name again, please.

Claudia Stokes. I live in Orem. Um, uh, this is an interesting topic. Um, um, I think— I don't know if the council can do this when you have a law or you're trying to pass this. If you can just blatantly— I guess what I'm saying is, is there any way to look at each situation individually? Is there a way to investigate instead of just come down, you're doing this and we've had complaints and so you've got to do it? Is there any way that Orem Can look at someone's life and make a decision, um, that would be gracious. Um, I think about the cars. I mean, if they're their cars, who am I to say they can't live that way? I mean, in the backyard, I'm thinking of the backyard thing. If, if it's chain link fence, I can go buy those slats and stick them in the slats if I don't like it.

Um.

But also, kids today are not taught to work hard. And I realize some of these are older people and they come from different countries and they have different ideas about what's important. And I have a property that I rent, and right next door to it, I mean, I, I've not said anything, but they park their cars on the, on the grass. There's no more grass, and there's more than one family living in there. Um, why haven't I said anything? Because I, I don't know that it will go well for them, you know. Yes, it brings down my property value just a little bit, but, but what is the consequence of what if I were to say something? I mean, we have to follow the laws, but is there a way that ORM can find out What more you may be able to do to help somebody get better. You know, I don't know if we have a fund to put slats in chain-link fences to make this go away, for people to be more kind, um, to have understanding hearts. I'm grateful for what I heard tonight, and I, I really have no plans on turning my neighbors in, but— and they've been there for years.

Years.

Probably over 10 years, 12 years, maybe even 15. Is there a way that Orem City can have heart in each case? That doesn't mean that you need to give in. Can you understand? Can you just somehow express a desire to— I love what you said, to help them get better, because maybe they just need to be shown how. Instead of, you've got to do it. I was in a court one time, and a guy, he was gonna lose his yard. He didn't know what to do, and I know what to do. I mean, I've been a landlord forever. Sorry, my time's almost up. But I said, if you'll put your hose on your lawn and just let it run for a while, it'll be green in 2 days. And call Stewart's or someone like that, and they'll have the weeds gone in a month. Because he had to— he was worried about selling his home because he was going to lose it because of the yard. So have heart. Thank you.

Right.

Thank you. All right.

Welcome.

You go ahead and state your name. And do you live in Orem?

Hi, I'm Madison.

I'm not going to state my last name because I am indeed 15 years old.

I do.

I am a resident of Orem.

I would like to state with 2218-8 that with what the older, older gentleman stated was that I've witnessed multiple people be homeless. I've witnessed people live in their cars and whatnot, and sometimes those cars don't work. And with those cars not working, sometimes they have to move them to specific, specific spots and not be able to move them every 200 feet every 72 hours because the cars aren't working and they don't have enough money to go get those cars fixed or get someone to move those cars for them. And I believe that passing this is going to take a really hard downfall on Orem and make Orem seem as not welcoming as it used to be. Because I've lived in Orem for 6+ years and I've witnessed a lot of things with a lot of people struggling to find homes because homes are really expensive and sometimes they'll resort to living in their car. And/or live in an RV because, um, because like it's not expensive, like you don't have to rent it. So I think that passing this is going to take a really hard downfall because some people can't pay for stuff. Like a lot of stuff is rising with expenses and some people don't have enough money to go rent something, to go buy something.

And so they have to resort to living in campers, RVs, their own cars.

And so it's just unreliable. Right.

Thank you. Appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Anyone else? All right, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to The council. Um, Mr. McKnight, I just have a question about 22-18-8 about the trailer houses. I'm gonna go to the 22-18. Oh, I don't have it. I don't think it's in the same order. Oh, I'm looking at the actual ordinance. Um, okay, 22. Is that— could you explain what a little bit more about that? Is that if somebody has an RV or something on their property and they have somebody living in it? Is that what that's— let me make sure.

Yes.

Okay.

So, um, if you're looking at the ordinance, you'll see that it was already unlawful to place any trailer house, mobile home, or travel trailer On any lot for human habitation. Um, we simply added recreational vehicle, camper trailer, camper, any other vehicle. Um, and to be frank, most of those— 2 of the 3 things that we added were already included in the definition of travel trailer. But again, so that to make it easier for NIT officers to point at the ordinance and say, see, This isn't allowed. We spelled it out in the ordinance instead of having them jump through the hoops of, okay, here's the ordinance and it refers to this term and this term is defined over here. And so we just threw it all in there. So it doesn't make significant changes to the code other than clarify. Um, the one big change that was made is we added, or any other vehicle, so to include motorcycles. include, like, people not sleeping in the back of their car. Um, and that was added at the request, at the, uh, yeah, at the request, or the, uh, with the counsel of the Planning Commission. They requested that that be added. Um, and, and, and I understand the concerns that are being said. I think, um, I, I I feel deeply for homeless people as well. I am blessed to never have had to experience that, and I don't understand what it's like. I'm readily able to admit that, but I also understand that there are sanitation issues related with people living out of camper trailers and a parking lot. Um, there are other, uh, building code-related safety issues. And, um, again, if, if you're the neighbor next door, uh, that having that kind of activity there is, is going to be a nuisance. And that's why, uh, we have that in there. Um, really, this is, this is clarifying our code with that one additional change of, or any other vehicle. Um, which was added at the Planning Commission's request.

All right, thank you. All right, Council, do you have any items, anything you'd like to discuss on this? Um, Councilmember Gale, then Councilmember Mecham.

Um, I just wondered if we could have Captain Robinson's input on the comments that Miss Stokes made about having compassion, because I do know that's something that our officers have really tried hard to do. And consistently do, and I don't know that this code changes that, but maybe you could speak to the efforts that they make.

Yes.

Can you hear me good? Um, I appreciated your comments, and I was, uh, thankful that as you— your request as to investigating each of those and kind of taking, uh, every incident in their merits, that's something we already do, and I'm comfortable in representing that to you guys here. That our NAT officers, our parking enforcement, our law enforcement officers are not without compassion as we enforce laws. We'll be as kind as you allow us to be. And so as we are investigating these things and as these changes are clarified mostly, it'll help us. Where it helps us is striking the balance.

And we have people that are complainants that are saying, why are you not doing anything?

As we try to be compassionate and kind and try to help these people out with compliance. And then we have the other side of the coin is the people that are trying to bring their homes or their vehicles into code. And so I feel confident in our ability to meet that, and where we miss, we'll learn and do better.

If I can just briefly add to Chief Robinson's comments that as we've looked at what other cities do around the state, I can confidently assert that no one does a better job than Orem in being Compassionate and kind and doing it in the spirit of, uh, of an educator in the enforcement of our code.

And if I may add, just specific examples are, I've worked with our code enforcement officers on, they've helped a widow by actually going to her house and helping her clean the junk up out of her yard. They brought a trailer, they brought a dump several times over several days to help her clean that up. Um, they've referred similar cases to the My Hometown Initiative, who have done service projects to help clean up. And, um, I had another example, but it just left. But, but, but anyway, I, I think we do, um, our very best. Well, Our code enforcement officers do their very best to, to be compassionate and, and be reasonable with people. And again, that's, that's, that was a whole part of this process was putting down in writing how, how reasonable we can be and, and providing opportunities for people to be able to fix things to the extent that they're able.

Councilmember Meekham.

I really appreciated those who, who participated in public comment tonight. I think those were meaningful interventions, and I'm grateful for that. It has caused me to think about that section of our motion in more detail. I'm also really grateful for the way that the city does approach Um, some of these code enforcement challenges. I've seen it. I, I really do think that for those who are, you know, in really challenging situations, that our team does a good job of trying to understand those situations, doesn't move first to enforcement without understanding the context, understanding what can happen and how you can get there. Um, so, thank you, thank you, Chief Robinson, for sharing that, as well as City Manager Bybee. My open question to you, Aaron, and maybe to the council is, is there anything in that Section 2218.8 that might deserve continuance for more discussion on this before we pass it tonight? Um, given that we understand how we, we enforce these kinds of codes, um, uh, or do you feel like there's nothing really productive, um, in continuing that portion of the ordinance?

Well, um, I suppose that's up to the members of the council more than me. I, uh, I know that The change that's been proposed was recommended by staff to help them deal with situations where, where people have said, hey, it says mobile home, but it doesn't say recreational vehicle. So this is a recreational vehicle. I can stay here. Um, even though recreational vehicle is included in the definition of travel trailer. Um, I, I don't think it makes a significant change to the code, but, um, There is a little bit of a change, and, and again, you know, as to the policy of the city, that's up to the City Council.

So I'm happy to speak to that. Um, you know, this— I'm in my 5th year on the City Council, and that's why I spoke to Code Enforcement and the fantastic job that they do. And I, just to clarify, we mark very carefully— our police put people in contact with resources. So if you're Homeless in Orem, you should— you shouldn't be. We should be able to— we have ways to connect you with resources. Um, I just feel like it— that can— like I said in my comment, without even knowing that these— this issue is going to come up, our code enforcement is very compassionate. I appreciate what the chief said, um, in every aspect of what they do here, um, in even like going out and helping people put in a sprinkler system. Or cut down a tree or haul off trash. Um, I just really appreciate the hard work. And to the— was it, let's see, Beverly Kingston, um, that spoke about Orem, some of what you felt like was the decline in Orem? Um, yeah, it's important that we help people clean up their yards, that we're there to help our city um, from not deteriorating into sprawl. So, um, there's just a lot that goes into that. It's kind of hard. I remember we— my personally, I have a personal experience with this. We bought a lot in Highland, and the 2 days after we bought the lot, we got a letter from the City of Highland that said, you know, you need to cut down your weeds within 30 days. Well, it was the previous person who didn't didn't keep the weeds trimmed, right? We just had purchased the lot, and it kind of bugged me when I got that letter. I was kind of offended. Um, but then I started looking at the bigger picture of how it helps, um, everything be more hospitable, more homey, more beautiful. And especially to the point of the homelessness, you know, if our code enforcement— if there's a report of someone in a trailer, a motorhome or something, and our code enforcement goes by and finds someone there. Wow, maybe someone was afraid to speak up, and now we can put them in contact with some resources. And I've been to Clancy's, um, you know, workshops to help with the homelessness. That you got to start somewhere, and this is kind of where we're hoping to start. So I, I guess I'm saying I'm okay with this right now because I really feel like it's going to help us. To help the people who need the help too.

So, all right, um, Councilmember Lamson and then Councilmember Meekum.

So the intent of 2218-8, uh, I don't believe was to put homeless people— to make their situation worse, to put them out on the street. But this is more addressing situations where someone might be renting a trailer, um, or letting people live there that are maybe not necessarily homeless, but just another source of income. Can you kind of tell us what the thought process was behind that?

Well, um, again, this particular code change, I don't think, um, changes so much as clarifies as to the original intent of the ordinance when it was passed. Way back when I— yeah, I think the purpose was, and I know what our code enforcement officers are dealing with, are situations where, you know, you have a family member or a friend who has an RV, but they don't have a place to put it. And so they just put it in the driveway and live out of the RV. Um, and And that just, like I mentioned before, causes a lot of issues in terms of sanitation and building and code violations. When it comes to sanitation, if someone's hooking up water to their RV, there are potential backflow issues that are problematic. If you're living in there continually and you've got that water hooked up, there are obviously sanitation issues if they're using Um, the sanitation facilities inside the RV, uh, depending on the cooking that they're doing and how that's all set up, that creates potential safety issues as well. And so, um, I think more than anything, this was probably designed to address a lot of those issues as well as to just address, um, a situation— situations where people are Are not living in homes in, in places that were designed for human habitation.

This is a good conversation. If I'm understanding it right, the code change that's proposed tonight under that section, the language is not substantive in that it doesn't actually change what we do. It just clarifies some language around it.

Yes, that's the intent of the code change.

Okay. So, in other words, if we continue that particular portion of the code, nothing really changes in a meaningful way around what we do on this particular issue.

Nothing changes. It's just code enforcement. Our staff had asked for it to make it simpler to point to because people pushback when they have to follow the dots through the code. But yes, in terms of being able to do it, I don't think it changes what we're able to do. It just takes a little bit more.

So I think the bigger issue is, do we have the balance right, right on this issue? Because clearly there are challenges that you mentioned, and clearly individuals have challenges in their personal lives and individual contexts that we need to be very sensitive to. And I would love for us to be known as a deeply caring, compassionate place for those who are struggling. I think we are for the most part, but I want to double down on that. But what I am hearing, I think, though, just to clarify, is that continuing that portion doesn't really get us to that bigger conversation.

Yeah, I don't think—

And that's a conversation we should put on the agenda at another time.

I, I would think so, yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Gale.

Um, I just wonder if Captain Robinson— sorry, Chief Robinson— could— do you have any light to shed on this for us? What your experiences with your officers is, what your insight is?

I'm, I'm comfortable with these changes in the sense that it makes it easier for the public to understand what the laws already are. And so we're not really changing anything.

We're just explaining it better in the sense of we would still be making the same enforcement actions as we currently are, with the exceptions as noted by Aaron. But fundamentally, it does not change anything. So as our NIT or code enforcement officers or our law enforcement officers are saying, this is why you're in violation, it's clear and plain in one code as opposed to 2. As opposed to having to show them multiple different codes that are correct. This just simplifies that. And so you're not getting in a roadside argument or confrontation or in front of a residence with the citizen. And so this is just— It's long, and I This is— as long as that is, it's clearing it up.

So, so what I hear you and Aaron and Quinn saying is our vote on this tonight actually has little bearing at all on the actual issue of whether you can or can't live in your car.

It doesn't have any— doesn't make any significant substantive changes.

No.

All right, anybody else? All right, I'll take my turn. First of all, thank you. Thank you to all of you. Madison, Beverly, Mark, and I'm going to start naming people, and I hope— and Claudia. Appreciate, appreciate the comments. I hope I got everybody. Gave me some things to think about. And appreciate the clarification that this doesn't change. An ordinance that already exists. It's kind of going on a scavenger hunt through the code. You're doing it. It gives it more direction. Um, I've just, in a past life chapter, I worked extensively with those who are experiencing homelessness. And when I, I remember the place of my employment coming out to the parking lot and somebody would have an RV there. Or someone would be asleep in the back of their car, and my heart ached. And I've worked for a number of years working to get resources and get housing available so people who were in a position and in a mind frame to make change in their lives, that they could do so. I'm concerned too, Beverly, about what's happening in our community with, with the appearance I'm grateful that we have My Hometown Initiative that specifically targets certain neighborhoods and they have service projects through the summer. People apply for that and they are able to help people clean. It goes back to the compassion that people say, I don't have the resources or I'm not able to, I'm not as mobile as I used to be. I want my yard cleaned up, but I, I can't do it. I can't either— can't afford, I cannot physically do it. And so hundreds of volunteers show up. And in fact, we're going to see that here next week. Actually, it's this week. Wow, September's moving along. On Thursday with United Way Day of Caring, you're going to see people going through our community helping those individuals. Um, think about The couple of examples I'm aware of with trailers in yards. I know of a situation— well, I don't know if it's still happening, but a family, an unfortunate situation where a child lived— the family kicked the adult child with his children out of their house, would not let them in the house. And they lived in a trailer in the person's yard. And what an impact that was, a negative impact that was on the children. I know versus being homeless, experiencing homelessness, that may have been better than nothing, but I don't know how that's resolved. I also know of another where someone's renting out a trailer in their backyard as an Airbnb. And that's not the intent of what we picture with our trailers, with this. So, as Councilmember Meekums said, this is part of a bigger conversation. The actual discussion about RVs and the role of trailers and RVs in our community is for, I think, a discussion for another evening, or another meeting, I should say.

Thank you.

I do think that this, these proposed changes will make more, make it more clear to our residents and make it more clear to our officers what, what's going on, what is allowed and what's, what's not allowed. On, on that, I'm grateful that there are some flexible, there's some flexibility about having an inoperable vehicle in your driveway or having an unregistered vehicle in your driveway rather than— I can look, I'm aware of situations also where I think that's something where people, like Madison said, that we don't— can't fix it. They don't have the money to fix it right now. So I'm comfortable with the proposed changes as they are now. The one issue, the one point that I was most concerned about is a clarification of something that'll already exists. And so with that, Council, that's— that's— those are my thoughts. And if you— does anyone else have any? All right, what do you want to do? I want to make a— we can make a motion to approve, deny, continue, or we can— we can sit here for a few minutes. Sit here for a few minutes.

Mayor, I'll make a motion.

Okay, Councilmember Gale. Does Councilmember Gale have to read the whole thing?

Yes, I'm afraid so.

Oh, I just got my glasses on. We're good.

Okay.

Okay. I move to approve by ordinance to amend Section 22-14-7 of Orem City Code relating to the conservation of values, allowing 1 unregistered and/or inoperable vehicle to be parked in driveway, amending Section 22- 6-10 of the ARM City Code relating to the miscellaneous regulations for residential zones, modifying parking requirements in residential zones, amending Section 22-18-8 of the ARM City Code relating to trailer houses, clarifying that RVs and camper trailers cannot be used for human habitations, amending Section 22-6-8 of the ARM City Code relating to the residential zone development standards, clarifying the permitted use of moving containers, amending Section 22-14-21 of the ARM City Code regarding regulations governing particular uses requiring that vehicle sales and repairs repair businesses submit a site plan and park vehicles according to their site plan. Amending Section 11-2-3, amending the definition of a nuisance, amending 16-1-4, allowing the city to remove vegetation obstructing a traffic control device and providing an appeal hearing for property owners. Amending, uh, 16-1-6, providing a deadline for snow removal, creating 19-3-11, prohibiting automobile-related businesses from using public streets for storage or parking. Amending 19-6-11, 11, removing incorrect court jurisdictions for violations. Amending 13-1-6, prohibiting higher fine— sorry, prohibiting the use of city parking lots after curfew. Amending 11-2-26, creating progressively higher fines for nuisances that are not timely abated. Amending 19-5-3, defining public streets. Amending 19-3-5, clarifying that trailers, unattached campers, and boats may not be stored on public streets. Amending 19-3-6, requiring vehicles to be moved at At least 200 feet every 72 hours, amending 11-1-2, clarifying the definition of habitual nuisance.

All right, council, we've got a motion.

I'll second that.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Thank you, Councilmember Muelstein. All right, um, is there any further discussion before we vote? All right, Councilmember Muelstein, we'll start with you.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Thank you.

The motion carries. Next item on the agenda is, um, a resolution expressing opposition to the proposed Vesper Amphitheater development, and I'll turn the time over to our city attorney, Steve Earl.

Thank you, Mayor, council. Well, as you all know, the City Council published a letter to the Provo City Council last Thursday expressing the council's opposition to the proposed Vesper Amphitheater project at the mouth of Provo Canyon. And as part of that letter, you indicated that it was your intent to consider a resolution at your meeting today to more officially, if you will, express your opposition to that proposed project. And so we have before you a formal resolution that's entitled a resolution of the Orem City Council expressing opposition to the proposed Vesper Amphitheater development and advocating for regional collaboration in Provo Canyon. If you would like, I would be happy I'm happy to read the body of that document. It's about a page and a quarter long, or I think you've all had a chance to see it. And if you were to adopt the resolution, then the public would have a chance to see the final signed version.

So, I would like you to read it, Mr. Earl.

This is just revenge for making you read the other thing.

No, no, no, no. I have, I have a much more, I have a much more logical Um, well, I've, I've read it, and I know our council members, fellow council members have, and I can tell the audience that it's essentially the draft you've written is the letter put in resolution form. I do think it would be beneficial for those who are here to, to hear that. So I, I promise it's not just revenge. It's actually public.

I agree with you. I think it would be helpful to have me read that.

that.

So, uh, I will go ahead and do that. Uh, says, whereas the Orem City Council deeply values its longstanding relationship with the City of Provo and respects the Provo City Council's authority over land use decisions within its borders, and whereas, while the Orem City Council does not typically weigh in on matters outside city boundaries, the impacts of the proposed Vesper Amphitheater on the health, safety, and welfare of Orem and its residents are too significant to ignore. And whereas, all the year— although the original application has been withdrawn, we understand that a revised proposal is forthcoming, and our concerns regarding substantial negative impacts on Orem and the surrounding area remain. And whereas, despite dozens of hours of productive dialogue with the Vesper Development team and Provo City representatives, critical concerns remain unresolved, and we remain concerned about sound and light pollution impacts to Orem's Mount Timpanogos Park and its users, and substantial traffic impacts on SR 189, Provo Canyon Highway, and SR 52, 800 North. And whereas a development of this scale cannot occur without significant significant and costly transportation improvements, many of which would directly affect Orem residents, and whereas the Orem City Council sincerely appreciates the Provo Mayor and Provo City Council's willingness to approach these concerns in the spirit of a good neighbor, their transparent communication and willingness to engage with the City of Orem on difficult issues have been exceptional, and the Orem City Council is grateful for the productive dialogue between our cities. And whereas Orem's concerns also reflect the unique regional importance of Provo Canyon, it is a treasured recreational and natural resource shared by residents throughout Utah County, and we believe there is an opportunity for Provo, Orem, the State of Utah, Utah County, Mountainland Association of Governments, and affected special service districts to work together toward a long-term vision for this area to create a plan that enhances the grandeur and recreational value of the canyon while thoughtfully considering the impacts of future development. Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Orem, Utah, as follows: 1. The Orem City Council hereby formally expresses its opposition to the proposed Vesper Amphitheater development due to concerns Concerns about sound and light pollution impacts to Orem's Mount Timpanogos Park and its users, and substantial traffic impacts on SR 189 Provo Canyon Highway and SR 52-800 North. As the Vesper proposal is revised and moves again through Provo City's review process, the Orem City Council respectfully asks that the concerns and impacts Facts outlined above and in Orem's June 23rd letter be given significant consideration. 3, the City of Orem reaffirms its commitment to a strong partnership with Provo City and advocates for a multi-agency regional planning effort for the future of Provo Canyon. And passed and approved this 8th day of September, 2026. Karen McCandless, Mayor, and City Council members, all 6 council— there's Council members listed below.

Thank you.

I appreciate you taking the time, time to read that. So, to those who are here, council and members of the public, that is what, what we're going to be here as a council discussing. So, it's going to— might be a little bit different than it usually is, because we usually have a public hearing and then we bring it back and then we discuss. I want to give council members the opportunity to do a little discussion now. they'd like, have questions, which we do have. If you have questions for Mr. Earl, or if you have thoughts in general that you would like to share before we invite the public to give comment.

So I think I'm going to just add a couple things because we talked about this in our work meeting a little bit. Crystal and I have kind of been doing a little wordsmithing here because we did have several residents also concerned concerned about the impact to not only our Mount Timpanogos Park but also our Palisade Park and also parking in general in Orem for people parking to then walk to the Vesper Theater. So do you want to present what you were— So in the 4th whereas statement, I would like to add It has the impacts to Orem's Mount Timpanogos Park and Palisade Park and its users, and then, and substantial traffic and parking impacts. Parking impacts and traffic impacts. Yeah, substantial parking impacts and traffic impacts on, and substantial traffic impacts on SR 189. So the The parking impacts are throughout the parks and neighborhoods, so it's not just on 189. So it'd just be— and substantial parking impacts and traffic, substantial traffic impacts. Does that make sense?

Did you get that, Steve?

Yes, I did.

Okay.

Anything else? All right, I have a comment, or go, go. Is this okay? Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and say something here. I've spent a great deal of time in the provincial transparency portal reading different reports and gathering information and trying to— wanting to make sure that whatever decision or whatever action we take as a council, that I'm voting with what I believe to be the most current information. And I'm confident that I am. And so one of the things that I was looking for as I looked through the portal were— it was Vesper Amphitheater supplemental project information and supporting exhibits. And part of that, Council talked about the process where this project would be approved and where—

at what—

in Provo City's development process, where certain items would be contemplated and would be studied and addressed. And so one of the pages in there talks about what commitments established now and then matters requiring continued technical development. And I appreciated those who put this report together because it helped me better understand But it talked about the commitments established now, and it talks— it addresses what the developer is willing to do at the time. Now, granted, this is for an application that technically they've withdrawn and they're going to start, but this still, I think, is timely because it shows me that there still needs to be some work to be done.

Thank you.

Under matters requiring continued technical development, it says certain elements cannot responsibly be finalized until the project has advanced through additional design, engineering, due diligence, expert analysis, agency coordination, and city review. And I understand this. I've— I'm very familiar with the development process in my— another life chapter before the nonprofit life chapter. I've My undergraduate degree is in land use planning, and I've worked in private and public sectors. And so I recognize how some things may need to come later in the process. But a couple of things stood out to me, that it says that the final traffic modeling and roadway improvements would need continual technical— continued technical Technical development, and I recognize that, but up in the commitments established now, I didn't see— I don't see anything about the traffic at this point. I think that there's some information, in my own opinion, that's missing. Another item that would be continued technical development are parking assignments, offsite parking, and shuttle operations. I understand that as well, but that's a concern that I have right now. Thank you. Another one was sound modeling, monitoring, and operating protocols. And, and I have that, that concern now. It does, um, up in the commitments established now, it says sound mitigation obligations and outdoor event curfews. And I appreciate the meetings that we've had with the developers. I've really appreciated the openness of, of Mayor Judkins and the city council. to answer questions, to— but I, I just, just so— this is where we kind of diverge from a public hearing where we don't talk about how we're going to vote until after we hear from the public. I'm going to vote to support this resolution. I remember being on a city council when we had an issue come up for conditional use permit, and I supported denying that conditional use permit because it was based on sound. I don't believe that the— and again, people might be upset because I'm saying that.

I don't—

anyway, I don't care. I mean, I care, but I care about people. But there's some things you can't mitigate, period. You can say we're going to mitigate something as much as possible, but But that mitigation still does not resolve the impact. And that's what I'm concerned about, particularly with the traffic and with the sound, that there could be a lot of mitigation efforts that take place. But I believe that at this point, with what I have seen in the application, Council. That is, that those are things that are not— at this point, I'd be— I'm unable to support because I don't think they can mitigate it to the level that I believe they need to be mitigated. I think that it's harmful to the citizens of Orem. I'm concerned about the neighborhoods. I'm concerned— I don't live that far off of 800 North, but I live on the other side of town. Thank you. And I'm concerned about the traffic. I'm concerned about the sound. I'm concerned about just the quality of life issues. And there, to me, the quality of life for our residents is something that I believe we as a council need to support and uphold. So there, I usually would say something Something like that at the end, but I'm saying it at the beginning. So anyway, anybody else want to comment right now? Councilmember Meekum, Councilmember Gale, anything at this point? Anybody on this? Okay, so after— is it okay, Councilmember Meekum, if we have the— um, Councilmember Muelstein has one more thing to add. Mr. Earl.

In the therefore, the first therefore statement, we just need to add those changes as well about Palisade Park and parking into the therefore statement. Does that work?

Yes, thank you.

All right, Councilmember Meekum, then Councilmember Gale.

I'm supportive of those, those changes.

Thank you.

Oh, I am too.

I meant to say, sorry.

Uh, maybe I'll just start by saying I appreciate your comments, Mayor, um, and recognizing that, that there is a process that goes along with, with all of this. Um, there just are some things that we need to see early in the process. Um, and I just think they're so obvious. Um, uh, so such obvious impacts that we just can't. Go down the road too far in this process without understanding them. And you've nailed it, the sound. I mean, it's just going to funnel down the canyon. I think the sound could reach a couple of miles into Orem residences, right? And then, of course, the traffic could disrupt, you know, major roads in Orem throughout the concert period, all the way through the city. So, you know, I— I'm More information, the better for me on those models. But, but I think it's pretty clear, given the site, what that looks like. I did have a chance to attend a wonderful concert in West Valley just the other day up at the amphitheater there, which is a similar sized amphitheater to the one being proposed. And it was a delightful evening, but it's just a, just a very different kind of site. Right. There's all kinds of sound mitigation. It's embedded in berms. It is not adjacent to neighborhoods as the sound projects out. And there are lots and lots of ways to get out of a concert, and it is still incredibly busy on a concert night. It has lots of effects on neighbors, even with those. those advantages that this particular site doesn't have. I'll just conclude by saying that my favorite part of the resolution that we have drafted for tonight is the part that suggests that we all have a way to contribute to the grandeur of Provo Canyon. And, you know, there may be some recreation improvements that we can make that would, that would contribute to that. Uh, I'm open to ideas of ways in which Provo Canyon might be improved, uh, and the experience, uh, in that canyon. But it is a remarkable treasure, and, uh, it's a treasure we all hold. So, um, I'm very supportive of where we've landed.

Um, I agree with Councilmember Meekum on that. I love this idea that we get to control our destiny, that we as a community, not just Orem, but Provo and, and Heber and Midway and Sundance, and we all have this opportunity to turn Provo Canyon into a shared, um, a shared thing. And, and, and really, it's, you know, it's like this crowning jewel of our county. So I take that very seriously. Um, I do also want to acknowledge I've spoken with most of Provo City Council members. I just want to acknowledge how impressed I have been with them. Um, they are fulfilling their responsibility to fairly evaluate all proposals brought before them. And I think they're doing that with diligence and, and responsibly, and I admire them for that. Um, that said, I think as I look at this project, you know, at first it sounded like, oh, you know, an amphitheater could be a great thing. It's just a gravel pit now. It could be so much better until you stop and think about the scale. This has been compared frequently to Red Rocks, but if you look at the difference in scale, the Vesper Theater, as it's proposed, would seat 20,000 people and it would sit on 100 acres of land. I've heard it compared frequently to Red Rocks, which seats 9,500 people and sits on 738 acres of land. The scale is just astoundingly different. And I spoke with an acoustical physicist yesterday, actually, and he out of the blue just happened to mention that at Red Rocks, they are getting complaints as far away as 2 and 3 miles, and lawsuits have been filed successfully because of the sound. So, as much as we want to think that we can mitigate the sound, and you can to some degree, you cannot fully mitigate that sound. And I think that would be a tragedy for our canyon. Aside from the traffic, which to me, I think, um, I honestly wonder why we're still talking about this, because our infrastructure is not up to par. And even if they got a better infrastructure, there's still, for that little space, more than it can handle. So, um, I agree with Councilmember Meekum. I agree with the mayor.

Um, and I agree with the staff.

Thank you.

And I, I don't think this is something that I support right now. I don't think it's in our residents' best interest.

All right, thank you. Anybody else want to speak at this point? Councilmember Lamson.

If we're going down the line, I just— a couple of things I want to say, and I agree with everything that's been said. I support this resolution. Um, I, I look forward to something. I'm concerned about losing the majesty of That canyon and that location, this beautiful jewel that God has given to us. I remember the fight that we had with, uh, Bridal Veil Falls a few years ago and, uh, and how that became protected and beautiful. It continues to be amazing. Um, nothing really to add here other than I was reminded, as we've been talking about sound, a phone conversation I had a couple of years ago with a friend who lives near but not close to USANA Amphitheater, what used to be called the USANA Amphitheater. He and I were on the phone. He was sitting out on his back deck. We were talking, and I said, Todd, what is— what's going on? What is that noise? And he goes, oh, that's USANA. And he said, yeah, we hear every concert that happens there. I don't remember the exact distance that he was away, But far enough away that he didn't want to have to listen to that. On some nights, he said it's wonderful when they have a group that he likes and appreciates.

It's great.

But there are other nights that it's absolutely horrific, and he can't go out in his backyard and enjoy his own, his own property because of the noise pollution that's coming into his space.

So, All right, thank you. Anybody else? Yep. All right, so this, this half is weighed in right now.

This—

oh, oh, did you want to say something now? Okay.

All right.

This is not a public hearing, but I do want to give those of you who would like to say something the opportunity to say something because This is a very important issue for our community. So first of all, I'm going to invite Carissa Merrill to come up because she signed up during personal appearances and been so patient waiting, waiting through all of this to come up. You'll have up to 3 minutes to share your thoughts. And then after that, again, just state your name and if if you live in Orem. So we have that for the record. And then I— but I do know, uh, Mr. Allen, you might, you might be speaking, but I know you're, you're protected. It's protected. Yeah, if you'd like to, why— if just for this, uh, expedite, if you want to come sit up here in the front, if you want to speak to it, um, we'd welcome you to come up and sit here. All right, thank you. Welcome, Carissa.

Hi, um, it's actually Carissa Cantrell.

Um, I am, uh, oh my gosh, I'm so tired.

An Orem City resident.

I live in the neighborhood in between the proposed Vesper Amphitheater and the Orem City Cemetery. I'm here to speak from 15+ years of security and on-site medic experience for hundreds of venues from Payson all the way through Salt Lake City to Logan and Vernal. Our small, safe community neighborhood would be subjected to and used as overflow parking for Vesper Amphitheater. Our streets became a logjam, an extreme noise problem, when Todd Peterson— Peterson, don't know how to say it—

the founder of Vivint, hosted the kickoff concert in his backyard for the Electric Revival Festival, found by his son Jake Peterson, and he had Benson Boone and Laney in June of 2025.

I think he learned very quickly what a mistake he made.

I think he said something on Channel 2 News about he wanted to move now. As a security guard and a medic, I have watched drunk, high, and violent people flow in and out of venues.

They flow into surrounding neighborhoods I have also witnessed stabbings, shootings, and other felonious activities at these venues and in the neighborhoods, including being personally assaulted and scared for my life too many times to count. That's what will come to Orem, to our safe neighborhoods and streets, if Vesper Amphitheater and Shopping Center is allowed to build in one of the few left natural beauties of our state, Provo Canyon. I ask that you all think of this when you are, when you are aware of the families and children whose lives will severely be impacted on our already busy and crash-prone Provo Canyon and 800 North of Norum.

We not only have 2 elementaries but also a junior high within a few blocks of this amphitheater.

Please think how you'd feel knowing your neighborhood is no longer a safe haven due to the severe ignorance and neglect of safety, all to turn a profit.

Mayor Judkins, Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, I also wanted to say I have a neighborhood chat here. 44 women, all have children.

They all vote no.

Thank you.

Hi, welcome.

Hi, thank you.

My name's Kay Nelson.

I live in Provo, um, but I'm in Orem a lot because my kids and grandkids live over here, so I'm always picking up grandkids from 2 schools over here, and I shop over here. Um, I helped start a nonprofit, Conserve Utah Valley, almost 5 years ago after we worked with others including Utah Open Lands to save Bridal Veil Falls from private development. Um, we're not against development, Conserve Utah Valley, but we do think that we should help guide discussions about where development should take place. Um, back then the Provo mayor and council wrote a resolution at that time to support the preservation of Bridal Veil Falls. And luckily, the county commissioners listened and voted to put Bridal Veil Falls in a conservation easement. So it was a great win. So thank you to each of you for being proactive to create a resolution to regulate, um, or to— about this Vesper proposal. I know it's kind of a delicate situation. Provo's your sister city. And I love Provo because I live there. I, I'm happy to work with the mayor and with the city council, and I admire them and the work that they do. Resolutions are an important tool for community leaders to make a bold statement about a critical issue, and I think those resolutions need to be heeded. It's not just something—

it's not fluff.

It's, it's something to, to truly listen to when other members of the community have a say and an opinion in something. that can affect so many people. It's also not just an amphitheater for evening performances. In the development agreement, it talks about conventions. Conventions happen all day, every day, so it's not just an evening thing. Um, Vesper is not a bad idea. It's just where they are proposing to put it is a bad idea. It's a horrible idea. People from all over love Provo Canyon. They recreate there. They Enjoy being able to get there quickly. I had someone text me from Idaho today with a link to a news story about the amphitheater idea, and he said, do you know about this? I laughed. Yes, I know about this. Um, the Vesper development presents myriad negative problems which will change the nature of the canyon forever. While some will claim it as a gain, we and thousands of others will experience a great loss now and for future generations. So thank you so much for being proactive, for coming up with this resolution, and I hope and pray it is heeded. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Joy Patton, and I'm an Orem resident, and I live by Palisade Park, and I just wanted to show up today And, or this evening, and just to say thank you to you.

I'm an emotional person.

I've worked a lot with both state and federal legislators, and it's really hard for a common person to be listened to. And I appreciate the fact that you're listening. You're not just willing to listen though, you're willing to act.

And I appreciate the words that have been said, and I say amen to them.

And I hope that you're willing to not only to pass this resolution, but to put your foot down and say we represent the citizens of Orem.

Thank you.

And we are going to protect their rights and their property and their ability to use the things that we put in place for them to use.

I don't want to fight with people parking in front of my home 142 days of the year. I live a mile and a half from this Project. I would like to be able to go outside in my backyard and enjoy the evening in peace and quiet. I wish we could actually get rid of most of the traffic on 800 North because it's a lot less peaceful than it was 23 years ago. But still, I can't imagine having more cars go down that road. There are times when I watch our teenagers turn left on 800 North coming out of our neighborhood, and it scares me. My husband's an ER doctor at Utah Valley Hospital, and the stories that he brings home—

we don't need more stories.

I appreciate you. I can gather as much support as you'd like from your Orange citizens to help you.

To put your foot down if Pueblo City can't see reason and make this project something that works for both cities. Thank you.

Thank you. Right. Welcome.

Hi, my name is Matt Peterson. I am a resident of this city. You may have received Some emails from me, maybe 5, 10, 15, or 20. We're pen pals by now. But anyway, I wanted first of all to thank all of you for your time, your commitment, and your decency as human beings. I feel that very strongly tonight, uh, an interest, sincere interest in the well-being of our fellow citizens of the city. Um, Mayor, you said some very profound words a few minutes ago. Uh, some of these things cannot be mitigated. I cannot agree with you more. You're absolutely correct. Traffic and sound being 2 of them. At the risk of repeating myself, I wanted to throw out a few factoids again about traffic. I'm gonna take a slightly different angle, and I'm gonna say 2 words. Actually, 1 word, if you think about it.

I-15.

State-of-the-art freeway designed after numerous years and millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars gone into modeling, regulations, making sure that everything works out just right. That is arguably, I've been told by practicing civil engineers, it ranks 28th in the nation. It's a wonderful freeway, but twice a day, day in and day out, that freeway fails. That is what we're going to do to our canyon. They can model it all they want. They can put it through all the hoops and all the professional regulations, pass everything, but twice a day, that road is going to fail. And we are going to have I-15-type traffic in the mouth of that canyon. I know I'm preaching to the choir on this. I know you know this, but I want to go on record. I've spoken again, I won't tell you their names, but I've spoken with professional practicing traffic civil engineers who have told me, you're right, you're absolutely right. Our software cannot model things perfectly. Nobody can predict what's going to happen, but we all know, go out, get on that freeway, tap your brakes. See what happens. It's called a traffic shockwave. All you have to do is slam them off, slam your brakes, see what happens. That's going to happen every day going into that canyon.

I—

what frightens me about what's happening now is Vesper's not done. They're coming back. They'll repackage, they'll re— they'll repromote, and they will have models, and their model will say, guess what, we can do it. I will quote— end with this quote: all models are wrong, some are useful.

Look that up.

I didn't make that up. That's from George Box, a very famous statistician. Thank you.

All right, thank you. All right, welcome.

Hi, I'm Luke Hanson of Orem.

Several—

met several of you guys. Appreciate your support. Love the resolution. The only thing I don't love about it is Uh, the flowery language towards Marsha Judkins. I think she's not being super neighborly. Um, but that's okay. I think being nice is good, even to people who are not nice to their neighbors or their own, uh, people they're supposed to be representing. Um, but that's okay. Um, I went to that concert too.

We did our, uh, our due diligence.

We wanted to see what a 20,000 amphitheater was like. Super fun.

The—

I feel super bad for everyone who lives near it. That was, that was pretty eye-opening. Um, I would invite all of you guys to, cause you guys are like friends with lots of the Provo City Council members, to bring them on a neighborly date or something like that to like the USANA Amphitheater for one of these concerts, one of these 20,000 ones. And it will just, it'll open their eyes. And I think it would really have a huge impact. On them, because I was already against it, and I went to this thing and it solidified my opinion. So anyways, I won't talk too much. Appreciate you guys.

Thank you. Before you go, I've got to ask, who was the artist last night?

It was Jack Johnson and Lake Street Dive. Is that the one you went to?

Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay, thank you. See, my daughter went to Red Rocks last night, and that's what I quizzed her about. She sent me some cool pictures of concert and the thunderstorm off in the distance, and I said, so how long did it take you to get out of there to get to a main road? And she said, I knew you were going to ask. So, half hour. But, but yeah, but I was curious about who was playing here. So, thank you. All right, sorry to digress for a moment. Welcome.

Thank you.

Hi, I've met a few of you as well. My name is Celeste Hanson. I grew up in Orem and moved away for like 10 years, and we just moved back last year. When I first emailed early, when I heard this, I emailed Mayor McCandless, and she responded— you responded with the letter, and I did like an actual fist pump, like, yes, we're being heard. But as the development progressed, I started to get more concerned. And I just wanted to apply— so I went to business school, and one of— you've probably heard, but they apply the SWOT analysis, which is strength, weakness, opportunity, and threats. And I know you guys are not in the private sector. This is the public sector, but I think this applies as the citizens are your customers. And thank you so much for listening to your Customers, but just simply walking through, I think one of Orem's greatest strengths, as many of we've all mentioned, is Provo Canyon. It's one of the main reasons why I actually moved back to Orem. Weakness, growing traffic hotspots like 800 North. And as your role as city council members is to seek opportunities just like Vesper and to hear it out for economic opportunities. Um, and then threats. I think it's your guys' role to address threats that can greatly affect our community, and I appreciate you guys doing that. Um, I really respect that Oren wants to maintain good relations with his sister city. I think cities should work together and highlight strengths and make the most out of opportunities. However, we cannot let Provo make decisions that can take away our city's strengths.

Thank you.

And add extreme major threats that weaken our community, threats that are making me consider if I need to move my young family if this proceeds, threats that we've all discussed with very little added strength to Orem City. I really appreciate this effort in this resolution and ask for a continued firm stance in looking out for the future of Orem City, and I hope our neighboring cities will follow your guys's example.

Thank you.

Example. So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Can I have your 50 seconds?

All right, welcome again.

Thank you, Council Mayor. Um, Mark from Protect and Preserve American Fork Canyon. I just came from Provo City and, uh, before this meeting, and I'll get into that before my time is done, but, uh, When we preserved Bredeval Falls, it was a bold effort to try and stop the mechanics that had been happening behind the scenes. It took considerable effort, and I found a lack of transparency. I'm finding that in Provo as well. I am supplementing the grammar process excessively, not only with Orem but also Provo, and I'd like to ask to be officially recognized as an ad hoc journalist. so that we can provide records to the public. Provo wanted $2,000 for their records. In the 2020-44 resolution, it reads, you know, I'd suggest this for your resolution: whereas public resources have been spent on the purchase, maintenance, and upgrading Bridal Veil Falls in the surrounding area, and whereas Orem City owns property and maintains trails and other amenities leading into Provo Canyon, and is committed to the preservation of open space in and around Provo Canyon. There's a couple of other elements that are missing from the resolution. House Bill 32 is ripe in the legislature, uh, is a broad perspective of the whole canyon corridor all the way up to Wasatch County. I'd ask for you to include that. Senator Stratton brought to light that idling traffic, air pollution quality could be significant. Also, construction Uh, could be significant if it's a multi-year event. Um, Vesper is not going to pick Plan B. They don't have a Plan B, just so you know. Uh, I present to Provo City Plan B. Uh, the citizens, as of a week ago, we started to gather funds for a conservation easement. I've got a letter from Wendy Fisher, Utah Open Lands, they're willing to help. We've raised $50,000 in pledges and we'll continue to do that. Also, the gun shooting range may have some lead liabilities that Provo has not taken into it. I appreciate your consideration and kindness for Provo City. I hope they'll return the favor. I don't think it's going to be an easy battle. This is not the end of it. Um, there are other elements. You ought to have UDOT come down if Provo persists in this. I'd like to see your resolution that if Provo proceeds, that you encourage all traffic to exit on Provo Center Street and University and Provo, and your exits, 8th North Center Street, 1600 North, 1300 South, are not Vesper-friendly. Timing. The, the light down there is not timed for Teslas. I'd like to see a 5-second pause put in down there. EMS, it's a double earthquake fault. Nobody's addressed ingress and egress. I used to drive an ambulance. That needs to be addressed. Uh, UDOT want to buy the gravel pit and put in a station right there. Um, material change definition— they've got a problem in their contract. They, they've inverted the name of material definition. If you hold them to the legal standard, I think the whole thing falls apart. So a double earthquake fault. Uh, one last second. The, the purpose of shall— you know the importance of shall. Well, let me talk about the importance of a comma. Let's eat, comma, grandma. Or is it let's eat grandma? Anyway, with this, Mayor, let me just give this to you. This is a copy of Wendy Fisher's thing. I'd like to— okay, thank you for all that you do. I hope Provo will become family-friendly.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, welcome and congratulations on your beautification award.

Thank you.

And I didn't mean to say or comment, but I've learned a lot tonight, and I can see that this probably can't be mitigated.

Oh, Elaine Parker, that's Orem City.

Um, that this will be very hard. It seems like Orem's going to be taking the brunt of these problems rather than Provo. The only thing I don't like is our language here. Um, I think we should put in previously proposed Vesper. I don't like this feeling when something comes into a community that it's immediately dismissed and villainized, and I don't want Orem City to sound like that by doing this because I know Provost Mayor has said, well, wait a minute, let's give them another chance.

I just don't want Orem to— I agree we shouldn't be doing this, but I think by saying previously proposed, and then maybe saying we just don't see how in a future proposal how traffic and sound could be mitigated for the city of Orem, that we'll be taking a majority of that front.

So that's my suggestion.

Anyway, thank you.

All right, thank you. All right, welcome. If you could state your name again.

Hi, Beverly Kingsford.

I live in Orem.

Um, I just want to say a few words, and that is this Vesper Auditorium will bring in all kinds of drugs.

I mean, you don't—

you think that that's not a problem, is that people are going to go there and buy and sell drugs?

It It will be a problem.

We do not want that in our community. We don't need more of it. Um, I have a house out in Salem, just not too far from the Hare Krishna Temple, and I see what goes on when they have their color festival. It brings all kinds of the rough kind of crowd out there to throw chalk at each other. Parking is a huge problem. They've got loud music.

Thank you.

Playing all over the place. The, the people that live around there don't like it.

This would be the same kind of problem.

Um, I wouldn't be surprised if they have drug exchanges going on at the Color Festival too, but it's definitely odd music and it's definitely obnoxious. Um, we need to vote no against this. We don't need drug problems, we don't need traffic, we don't need loud noise. What we do need is peace.

All right, thank you. Just, um, last call for anyone, um, just to make it very, very clear that we as Orem City Council, we don't have a vote on the actual project, but we can vote on things like a resolution, and we can, uh, asked to participate, weigh in, and do— and then make efforts to, to be involved, even though we don't— we, we don't have the official authority because it's not located in, in Orem. All right, well, I have a question for you, Mr. Earl. Um, um, Ms. Parker mentioned something about, um, previous Previously proposed. Is that— is there— I mean, I, I— that's kind of what I was— because right now it's kind of in limbo. Do we, do we need to— Council too, do we need to say that the, the— does it address it? Okay, because I don't— let's see.

Oh yeah, and do you want me to just read that?

So the 3rd, um, right here, yeah. Although the original application has been withdrawn, we understand that a revised proposal is forthcoming. Okay, so does that—

Yeah.

Okay, I think that might, might take care of it because I— yeah, I want to make sure you bring up a good point, Ms. Parker. I want to make sure that as we do this resolution that, that we recognize That, that, yeah, right now it's kind of— there's no formal proposal. And, and so we do have that in there. Yes, thank you. All right, council, we've heard from the public. We've talked about this resolution. What would you like to do? Oh, okay, this side's going to comment. Do you want me to start?

All right, all right, go ahead, Councilmember Millett, and then Muehlstein, and then Okay, so really I'm just gonna agree with a lot of what was said. Thank you so much for your pleas, for your comments, because truly, even though this is, as was mentioned, even though it's located in Provo, we have said from the beginning we will bear the impact. We have met with Vesper developers, we've visited with Provo City Council members, just really trying to have a cooperative, kind response and not villainize anyone. When we first found out about this, we found out 2 days before it was released to the public and have been in constant communication, as it says in here. So totally feel like we have been very cautious in listening and understanding this proposal as much as we could at this point. There are just so many unanswered Thank you. I think there are a lot of questions. Increased traffic, impacts on our neighborhoods, the public safety demands somebody mentioned here, you know, access to Provo Canyon. These are all very, very serious concerns that I just want to echo.

I—

and I also want to echo that Provo Canyon is truly a beautiful place. I can't tell you how many people this last week have actually come up to me almost crying and saying, that's my place where I go to hear silence. You know, I was at a meeting where a cute little 15-year-old girl said— she's on the mountain bike team, she rides her bike up the canyon, and she says, you know, I go there to get away from the music, and I'm going to hear it across the street while I'm at the mountain bike park. So, so many things, good things that happen in that canyon that really that unique character is really worth protecting. Really the size, the intensity, intensity could forever change that experience for people. I just want to say too, I appreciate our council standing together on this. This has been just a great experience as we work through our letter, which took some time, and then this resolution echoing that, um, on— and on behalf of our residents and our residents who are now becoming informed and speaking up on this. It really, it really lifts my boat, you know, It helps me when you tell me your concerns and validate some of the ones that I have, but also helps me know how to communicate with Provo and other people. I want to say this is an important step in this process. This is not the last step. We're going to stay engaged. I want you to stay engaged. You know, very important that we continue to work to protect our neighborhoods and to protect the beauty of Provo. Provo Canyon in the kindest, most communicative way that we can with Provo. We don't have a vote, but we can sure help them understand and try to help them empathize with us and what it will do to our families, our neighborhood, our city. So that's what I would say. I want to echo pretty much what everybody else has said.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you to all the residents who've spoken up, who have emailed us, who have texted us, who stopped to talk to me wherever I was, or who I stopped to ask if they— how they felt about this project. As I've been learning about this project for the past few months, I've been the one who's been meeting with the developers and asking a lot of questions and trying to figure this out. And the more I learned, the more concerned I've become. But as, um, for a long time nobody else was speaking out against it, or, or nobody else seemed to care that much or, or think it was that big of a deal. And so we kind of just were going along. But just governments derive their power from the people that they represent. And so thank you for speaking up, because your voices allow us to have a bigger voice as your representative government. Um, I think some of the problems with this is there, there may be ways to mitigate some of the concerns that we have. But the way it's set up is it would have to get to the point of failure for our residents, for our, our citizens here in Orem before it would be addressed. And so that burden of this project would be in Provo but the bulk of the impact would be on Orem is something that I don't see how that can be changed in that location. So again, thank you to everyone who's spoken up. We, we listen, we care about what you think, and we want to hear your feedback. Thanks.

Well, as I have listened to all of the comments that have been made by fellow council members, our mayor, and all of you, and those who are interested in the resolution that we've put together and will be voting on in just a moment. I think of the word commitment and the commitment that Orem has to making sure that we're involved and engaged. Peter Drucker, a businessman, said, unless commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes but no plans. Well, I think we have plans to act, and, and our commitment is to make sure that everyone else is aware of our stance on this Vesper project, and particularly as it concerns the neighborhood, that all of those who live in this neighborhood— and I lived for 32 years in this neighborhood, raised my family there, and understand exactly the concerns that are happening— the parks, the parking, the traffic, the noise, the canyon access, the Enjoyment of a beautiful place and making sure that is preserved. The speaking out of residents and hearing what they say. Um, again, uh, Vesper in and of itself is not a bad idea. It's just the location that was mentioned. And, uh, I'm aware and sensitive of the concerns that have been brought up by everyone else. So with that, may I just, uh, share my commitment is to continue to follow along with those of us that are like-minded in this unanimous resolution to be voted on in just a moment, that we want Provo to understand our awareness and all the other steps necessary to make our commitment and plans move forward so that we will be able to have the destiny of our own neighborhoods be kept in mind and not some neighbor city take that away from us. So we'll pursue that vigorously. And thank you all.

And thanks.

Those are my comments.

All right.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the council want to say anything, or are we ready for a motion?

I'll make a motion.

You 2 figure out what—

yeah, I, I move that the Orem City approve a resolution expressing the Orem City Council's opposition to the proposed Vesper Amphitheater development due to the negative impacts the City Council believes this project will have on Orem and the surrounding area.

Second. All right, may I ask a question about the motion? Um, do you want to include the additional language that was suggested?

Yes, and include the additional language that was suggested.

And then do you have any seconds again? Okay, is that all you need?

3 seconds.

All right. Is there any further discussion on this item before we vote? All right. Councilmember Millett.

Aye.

Vote aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right. Motion carries unanimously.

Right.

Thank you. Right. We have, um, next item on our agenda, city manager information items. Oh, I want to say thank you. I, I Was rude. Thank you for coming and staying with us this evening and sharing your thoughts. All right, Councilmember.

Yes, really quick. It was mentioned Day of Caring is this Thursday, 9:00 AM. We have several service projects going on around the city, and I believe you have on your calendars an opportunity to plant some trees. down at Lakeside Park on Thursday morning at 9:00 AM. And then, uh, before our next council meeting, we have the, uh, very popular, uh, 2nd annual Taste of Orem event, and that'll be on September 19th at our City Center Park. Lastly, I had someone ask me once what it takes to have a high-performing, uh, city council governing body, and I said, I believe that the ability to collaborate and communicate with each other results in a high-performing council body. So just want to publicly thank you for your leadership, and I admire your ability to quickly and thoughtfully and positively put together this quick resolution tonight. Thank you.

All right, thank you. All right, council, we got 1 more item. It's a— I need a motion to adjourn unless you'd like to hang out for a while.

I would like to make a motion that we adjourn.

Second.

All right, all those in favor? All right, thank you all for coming and see you, I guess, on Thursday to plant the trees. I think you can come for breakfast over at the Nu Skin building.