Hope4Utah Suicide Prevention Meeting at Lone Peak

My notes come from the slides that were presented tonight and a brief conversation I had with one of the mental health counselors. I encourage anyone interested in more information to visit hope4utah.com and to "like" the Lone Peak Community 4 Hope Facebook page.

Dr. Gregory Hudnall with Hope4Utah presented. He focuses on suicide prevention. In Provo they put together a community task force, which took about four years but helped eliminate teen suicide at the Provo school.

Utah is in what is considered the suicide belt. We are #9 in the U.S. for suicides in ages between 15-24. Suicide is the #1 cause of death for youth ages 10-17 in Utah.

This is not a Lone Peak problem. This is a community issue. Get away from the blame game and move forward to help heal the community. Don’t blame the school, church, parents, media, etc.

Goal is to prevent another suicide

·         Alpine Crisis Team and school counselors

·         Work with media

·         Identify those most at risk

·         Provide information & resources available in community

At risk students

·         History of suicide attempts

·         Dealing with stressful life events such as death or divorce

·         Family members or close friends of the deceased

·         Received phone call/text/other communication from the deceased foretelling suicide

·         May have fought with or bullied the deceased

Contagion

·         Sensationalism in newspapers can increase risk of suicides

·         1% to 5% of suicides among young persons could be explained as pure contagion

·         It is vital to avoid romanticizing. Show respect for the deceased while at the same time avoiding hero worship and romanticizing of the suicide. Distinguish between the act and the person.

·       Meet with at risk kids one-on-one instead of in a group.

Seek to Understand

·         Gathering data (organized by Hope leaders)

·         10-15 community cottage meetings with youth to better understand

·         10-15 community cottage meetings with adults to better understand

Long Term Approach

·         Full time mental health counselor at Lone Peak (Districts, parents, and community need to pay for this). This is much needed at Lone Peak. It can’t be only on the District to figure out how to pay for this. THIS IS A COMMUNITY ISSUE! It’s about $75,000/year if it’s through Wasatch Mental Health instead of becoming an employee of the school.

·         Educate community (Circles4hope)

·         Partner with NAMI, AFSP (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention), Communities that Care

·         Review data and make recommendations

·         Implement programs, if needed

·         Stay the course. It took 4 years to change the culture in the Provo school, but they then went 9 years without a suicide.

How to Help

·         Spend a lot of time listening to the youth. Don’t try to “fix” emotional concerns - listen and let them know we are available to help. Focus on hope. Help them get to the resources they need.

·         Simply saying “pray, fast, read your scriptures and all will be well” doesn’t help these kids. They need to be heard and feel loved. Acknowledge their grief.

·         Let the youth grieve how they want. Everyone handles grief in a different way.

·         Let youth know the goal is to prevent further suicides. Have meaningful discussions on where to go from here and how to prevent additional suicides.

·         Use Lone Peak Community 4 Hope as a resource for trainings for youth and adults.

What’s Next?

·         Lone Peak Community 4 Hope is assembling a list of Utah County resources and will make that available to all.

·         Cottage meetings will be scheduled very soon.

February 17, 2015 City Council Meeting

Work Session

We discussed the Capital Projects and Motor Pool Fund for FY2016. See notes below on this same topic during Council meeting.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Public Hearing

Preliminary plans Lakeview Trails subdivision, located at approximately 10100 Canyon Road in the H-1 Hillside zone.

Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda

I made two changes to the minutes:

·         "C. Augustus said she seems to be aware of information from the attorney that the rest of the council does not know."  -- This is reversed, it should say "She said C. Augustus seems to be aware of information from the attorney that the rest of the council does not know."

·         "C. Augustus stated that the information that he received from the city attorney disagrees with what the Mayor has stated about the minutes." -- Should state information he received from the city manager, not the city attorney.

The minutes from the January 20, 2015 City Council meeting were approved with those changes.

City Reports

CM Rees – Planning Commission meets next week. They did approve the preliminary plans for Lakeview Trails and will discuss more during that part of the meeting. Press release was issues on the voting by mail and was picked up by two media outlets. Finance Committee met briefly last week and discussed the Capital Projects Fund and Motor Pool Fund, which will be discussed tonight. Family Festival Committee will be meeting next week. Arts Committee met last week and will be putting together a list of plans for FY2016 to be presented to the Council. They are working with Highland City on a musical that will be performed this summer at the Heritage Park Amphitheater. They will continue with the summer concert series but will have three instead of four shows. They are planning an Arts Show/Gallery during the week of Family Festival. They also discussed a dance/date night for adults in September and will research further.

David Bunker – Ski bus has 61 participants. Golf course is currently closed, which has been tough as the weather has been good. Talking with Questar tomorrow about getting that work finalized so we can open. Cedar Hills Jazz game is next Monday night, tickets are $15 and includes hot dog and drink. Several tickets are still available. TSSD meets this Thursday.

CM Zappala – LPPSD was rescheduled for next week. Has three students working on an app for the city that allows residents to report issues and track issues.

Mayor Gygi – Turnout for Emergency Preparedness townhall was very good.

Review/Action on Awarding Concessions Contract

See notes from last meeting. The City Council requested the final contract come back to the Council for review and approval.

Some changes/recommendations I had:

·         The date in the first paragraph says 2013. This needs to be updated.

·         I received an email from the Family Festival Chair who recommended some changes to the wording in paragraph 12. Instead of stating “As a portion of rent payment, the TENANT shall be recognized as a sponsor for the CITY’s annual celebration, including booth space, etc.”, which is vague, he recommended it state: “As a portion of rent payment, the TENANT shall be recognized as a sponsor of the CITY’s annual Family Festival and shall receive all the benefits of a $500 sponsor plus space for a vendor booth." This is specifies exactly what the vendor is entitled to as part of the Family Festival sponsorship.

Vista Pointe had several items they also wanted to change:

·         Have a maximum cap owed to the city of $1400/month. Right now the city requires a base of $1280/month and 5% of sales. They would like a cap on that 5% to be no more than $1400.

·         Would like a 3-year renewal instead of yearly renewal

·         Would like option of using a different alarm company but will give us access

·         Would like language added that we will not unnecessarily withhold any licenses needed

·         Update clause that termination won’t be made due to their employees actions, but only of the actions of the officers

*Section 12 shows monthly rent is $600 plus 5% of monthly gross revenues, but then goes on to state that a minimum total payment of $15,360 per year shall be paid to the city. It was determined by our finance team that the $15,360 is the amount it costs the city each year for utilities, maintenance, etc. We wanted to be certain that rents and revenues paid to the city is at least this much to cover our expenses. Adding this language guarantees our costs are covered.

There was a good debate on whether or not we should cap the total amount to be collected. Ultimately, we had to decide whether to take a lower rent payment with an unlimited potential collected as part of the 5%, or take a fixed rent payment with a cap of $1400. I expressed that I prefer to get a guaranteed amount that will cover our costs; otherwise, we risk subsidizing a private business if their sales don’t generate enough income to cover our costs. All other councilmembers agreed this was important.

A motion was made to include all the above points with a cap of $1500/month. This was approved 4-1 with CM Crawley voting nay. The vendor will discuss with the other owners on whether or not they will accept the $1500/month cap.

Review/Action on Preliminary Plans for Lakeview Trails Subdivision

The “Lakeview Trails” has received a preliminary recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Subdivision is located within the H-1 Zone, but qualifies as a Planned Residential Development (see code 10-6B). The motion for recommendation in the Planning Commission was made on the following conditions:

·         Show the conveyance of water rights by final submission

·         Lots 21 & 22 need to be shown outside of the power line easement

·         Hunters Ct. needs a sidewalk/curb/gutter, show these improvements along Canyon Road as well

·         Public utilities need to be shown to the extension of the project to allow for future development

·         Geotech review by outside group to verify findings

Staff has reviewed the most current submission and met with the developers to correct engineering and zoning issues. Staff recommends that any motion should be subject to final engineering & zoning, conveyance of water rights, verification of the Metro water easement, and completion of a review of the Geotech report.

City hired outside engineering consultant to review the plans and identify any issues. Most of the items they identified were simple things that needed to be fixed on the paperwork. A few bigger concerns:

·         Issues with geotechnical report. Suggested another engineer review the report and to go onsite to assess the property to get another opinion on how any risks can be mitigated with regards to land movement.

·         Preliminary storm water management plan needs some final investigations as wrong rainfall intensity chart was used.

·         Geotechnical report discussed fill material and procedures to follow based on amount used. Consultant feels that is not sufficient and plans as well as development agreement should be specific with regards to fill.

·         Proposed retaining wall – there was conflicting information with regards to soil saturation. Feels a structural engineer should review and turn out an independent report.

·         Utilities should extend to property boundaries.

·         Feels portion of the land designated as open space should be improved and not left native.

·         Sewer and storm drain easements should be run that are 15’ wide that won’t be merged with other utilities.

·         Evaluated how density was calculated and determined that it needs to be re-calculated to be consistent with city code, which may have an impact on one lot.

Public Comment was allowed at this point:

Adrian Juchau – He has 67 piers under his house at the end of Bayhill. Wants developer to do all that is necessary to make sure future homes don’t have this issue.

Michael Whitehead – Wants access from Bayhill to the trails in the mountainside.

It is concerning that we haven’t had a chance to review this report prior to Council meeting. An addendum to the original geotech report was sent to the city just this last Friday. One of the issues the developer is facing is that Utah County is resurfacing Canyon Road this summer and will not allow anyone to cut into the street for four years. If they are going to do this development, they will need to add utilities needed in Canyon Road prior to the resurfacing. He feels their geotech report should have been sufficient and addressed many of these concerns. Feels they have done their due diligence.

CM Augustus made motion to approve preliminary plans with the following changes:

·         Prior to final submission, the city retain a separate geotechnical engineer to assess potential land movement

·         Peer-to-peer review to make sure all procedures have been met

·         Any liability to the city has been identified

·         Storm water report be updated

·         Any fill material brought in be documented in plans and development agreement

·         Refer to and address additional points brought up by our outside engineering firm report

Preliminary plans with above conditions were approved.

Discussion on FY2016 Capital Projects Fund and Motor Pool Fund

Capital Projects tentatively funded for the upcoming fiscal year include:

·         Bayhill park $235,000

o   $100,500 unrestricted fund balance

o   $74,000 CARE tax revenues

o   $50,000 Park development impact fees

o   $10,500 Utah County TRCC grant

·         Golf maintenance shed building $200,000 (purpose is to provide safer working environment, comply with various codes & regulations, and to be functional)

o   $200,000 unrestricted fund balance

o   Another $100,000 will come from the Water & Sewer Fund

·         Harvey boulevard traffic mitigation $50,000

o   $50,000 Street impact fees

·         Canyon road sidewalk projects $15,000 (adding sidewalk to the portion in front of the city offices, connecting the existing trail near Bayhill to the new subdivision to the south)

o   $15,000 unrestricted fund balance

Motor Pool Fund changes include:

·         Added Golf maintenance equipment purchases in spring 2015

·         $13,020 increase for Golf fund transfer

·         $1,516 decrease for the General fund transfer

·         $2,594 decrease for the Water & Sewer fund transfer

·         Two trucks and one passenger car are scheduled for replacement during fiscal year 2015-2016

Blu Line Conceptual Design - January 2015

I apologize for delay in getting these notes out. The drawings presented by Blu Line at the Planning Commission were different from what they had provided to the city for the Planning Commission packet. We just received the updated drawings yesterday and I wanted to make sure the correct information was being shared with residents.

The entire building does now sit within the mixed use office/retail zone of the commercial area, which allows for assisted living centers. During a previous City Council meeting, the majority of the Council made a determination that congregate care could be viewed as substantially the same as assisted living, so a congregate care facility is now allowed to be built in that zone. There is a portion of shared parking (168 stalls) that remains in the neighborhood retail portion of the commercial zone, though Blu Line indicated that parking was not needed for the facility but would be used mainly as visitor parking. There are 297 parking stalls around the building for resident parking with approximately 300 residential units. There is a 10,000 square foot commercial building planned for the northwest corner of the property.

The main entrance of the building now faces east, almost directly across from the entrance to The Charleston. When it faced Cedar Hills Drive it was a right in, right out access, which could be an issue for emergency vehicles as they would have to come in from a different street to get access if coming from the Cedar Hills fire station. Having the main entrance on 4600 West allows for better and faster access for emergency vehicles.

The building is approximately 100 feet from the property of residents to the south of the facility. The façade to the south is broken up so that it isn’t a long, continuous building. There is a main courtyard in the center of the building and there are several corridors throughout the building that go into the interior courtyard for emergency access. The height of the building is 35 feet to the midpoint of the roofline.

The Planning Commission gave great feedback. According to the design guidelines, this portion of the commercial zone is intended to accommodate less intense uses than the neighborhood retail portion and this may be a concern with residents. Being that it was determined to be substantially the same as an assisted living center, the facility should include some of the same services such as housekeeping, onsite eating facility, medical services, etc., otherwise it would just be 55+ housing unit. Blu Line indicated that these services can be provided by outside entities but made note of some of the items given by the Planning Commission, which comes from the Utah State Code on assisted living facilities. There were also some questions on HOPA laws (Housing for Older Persons Act) and how those laws apply to this building. Blu Line will do some additional research.

The next step will be for Blu Line to present preliminary plans to the Planning Commission, which will include much more detail of the facility. As always, resident input and feedback throughout this process is very helpful.

Additional information on city code and prior plans for this facility can be found on CM Zappala's blog at cedarhillsblog.org

Council Meeting - February 3, 2015

Work Session

The entire work session was executive session.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda

Pete Condor was appointed to the Cultural Arts Committee and Philip Barker was appointed to the Board of Adjustment.

City Reports

David Bunker – Emergency Management Townhall meeting is February 12^th at 7pm at the Community Center. Junior Jazz is going well. Cedar Hills BYU night was successful and 79 residents attended. January had 18 bookings for the Vista Room. A new art class has been started with Pete Condor. Looking at doing some gardening classes. Questar is replacing a high pressure gas main throughout the city.

CM Rees – Planning Commission met to discuss the new Blu Line proposal and the Wilson-Geddes residential subdivision. Blu Line presented new conceptual plans, though they have not yet sent us updated copies of the building. Planning Commission gave some great feedback to Blu Line on ways to be substantially the same as an assisted living center. The building presented is three stories and 300 units. Blu Line will come back to the Planning Commission with preliminary plans. Wilson-Geddes is a residential subdivision just to the east of Canyon Road. They received approval of preliminary plans.

Mayor Gygi – Attended the BYU game and Cedar Hills was well represented. LPPSD will be meeting later this month.

CM Crawley – Finance Committee met with City Council at our annual retreat to discuss goals and priorities for the upcoming fiscal year.

CM Augustus – North Pointe met and provided an update on new entrance to the dump. General Plan Committee met to discuss vision statement and future goals. Discussed meeting with different committees and boards within the city to get feedback.

Review/Action authorizing the 2015 Primary and General Municipal elections to be conducted entirely by absentee ballot (by mail)

Utah Code 20A-3-302 states that an election officer may administer an election entirely by absentee ballot. If the election is entirely by absentee ballot, the election officer shall mail to each registered voter an absentee ballot with instructions and a business reply mail envelope. The concept of an all vote by mail election has been implemented with great success by many municipalities and counties throughout the state. Statistics have shown an increase in voter turnout, and in some cases, reduced costs. The Salt Lake County Elections Division encourages and recommends holding entire vote by mail elections to the municipalities within their jurisdiction. The Utah County Elections Division does not administer the elections for municipalities within their jurisdiction, leaving the task of coordinating and running the election, as well as recruiting and training poll workers up to each individual city. Staff is very interested in Cedar Hills spearheading this concept in Utah County. Conducting an all vote by mail election will create an easy, accessible method for each registered voter to complete their ballot in the comfort of their home and the convenience of just dropping it in the mail. A ballot box would be placed at the city office building accommodating easy drop off for voters either before or on election day. Residents who don’t want to mail it in for any reason can bring their ballot into the city office and still cast their vote in person.

Statistics given by the Lt. Governor’s Office shows that the counties that conducted their elections entirely by mail increased the percentage of voters by 49%. Cost to the city to run the election is about the same as voting in person.

This was approved unanimously.

Review/Action on awarding a contract for the recreation center concessions

The City has received and reviewed proposals from two food vendors and catering businesses in response to the City’s request for proposals for an outside group to operate concessions at the recreation center. Based on the submittals and interview process, the committee recommends that the City proceed to negotiate a final concessions contract.

Members of staff, Mayor Gygi, and CM Augustus met with both potential vendors. One (Craig) runs the grill and does catering at Sleepy Ridge in Orem and would continue with them even if he took over our grill. Second group (Eric Richardson, Michael B., dba Vista Pointe) is a new group and made a proposal and presented food options. They would do catering and run the grill. The second group made the best impression on those who met with them.

Contract would be similar to Sammy’s where they paid rent and also gave the city a percentage of sales above a certain point. My main concern is that the contract has not yet been drafted and the business plans for both were given to the Council this evening, not in advance for review. During work session I requested the motion be contingent upon the Council having the opportunity to review the contract.

CM Zappala asked about others involved in Vista Pointe (on the business plan it indicated KillerB Entertainment and 24609 Inc). Mr. Richardson presented. KillerB is a group that has operated comedy clubs across the nation and provide family-friendly entertainment. 24609 is involved in social media. Closest competitors are others locally who provide fresh food, like food trucks and small eateries. The social media aspect helps drive that business. The group has experience with events in the area. Discussion also included providing food to golfers on the course and they are interested in doing this. They also have the ability to open a food shack on the golf course. Will also be able to provide catering for golf tournaments, weddings, and other events happening in the Vista Room. Anticipate soft opening mid-March and grand opening by April 1^st.

This was approved contingent upon review by City Council. We all agreed to hold a special Council meeting to review and approve the final contract so that Vista Pointe has enough time to get up and running by mid-March.

Discussion on recommendations made by the Parks & Trails Committee on Bayhill Park

The Beautification, Recreation, Parks and Trails Committee has discussed the Bayhill Park proposal for the past few months, and would like to make some recommendations on how they feel the park could be used to better serve the residents in the area. The Beautification, Recreation, Parks and Trails Committee recommends the following: 1- Swing set; 2 – Move playground; 3 - Move pavilion; 4 – Move trail onto aqueduct easement; 5 – Add grass to extend the play area.

This new design better represents the feedback and desires of those residents who live in the area. Moving the pavilion near the play equipment allows parents to better watch over kids. Moving the trail to the easement maximizes space for grass/play area. The current trail is already on this easement.

Originally, the Council had authorized $50,000 for the first phase of the park to be done this fiscal year. However, the committee determined it makes more sense and is more financial prudent to complete the park all at once. I encouraged the Council to fully fund this park for FY2016 as residents have been waiting for this park for almost a decade. In 2009 there was a petition filed with the city and signed by over 100 residents requesting this park be completed. They’ve waited a long time for this park. My hope is that it can be fully funded for the next fiscal year.

Discussion on Water Conservation Policies

The mayor, City Council, and staff would like to continue water conservation efforts city wide. Some topics recently discussed which may assist in conservation efforts include:

·         Xeriscaping alternatives for residential and commercial lots (current ordinance not adequate)

·         Rebate incentives for water reduction efforts

·         Grant applications for metering projects

·         Additional education efforts through video media

I do think it is important for us to update our ordinances to allow for xeriscaping. We also need to come up with policies to handle potential down time in the system. Hansen, Allen, and Luce presented six scenarios of potential system failures that we need to discuss and come up with policies for.

Discussion on Waste Management contract

A member of the City Council has requested a review of the solid waste, and recycling programs, and a discussion on green waste collections. Currently garbage and recycling rates are as follows:

·         Toter Cost/Month Collection Garbage Can $10.92

·         Weekly Additional Garbage Can $10.92

·         Weekly Recycle Can $4.79

·         Bi Weekly Additional Recycle Can $2.24

·         Bi Weekly Green Waste Not Available

In an effort to encourage residents to recycle, the city has modified the previous rates for a second garbage can, which increased to the same cost of the initial garbage can, and the cost of an additional recycle can, which has been reduced in monthly cost. Two recycle cans are now less cost per month than an additional garbage can.

In 2014, Cedar Hills recycled 264 tons of recyclable items. Our current number of residents recycling is low, which is why we have a pick-up every other week. One option suggested is that if the take rate doesn’t increase we can pass along the cost to residents to cover the difference, even those who don’t have a second can or recycle. I disagree with this approach. The cost per can is supposed to be a pass through cost, and I don’t agree with charging more to those who don’t want to use a service to pay for those who do want to use it. I would be more onboard with those who want to utilize recycling to pay for that service instead of forcing the cost on everyone. Let residents choose if they want to recycle, if they want to have two garbage cans, if they only need one garbage can and no recycling, if they want multiple recycling bins, etc.

CM Augustus suggested a resident driven committee to discuss recycling, garbage, and green waste. Mayor Gygi will work with David Bunker to discuss creation of the committee.

Discussion on RFP’s for all professional services

A member of the City Council has requested information for professional services contracts with entities which have current contracts with the City. The attached table details the professional service firm, service provided, date which contracts were initiated, and dates of termination or extension.

·         Allred Jackson Financial Auditing 7/1/2010 Yearly contract

·         D. Blackburn Building Inspection Services 10/8/2012 Month to month basis

·         Civil Science, Inc. Engineering Services 3/11/2008 Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice

·         ETJLaw, Inc. Legal Counsel 3/16/2010 City may generally discharge attorneys at any time

·         Wilkinson Outdoor Maintenance Park Maintenance 1/1/2008 Extended 3 years from 1/1/2015 – 12/31/2017

The City Council has previously reviewed contracts during a three to five year window. Staff recommends as a best management practice, that review of professional services contracts continue to be evaluated within an appropriate contract period. Staff has prepared requests for proposal or requests for qualifications for professional services which are within the standard review period.

My recommendation is that we review each contract on a case-by-case basis. I rely heavily on staff recommendations as they are the ones working with these vendors and know how well they are performing for our city. We have the ability to see what other cities are paying so we know how comparable rates are. Instead of making a blanket policy that we will RFP everything every 5 years, I’d rather review each contract individually and rely on staff to make recommendations on when we need to RFP. CM Zappala agreed, but the rest of the Council felt we should RFP for all professional services contracts.