City Council · 2015-02-10

CITY OF OREM 
CITY COUNCIL MEETING 
56 North State Street Orem, Utah 
February 10, 2015 
3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION - PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
EXCUSED 
Mayor Richard F. Brunst, Jr. 
Councilmembers Margaret Black, Tom 
Macdonald, 
Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner 
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant 
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Chris 
Tschirki, Public Works Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation 
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary 
Giles, Police Department Director; Richard Manning, 
Administrative Services DirÆ_ctoÇ;ÈBill ·B"ell Development 
Services Director; Charlefl\ÉÊrdzier; ,-Ëi?rary Director; 
Jason Bench, Planning 
1Divisfon Manager: S.teve Earl, 
Deputy 
City 
Attoryley; ·, Ryan 
Clark,' 1 Economic
Development Divisio1' Manager_; Brandon Sf0cksdale, 
Long Range Planner;• iJas.on Bench, 'fiÌnning Division 
Manager; Brandon Nelson,Íd.Accounting-DLvision Manager; 
Steven Downs, Assistant tq'fe-iLCity M.Îager; and Jackie 
Lambert, Deputy City Recor"c!er ·' 
l 1 ;. 
-... -:..
Councilmember Hans Andersen 
DISCUSSION - Economic Development Strategic Plan 
Ryan Clark introduced Suzy Becker, with Zions Bank Public Finance Municipal Consulting 
Group (ZBPF), who presented information on the direction of the Economic Development 
Strategic Plan. The Economic Development Strategic Plan would be presented for adoption at 
the February 24, 2015, City Council meeting. 
Ms. Becker said the study combined market analysis with economics and planning, which was a 
trend she had seen in her field. Many workshops were conducted looking at marketing, RDAs, 
housing, transportation, etc. with the idea to have all the information combined into an economic 
and planning document. She said the study looked at Orem to identify different economic 
districts, and the unique opportunities each could offer in order to balance the City with long­
tenn sustainability. 
Implementation Plan Goals: 
1.
Increase the sustainability of the City's tax base through increased property values
2.
Establish Orem as the employment hub of Utah County
a.
Capitalize on investment at University Place- Orem's "downtown"
b.
Cluster of class A office space at the intersection of State and University
City Council Minutes - February I 0, 2015 (p. I) 



c.  Provide transition between mid-rise office and residential areas
d. Bring in hotels to serve business development
3. Maintain supremacy as the regional retail hub of Utah County
4. Improve the visual and physical appearance of State Street; develop and strengthen key
economicnodesalongStateStreet
a.Provide better connections between State Street and Orem Blvd.
b. Long Term: Future expansion of the City Hall
Use Form-based-code to transform 3-4 blocks of Center Street into Orem's “Main
Street" - development along Center Street would include residential and first
floor retail
d. Retrofit existing shopping centers to have a more urban street frontage while
maintaining big box retail
e. Transform Orem Boulevard into a pedestrian and bike-friendly corridor lined with
residential and neighborhood-serving commercial uses
5. Redevelop Geneva Road -- The “Wedge"
a.  Current discussions with Vineyard, MAG, and UTA to align light rail through “@
Geneva" development
i. Veers west from Geneva Road at 1600 North to parallel FrontRunner
southwardto400North
ii. Avoids much of Orem, doesn't benefit the Wedge
b. Near-term: City should influence alignment close to Geneva Road, BRT on
University Parkway, and State Street
c.“The Wedge"
i. An underdeveloped area with potential for future redevelopment
ii. Potential "high visibility" class A sites along I-15
ii. Incubator sites within the interior of the Wedge
iv. Must be planned for the future
v. Anchor the west end of Center Street with a civic building and green
vi. Possibly a new park to incentivize development
6. Increase connectivity with Utah Valley University
a. Integrate more with community and connection with I-15
b. UVU - "Wolverine Hill" - Create a student village with a mixture of housing,
retail and recreation amenities
7. Develop a new, progressive and sophisticated image for Orem
a. Branding:
For the City of Orem's economic development audience, Orem provides great
value through a low cost of doing business and a quality workforce. Orem is
the epicenter of Utah County, where start-up companies, established
businesses and developers prosper.
8. Encourage cultural arts activities
a.Potential for senior housing close to amenities
b. Enhanced park gateway and “parking plaza" -- can double as farmer's market
C. Enhance edges of park to better integrate with surroundings
d. Arts village clustered around the Arts Center
e.Connect park and Arts Center with Orem Boulevard
9. Thoughts on Implementation
a. Top 10 Business Decision Factors - EDC Utah
City Council Minutes - February 10, 2015 (p.2)

i. Labor Costs
ii. State and local incentives
iii. Highway accessibility
iv. Availability of skilled labor
v. Energy availability and costs
VI. Proximity to major market
vii. Tax exemptions
viii. Occupancy/construction costs
ix. Corporate tax rate
X. Availability of buildings
Ms. Becker said sales tax revenue generated from retail outperformed any other revenue 
generator in Orem, including business. Sales tax revenue was important but not always 
consistent. A more sustainable revenue generator would be class A office space, which would 
have higher property values. With many businesses in the valley relocating to Lehi, one 
suggestion was for Orem to develop -more class A office space to attract and retain businesses. 
Ms. Becker said Orem was doing the right things to move forward with developing more class A 
office space and higher property values. 
Mr. Davidson said areas like Knudsen's Comer in Holladay had high property values and were 
able to have class A office space because they had built business towers, not two- or three-story 
office buildings. Ms. Becker agreed and said that was something for Orem to consider. 
Ms. Becker said the University Mall area would be the "downtown" of Orem and of Utah 
County. Office towers and hotels could be developed to build up the area, which would transition 
between mid-rise and residential areas. 
Mayor Brunst said two or three hotels were recently proposed in Orem. 
Mr. Davidson said Guy Woodbury had said Orem's hotel occupancy was strong, but the price 
point was lower in Orem than surrounding areas. That limited the kinds of full-service hotels that 
could be built in Orem, so the price point would have to go up to attract those higher rated hotels. 
Ms. Becker said having the class A office space would lead to attracting businesses with higher 
wages, which would allow for Orem to raise the price point for hotels and rent for office space. 
Ms. Becker said along with developing higher property values, it was important to maintain 
Orem' s status as the retail hub in the valley, which provided around of $465 million in sales tax 
revenue. The University Mall brought in more sales tax revenue than any other retail center in 
the area. Nodes along State Street were doing well, but there was room for improvement. 
At the request of Mr. Davidson, Mr. Manning provided clarification on the categories shown for 
sales leakage and capture rates. 
Mayor Brunst asked if sales tax revenue would likely increase with the move and expansion of 
RC Willey. Mr. Manning said with the expansion, as well as Ashley Furniture coming in to 
City Council Minutes-February 10, 2015 (p.3) 
i---



Orem, those numbers were likely to increase. He added that, when construction did well, home
furnishings would do well, and they would mirror each other.
Ms. Becker said developing higher densities at nodes and clusters would increase buying power
within the walkable district along State Street and Orem Boulevard.
Ms. Becker said redeveloping Geneva Road would provide opportunities to bring in industrial
and business developments. Vineyard had large-scale plans to develop residential units along the
corridor of Geneva Road. If Orem could situate businesses that would provide more tax revenue
in the area, Orem could capitalize on the residential developments of Vineyard.
Ms. Becker said there were many good things about doing business in Utah and Utah County
specifically. Of the top ten business decision factors, Orem was strong in eight of them. Two
areas where Orem was lacking were offering state and local incentives and availability of class A
office space.
Ms. Becker said in 1980 only about $28 million was generated statewide in tax increments. Now
redevelopment agencies (RDAs) had developed throughout the state. In 2014 more than
$170 million was generated in tax increments, which was used to provide infrastructure or
incentives, etc. to encourage development. Almost all the existing RDA areas in Orem were set
S    r     s
Ms. Becker thanked Ryan Clark and the City for allowing them to work with Orem.
Mr. Sumner asked how Orem compared with Lehi on incentives.
Mr. Davidson said University Parkway had been done with incentive arrangements and the area
had thrived. In Lehi, every project was incentivized, which made Orem not as competitive.
Economic development, but also re-development, was important. Areas like Lehi had raw
ground for development, whereas Orem had existing developments. In order for Orem to
increase taxable value of existing parcels, they must be taken down and rebuilt which required
significant infrastructure investment.
Ms. Becker said Mr. Davidson was correct, and that construction costs would go up as structures
reached four and five levels. There were amenities in Orem that other areas did not have, which
would be to Orem's advantage in charging higher rents, but Orem had not kept up with tax
increments orincentives.
Ms. Becker said an area Orem was lacking in was the Information Technology (IT) field. Mayor
Brunst said Orem incubated many of those businesses, and then they would move. Ms. Becker
said the goal then was to lure those businesses downtown and keep them in Orem with class A
office space and surrounding amenities.
Mr. Davidson said one of the jewels Orem had yet to polish was the Geneva Road corridor. The
type of growth happening in Vineyard was astounding, which showed the potential for Orem in
those same areas. There needed to be a greater amount of strategic planning on the part of the
City to identify what they wanted that corridor to be with infrastructure, current users, zoning,
City Council Minutes - February 10, 2015 (p.4)

etc. and guide future development. Ms. Becker agreed, and said the first developers in the area
would likely need more incentive than later developers.
Mr. Clark said the City had applied for the Brownfield White Area Planning Grant to put
together a vision document for the Orem. They would likely hear back on toward the end of
February if that grant had been awarded to Orem.
Mr. Manning said the more inviting the area looked to developers the more it would do for the
sustainability of the future. Mr. Davidson said the Thanksgiving Point business development was
a great example of this, with close proximity to the freeway which gave businesses exposure.
Mr. Davidson said transit was increasingly important to the success of business and other
developments in the future by allowing more accessibility to areas Orem was trying to stimulate.
The plan was for the City Council to consider adopting this Economic Development Strategic
Plan as a component of the General Plan, and reference the plan in going forward as
development projects were considered in key, strategic areas of the city.
Mr. Seastrand asked if modifications considering Geneva Road should be considered now before
the plan was adopted. Mr. Davidson said staff's recommendation would be to adopt the General
Plan and use zoning as a tool to guide development in the future.
DISCUSSION-CARESurvey
Steven Downs introduced Quin Monson, owner of Y2 Analytics, to present the results of a
CARE survey that was conducted in December 2014. The goal of the survey was to engage
residents on what they were interested in seeing CARE money spent on. The survey was well
received, with a high response rate.
Mr. Monson said a survey was conducted first in June of 2014, and a second survey had been
conducted in December of 2014. In reviewing the findings of the study, the five things to
remember were:
1. The majority of Orem residents saw the city as moving in the right direction.
2. A supermajority of Orem residents approved of the CARE tax.
3. Residents strongly leaned toward using CARE money for upgrades to existing facilities
rather than purchasing new ones.
4.  The most popular upgrades focused on improving playgrounds, the Orem Fitness Center
(OFC), and adding bike lanes
5. If the City decided to invest in new facilities, residents would lean away from larger
projects and instead would prefer smaller projects.
Mr. Monson reviewed the survey methodology and said there was a 51 percent response rate for
the survey, which was high. He said those invited to participate in the survey also had the option
ss  n n   s   sd     o os
including those who subscribe to the Orem newsletter, UVU students, etc.
The survey asked respondents to answer questions related to the following:
· Environment and Direction
0Overall direction
City Council Minutes -February 10,2015(p.5)

CARE Tax support
。 Family recreational priorities
0General preference for funds
 Recreation Demographics
。 Dog ownership & park demand
Children in the home
Recreational activities for children
Recreational activities for adults
MaintenancePriorities
0Park traffic
Favorite Orem city park or facility
Other parks outside of Orem used by Orem residents
Perceived park maintenance quality
Upgrade priorities
New Facilities Priorities
General preference for funds
。
Large new facility vs. smaller projects
Newfacility priorities (ranked in order from survey)
Splash pad
■  Indoor kid-friendly play area
New playground, including handicapped accessibility
■
Bouldering wall
■ Dog park
Skate park
· Orem Fitness Center (OFC)
0 OFC membership
 0 Respondents screened for responsibility
0Activities at the OFC
Mr. Monson said the survey was almost entirely about recreation, but there was a push to get
more information about arts and culture participation in the community. Most respondents leaned
toward the parks and recreation side, but there was a stronger representation of arts enthusiasts
than initially anticipated. He said a majority of respondents preferred the CARE money be used
to upgrade and maintain existing parks, fields, and facilities. Respondents thought the parks were
generally well-maintained but were looking to see improvements like added shade and weather
protection, replaced and upgraded playground equipment, added bike lanes, and upgrades at the
OFC.
Mr. Macdonald said it was easy to call a park a failure based on its use across the city, but the
ratings were according to those who were using it. So those neighborhood or niche parks were
viewed favorably, and those using them were looking to see upgrades and maintenance of those
parks.
Mr. Hirst said the OFC was listed as one of the most heavily used recreation facilities, but was
mismatched in terms of quality. Mr. Monson said respondents heavily favored upgrades at the
OFC.
City Council Minutes - February 10, 2015 (p.6)

Mayor Brunst asked if there were many playgrounds that needed replacing. Mr. Tschirki said
that several were older and in disrepair, many of which would cost approximately $50,000 to
$100,0o0 to replace and upgrade. Mr. Downs added that much of the existing equipment was no
longer available to purchase for upgrades, so older equipment was cannibalized to maintain those
playgrounds.
Mr. Davidson some of the parks needing the attention were the smaller, neighborhood parks.
Tennis was an item of interest for most respondents, and most of the courts in Orem parks were
in poor condition, which could reflect badly on the park overall. He said Orem was heading into
CARE season. There were established programs for both Arts and Rec enthusiasts, and it was
anticipated that residents would speak to council members about their preferences of how CARE
moneywouldbeused.
Mr. Monson said if the City wanted to maintain the popularity of the CARE tax, the smart thing
to do was make noticeable upgrades parks and recreation facilities, and make sure residents
knew that CARE money paid for those upgrades. Most respondents said they would prefer the
upgrades at existing facilities to a new facility but gave feedback on the types of new facilities
they would like to see if the City went that direction.
Mr. Hirst said Mr. Spencer and Recreation Advisory Commission (RAC) members had visited
recreation facilities in Wasatch, American Fork, Springville and other neighboring communities
and gathered information to present a recommendation to the City Council. No vote had taken
place within the RAC, but there had been discussions. A “freshen up" plan for the OFC and City
parks was being considered, as was the building of a large indoor multisports facility. The RAC
had no official position or recommendation yet but would continue to meet and discuss to
eventually present an official recommendation to the City Council.
Mrs. Black said the survey provided important feedback and asked if the recommendation was to
use all CARE money on one facility or divide it.
Mr. Hirst said to build a new facility would require a bond that would be $6.5 million or so,
which would take a significant portion of the CARE money over the next ten years.
existing facilities and parks was not as flashy or exciting. However, the feedback was that the
public wanted those existing parks and facilities to be nicer and more used. Bonding would likely
not be popular to build a new facility when the public was asking for upgrades and maintenance.
Mayor Brunst said it would be important to listen to public opinion on the use of CARE money.
Mrs. Black said a splash pad was a popular idea she had heard from many people. Mr. Hirst said
there had been discussion about changing the fencing of the Scera Park Pools to put the existing
splash pad outside of the park, which was not ideal but was an option that had been discussed.
That option would cost significantly less than building new.
City Council Minutes -February 10,2015 (p.7)

Mayor Brunst asked where a large indoor recreation facility would go. Mr. Hirst said there was
no easy or clear location currently, but a preferred spot would be across from the OFC at the
Community Park.
Mr. Seastrand said a large facility like that reminded him of the Smith Fieldhouse, and thought it
would be utilized by the community. He wondered how significant a drain on CARE monies
upgrading smaller parkswould be.
Mr. Davidson said they would need upwards of $2 million or more for improvement in the parks
for updating play structures, parking, pavilions, bathrooms, resurfacing tennis courts, etc.
Mr. Bybee said that playground equipment had greatly improved over the years, so improving
and upgrading those might be a more exciting project than was perhaps perceived. The parks
would become more heavily used because the playground play structure would be much
improved.
Mr. Sumner asked about the splash pad issue. As popular as it could be, it could have a negative
impact on the Scera Park Pools. They were expensive to install and maintain, especially for a
facility that would not generate revenue but would require parking, bathrooms, etc. Mr. Hirst
agreed and said it would cost between $750,000 and $1 million or more to build a new splash
pad.
Mr. Spencer said the gymnasium-type facility would be a return on investment, because it would
sustain itself. The facility in Heber was most often full and would generate revenue. He said
constructing a new facility would use CARE money to be built but would sustain itself for
maintenanceintothefuture.
Mrs. Black said she saw the value in that, but people wanted to use their neighborhood parks and
have them be safe, functional, and attractive. She did not support having everything shift to a
large, new facility and leave family neighborhood parks in the dust.
Mr. Hirst said it was a complicated topic, and the RAC would continue to review and look at the
possibilities.
  s          s  
parks, which would only cover a small portion of the maintenance and upgrades that were
needed at all the parks.
Mr. Hirst said if a large facility was built, the $2 million left over would not go very far at the
OFC and smaller parks. They were coming to a crossroads, and a decision would need to be
made.
Mr. Davidson said one of the things the City staff was trying to do was identify and plan for five-
year capital improvement plans, which included parks, streets, and other improvements.
City Council Minutes -February 10,2015(p.8)

Mr. Seastrand asked if any future budget was scheduled for the repairs Mr. Tschirki had
mentioned. Mr. Tschirki said playground improvement and maintenance budget was minimal.
Mr. Hirst said only $50,000 was dedicated overall for park upgrades across the board.
BUDGET DISCUSSION/PREVIEW - Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Revenues
Richard Manning said the budget discussion would be focused on general fund revenues. Putting
a city budget together was not just looking at what the budget was the year before, but looking at
where the budget was supposed to go according to direction received from the Council and what
was specified in the Master Plan. Mr. Manning said revenues supported many things in the
general fund for everything to come together and support the big picture. With that it was hard to
say that certain taxes like sales, property, or franchise tax only paid for certain things when
realistically they each fed into the general fund.
Mr. Manning said Utah was ahead in the job growth employment rate in the west.
Unemployment and wage growth were inversely related. The wage rate was not going up as fast
as history said it should be. When unemployment came down, well-qualified employees had
more leverage and negotiating power because there was a smaller pool of candidates to hire
from. Wages would come up to meet the demand, but with the most recent recession so many
wages stayedlowergenerally.
Mayor Brunst asked if the jobs being created, on average, were paying less than the jobs they
were replacing. Mr. Manning said that was the case.
Mr. Manning said total fertility was incredibly important in the long-run. If enough children were
being produced per family, the culture would remain whole. Utah's total fertility numbers were
above the sustainability line. The national average was below the sustainability line, which was
not a good thing for the country long-term because it kept employees in the work force longer
because there were not enough to replace them. That would also lead to. fewer opportunities for
advancement because employees stayed working longer and held their positions longer.
Mr. Manning said sales tax was composed of retail sales, business investment purchases, and
taxable services. Utah economic indicators for sales tax projections were (1) population,
(2).nonfarm employment, (3) unemployment rate, (4) average pay, (5) home prices, and (6) retail
sales. The rate of change was slowing down but was still positive, with 5 percent growth
projected in retail sales tax.
Mr. Manning showed graphs of where and when sales tax was generated, as well as sales
projections for Fiscal Year 2016. He said general merchandise made up 25 percent of sales tax
revenues, with automotive coming in second. Automotive was a growing industry in Orem.
Mr. Manning said sales tax were not as dependent on the items bought at Christmas as they had
been in the past.
Mr. Seastrand asked if that was perhaps a byproduct of more people making purchases on the
Internet.
City Council Minutes-February 10,2015(p.9)

Mr. Manning said he did not see that as a significant factor but the State had not been tracking
that data long enough to say for certain. He said it was difficult to guess sales tax in the future,
but there were good things happening in Orem to boost that.
Mr. Manning said making conservative projections for property and franchise taxes was always
better than projecting too aggressively. Mr. Macdonald asked about Orem's share of the $80,247.
Mr. Manning said 10 to 12 percent.
Mr. Davidson said the current projects and growth Orem was having would not be visible in the
next fiscal year but more likely the following year. Orem's property tax was still very low, and
he cautioned that there should be no expectation of dramatic growth for the next few years'
property taxrevenues, even with new projects.
Mayor Brunst asked how much of Orem's franchise tax was what categories. Mr. Manning said
the biggest was electricity, 　then （ Questar  natural  gas, and  telecommunications.  If
telecommunication providers shifted to providing internet, there would be no franchise tax.
Mr. Manning said Orem was strong in the number of business licenses, more than population
would suggest. Orem was near the top for the state in business licenses.
Ambulance fees had seen a change over the last few years. The laws allowed for billing
according to the services paramedics were capable of providing. Industry practices were shifting
to only billing for services provided instead, which was what Orem had done.
Mr. Davidson said the State set the rate a city could assess, but Medicare/Medicaid set the
           a     
only get a $300 return because that was the ceiling Medicare had set.
Mr. Sumner said that, regardless of paying the $300, those people with a $1,000 bill were sought
after for collection on the difference. Mr. Manning agreed--if they had supplemental
insurance -but one could not “squeeze blood from a turnip".
Mr. Manning said Orem's cemetery was doing well. The City wanted it to lead the market but
not be the low-cost alternative.
He said Orem was doing very well in business permits, but they were one-time fees that could
not be looked at as a growing revenue generator. Because of that, they purposely kept building
fee projections below expectations.
Mr. Manning said Orem's Justice Court was running efficiently, and their operation costs were
low. Small claims brought in less revenue than originally projected, but the court revenues were
strong.
Mayor Brunst asked why court fines were up. Mr. Davidson said that could be a philosophical
focus of the department on traffic enforcement.
City Council Minutes-February10,2015(p.10)

Mr. Manning said all together these areas generated $51 million in revenues for the general fund.
2015 to date had been the best year Orem had seen in a long time, with sales tax just slightly
under the high before the bubble burst. Housing had taken a nose dive during the recession, but it
was building back, and there was pent up demand now being felt.
UPDATE-ArsonInvestigation
Chief Gurney updated the City Council on recent events in Orem involving fires at construction
sites. He said fires at construction sites were a worrying trend not only in Orem and Utah
     i s  s n   sn  
fires, with a recent fire at a $40 million residential project in Los Angeles, California that was
linked to arson.
Chief Gurney said he was proud at how staff had come together to address the situation,
particularly the cooperation between Fire, Police, and City Manager's departments in working
together to find solutions. He said the City was proactively working toward resolving the issue,
and that Fire Marshall Bret Larsen and Fire Battalion Chief Ryan Peterson had visited every
multifamily complex project that was under construction. A special meeting took place on
February 9, 2015, to inform developers and contractors in the area of investigation updates.
Mr. Downs said Pete Wolfley in the City Manager's office and Battalion Chief Peterson had put
together a flier that was being mailed to over 2,4oo businesses in Orem. The flier had
information and suggestions of. strategies business owners could implement to protect their
businesses and property against further incidents. A similar flier with information for home
owners would likely be distributed later.
Chief Giles said arson investigation would be in conjunction with the Fire Department, with
investigators from both fire and police. He joined Chief Gurney in praising staff for working
together so well. Chief Giles said ongoing investigations were not public information so he could
not give details, but gave a brief update of the two arson incidents in Orem on December 20,
2014, and February 5, 2015, respectively. He said the fires had similar patterns, of a smaller fire
being set likely to distract fire personnel while larger fires were set at construction sites nearby.
Because of that precedent, fire and police personnel were directed to check surrounding areas if
smaller fires were reported.
Chief Giles said at this point they had reason to believe the Orem fires were not connected with
recent fires that had taken place in Provo. He said it was unclear if those fires were part of a
trend or a political statement, but police and fire officers would continue to conduct extra patrols
and exhaust every lead. Chief Giles said a possible reward had been discussed with some
businessmen interested in protecting their businesses and projects.
Mr. Macdonald asked if multiple people were involved because of the distraction fires being set
at a separate location. Chief Giles said at that point they did not know.
Mrs. Black asked if the City would offer a portion of the reward. Mr. Davidson said the City
could, and also the City Council would have discretionary money they could contribute. He
continued that the amount of the reward was not as important as the statement a reward made. If
City Council Minutes -February 10, 2015 (p.11)

Chief Giles said that offering a reward would often draw someone out who otherwise would not
come forward.
Mr. Davidson asked what the recommended reward would be. Chief Gurney said the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) indicated a standard reward for arson
information would start at $5,000.
Chief Giles said the smallest thing could lead to the person(s) responsible being caught.
Concerned citizens calling in suspicious vehicles or people could give the police leads they may
not already have.
Mayor Brunst and Mr. Davidson recognized the efforts of both Orem and Provo's police and fire
5:00P.M.STUDYSESSION-PUBLICSAFETYTRAININGROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst, Jr.
ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Chris
Tschirki, Public Works Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Richard Manning,
Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, Development
Services Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Steve Earl,
Deputy  City  Attorney;  Ryan  Clark,  Economic
Development Division Manager; Brandon Stocksdale,
Long Range Planner; Jason Bench, Planning Division
Manager; Brandon Nelson, Accounting Division Manager;
Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie
Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
EXCUSED If applicable
PreviewUpcomingAgendaItems
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Agenda Review
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.
City Council Minutes - February 10, 2015 (p.12)

City Council New Business 
There was no new City Council business. 
The Council adjourned at 5 :54 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting. 
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
INVOCATION/ 
INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT 
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
Mayor Richard F. Brunst, Jr. 
Councilmembers Margaret Black, Tom Macdonald, 
Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner 
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant 
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Chris 
Tschirki, Public Works Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation 
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary 
Giles, Police Department Director; Richard Manning, 
Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, Development 
Services Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; 
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Jason Bench, 
Planning Division Manager; Brandon Nelson, Accounting 
Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City 
Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder 
Bob Wright 
Nicholas Parker 
Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the January 13, 2015, City Council meeting minutes. Mr. 
Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed 
unanimously. 
Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the January 14, 2015, Joint City Council meeting minutes. 
Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed 
unanimously. 
Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the January 27, 2015, City Council meeting minutes. Mr. 
Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed 
unanimously 
City Council Minutes -February I 0, 2015 (p.13) 



MAYOR'S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL 
Upcoming Events 
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet. 
Appointments to Boards and Commissions 
There were no appointments to boards and commissions. 
Recognition of New Neighborhoods in Action Officers 
There were no new Neighborhoods in Action Officers recognized. 
CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENTS 
Appointments to Boards and Commissions 
There were no City Manager appointments. 
PERSONAL APPEARANCES 
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on 
the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior to the meeting, and comments 
were limited to three minutes or less. 
Annette Anderson, resident of American Fork, said she was concerned about the involvement of 
entities she paid taxes to being involved with the University Place CDA. It was illegal for any 
single entity that got a portion of property taxes from Utah County, Alpine School District, and 
Central Utah Water Conservancy District to enter into a rebate program that was solely directed 
to one city. Ms. Anderson said she felt it was wrong for any entity that received tax money 
outside of Orem to make a commitment to rebate a development in Orem. That tax money paid 
toward the school district should only stay with the school district, and she objected to the CDA. 
Ms. Anderson thanked the Mayor and City Council for their time. 
CONSENT ITEMS 
There were no Consent Items. 
SCHEDULED ITEMS 
RESOLUTION - Review and Update the Moderate Income Housing Element of the City of 
Orem 
Mr. Bench reviewed with the City Council the Planning Commission's recommendation that the 
City Council, by resolution, update the proposed 2014 Moderate Income Housing element of the 
Orem General Plan as required by State law. He noted that State law required that the City 
Council biennially review the Moderate Income Housing element of the General Plan. According 
to Section 10-9a-408 of the Utah Code, each report must include a description of: 
•
efforts made by the city to reduce, mitigate, or eliminate local regulatory barriers to
moderate income housing;
City Council Minutes - February I 0, 2015 (p.14) 



actions taken by the city to encourage preservation of existing moderate income housing
and development of new moderate income housing;
progress made within the city to provide moderate income housing, as measured by
permits issued for new units of moderate income housing; and
efforts made by the city to coordinate moderate income housing plans and actions with
neighboring municipalities.
State Code defined moderate income housing as housing occupied or reserved for occupancy by
households with a gross household income equal to or less than 80% of the median gross income
for households of the same size in the county in which the city was located.
As an example, a family of four living in the Orem/Provo metropolitan statistical area would
have to earn $51,350 or less to be considered a moderate income household. Housing stock for
households with moderate incomes was usually limited to attached apartment units, accessory
apartments, townhomes, and condominiums as the rent/cost is usually less than the monthly
mortgage payment on a single-family dwelling.
The City provided several mechanisms for creating moderate income housing. The PRD zone
and many PD zones allowed for high density development. Since March 2013, the City had
approved over 1,331 attached units (as shown below) within various PD zones and in the PRD
zone. All but 120 of these units were currently under construction. Accessory apartments,
multifamily exceptions, and the assisted senior housing overlay zone also provided opportunities
for creating moderate income housing.
According to 2010 Census figures, Orem's housing stock consisted of 30.4% “housing units in
multiunit structures." The statewide average was 21.4 percent. Staff estimated that the
percentage of multifamily units was closer to 35% of the existing housing stock in the City.
Since March 2013, the following multifamily projects had been approved:
Residences at Monte Vista at 920 North State Street will provide 132 apartment units.
C2 and was undeveloped.
Sun Canyon Villas at 460 South State Street will provide 84 apartment units. This project
undeveloped.
byseveral old commercial buildingsthat havebeenremoved.
              s
developed in the early 1970s with 96 multifamily units. It was recently rezoned to the
PD-38 zone to facilitate construction of additional units. The previous zone of R6.5 did
not allow new high density construction.
Center Street Marketplace at 100 North Orem Boulevard with 112 units. This property
Promenade Place at 865 South Geneva Road with 120 units. This project was approved
as the PD-33 zone and was designed as a transit oriented development to take advantage
of the property's proximity to UTA Frontrunner.
City Council Minutes - Febnuary 10, 2015 (p.15)

· Ivory Homes at University Mall at 900 South 800 East with 461 units in the PD-34 zone.
·Wasatch Orem Center Street at 1100West Center Street with 168units in the PD-41
zone.
The City was currently working on a State Street Master Plan which would identify additional
possible housing options along State Street. Multiunit residential would be the only appropriate
residential use along this corridor. The City was working with Mountainland Association of
Governments, Provo City, UDOT, and UTA to develop this plan.
Mr. Seastrand asked if the majority of representation was based on multifamily dwellings.
Mr. Bench said about 35 percent of the city was multifamily. Multifamily dwellings and
accessory apartments would typically have lower rents, but that was not always the case. Some
Mr. Seastrand asked if any individual, single-family units would qualify, and if there was any
real expectation of the percentage of housing that was multifamily from the State.
units with lower rental rates. He said the federal government had no expectation of percentage,
but they just wanted to guarantee that opportunity was not denied anyone based on income.
Mr. Seastrand asked how Orem compared to neighboring communities. Mr. Bench said Provo
was similar to Orem, but he did not know comparisons to Lindon.
Mayor Brunst asked if they were aware of lower-income, multiunit complexes for seniors. Mr.
Bench said two were currently under construction on State Street, but he had not heard of any
others.
Mayor Brunst moved, by resolution, to update the proposed 2014 Moderate Income Housing
element of the Orem General Plan as required by State law. Mr. Seastrand seconded. Those
voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David
Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
6:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Vasa General Plan & Rezone
RESOLUTION - General Plan Amendment - Amending the Orem General Plan by
changing the land use designation from low density residential (LDR) to community
commercial(CC) on approximately 0.25acreslocatedgenerally at556West 1830North
ORDINANCE - Rezone -Amending Article 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the
zoning map of Orem City by changing the zone from the R8 zone to the C2 zone.on
approximately 0.25 acres located generally at 556 West 1830 North
Mr. Bench reviewed with the Council the applicant's request that the City Council amend the
General Plan by changing the land use designation from low density residential (LDR) to
community commercial (CC) and amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the
                 
City Council Minutes - February 10, 2015 (p.16)

approximately 0.25 acres located generally at 556 West 1830 North. Mr. Bench introduced
applicant Kevin Hawkins, with Hawkins Development.
The applicant owned a parcel of property located directly south of the new Kneaders restaurant
and consisting of approximately .25 acres. The applicant wanted to combine the subject property
with adjoining parcels (which were already zoned C2) for the construction of a new Vasa fitness
center and other retail pads. It was anticipated that the subject property would be used primarily
as parking area for those uses.
In 2012, the City Council denied a rezone request for a multifamily development on this
property. The land was currently vacant.
The property was designated as low density residential on the General Plan and was zoned R8. In
order to use the property for the proposed development, the General Plan designation needed to
be changed from low density residential to community commercial and the zone from R8 to C2.
A neighborhood meeting regarding the proposal was held on December 15, 2014, and five
neighbors attended. Concern was expressed regarding fencing materials, dumpster location,
traffic and accesses for the proposed development.
The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone request was heard by the Planning
Commission on Wednesday, February 4, 2015, and the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the request.
The Planning Commission and staff recommended the City Council amend the General Plan by
changing the land use designation from low. density residential (LDR) to community commercial
(CC) and amend Article 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the zoning map of Orem City by
changing the zone from R8 to C2 on approximately 0.25 acres located generally at 556 West
1830 North.
Mayor Brunst asked about neighborhood meetings. Mr. Bench said a meeting was held with few
neighbors in attendance, and the majority of those were in favor of moving forward with the
rezone and change. The parcel of land was looked at for high density residential development
some years before, but that project had been denied.
Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Hawkins if he had already purchased the land, or if that was contingent
on the outcome of the rezone.
Mr. Hawkins said the three plus acre area was under contract with Mr. Allen, contingent on the
rezone and site plan approval. Mr. Hawkins said that, when the purchase was made, he had not
been aware the 0.25 acre area was not zoned appropriately so he was going through the proper
channels and coming to City Council.
Mr. Macdonald asked if Mr. Hawkins had the rights to drive through the parking lot to the north,
and if he owned that land. Mr. Hawkins said he did not own the land, and there was a recorded,
dedicated easement in placefor cross traffic.
CityCouncilMinutes~February10,2015(p.17)

M1. Macdonald asked if there was access from State Street through Mr. Hawkins property. Mr.
Hawkins said through the cross easement there was access to State Street, but that ingress and
egress was not on the property he owned. The road was a UDOT road, and his property did not
meet spacing requirements for a curb cut.
Mr. Sumner asked about the other VASA facility on University Parkway, and whether the
parking would be comparable to that. Mr. Hawkins said there would be more parking at his
facility per square foot, and they were hoping to take some of the parking pressure off that other
location.
Mr. Spencer said during a recent planning meeting, an idea was mentioned of flipping the
building so most vehicles would not need to come through 1830 North. Mr. Hawkins said they
would look at that.
Mrs. Black asked the City had been talking about was getting the buildings closer to the streets
instead of having the parking lot out front. Mr. Bench said they had requested that, but there was
nothing that required the developers to do that.
Mr. Hawkins said an economic development presentation was made to the Planning
Commission, and another objective of the City was to increase tax base. On his site, if the
buildings were pushed to State Street his project would not have room, or be a part of the cross
easement.
Mr. Seastrand asked if this lined up with the current Kneaders building. Mr. Hawkins said it did.
Mr. Macdonald asked if there were thoughts of a future pad on State Street for further
development. Mr. Hawkins said it was possible, but they did not have the parking to support that.
The Kneaders land had several platted pads on State Street that had not been developed yet, and
VASA as a tenant generated traffic. Mr. Hawkins said he believed the pairing would be a
symbiotic relationship.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. No public comment came forward, and Mayor Brunst
closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Black moved, by resolution, to amend the Orem General Plan by changing the land use
designation from low density residential (LDR) to community commercial (CC) on
approximately 0.25 acres located generally at 556 West 1830 North. Mayor Brunst seconded.
Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand,
David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
Mrs. Black moved, by ordinance, to amend Article 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the
located generally at 556 West 1830 North. Mayor Brunst seconded. Those voting aye: Margaret
Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner.
The motion passed unanimously.
City Coumcil Minutes -February 10,2015(p.18)

6:20 P.M. Public Hearing -Quarterly Budget Amendments
ORDINANCE - Amending the Current Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget
Richard Manning and Brandon Nelson reviewed recommendations that the City Council hold a
public hearing to discuss amending the current Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget and, by ordinance,
amend Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget.
The Fiscal Year 2014-2015 City of Orem budget had many adjustments that occur throughout
the fiscal year. These adjustments included grants received from Federal, State, and other
governmental or private entities/organizations; refunding of the Series 2005 & 2006 General
Obligation bonds and transferring the savings from this refunding to the CIP Projects Fund in
order to reconstruct Center Street from State Street to approximately 1000 West; transferring
funds to the CIP Projects Fund due to maximum fund balance limitations; and various other
smaller technical corrections or minor budget adjustments that need to be made.
Mr. Nelson said that, with item one, Orem had received various grants, most of which were
public safety grants. With item two, Orem did a general obligation bond refunding in November,
so that transaction needed to be accounted for auditing reasons. With item three, there were two
corresponding items, one within the general fund and one within the improvement fund. The
intent of the transaction was to move money from general fund's balance to Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund in order to complete soon to be identified projects.
Mr. Nelson said another reason to transfer those funds was that Orem was close to, if not already
at, the maximum allowed fund balance by the State of Utah. The transfer was to help alleviate
being up against the maximum, which was 25 percent of the fund balance. That excluded items
which were restricted or non-spendable in nature.
Mayor Brunst asked what the reserve fund balance would be if the Council were to proceed. Mr.
Nelson said round 15 percent, which did not take into account activity in the year 2015.
Mr. Seastrand asked in converting percentage to dollars what 25 percent would equate to. Mr.
Nelson said around $12 to 15 million.
Mr. Nelson said item four related to items two and three. Part of the reason for the general
obligation bond refunding was not only to get better rates, but be able to use those savings to
reconstruct Center Street. The proposal to move funds was again to avoid the maximum fund
balance.
Mayor Brunst asked why reaching the maximum fund balance was a problem. Mr. Nelson said
state auditors would reprimand the City, and it would become a bigger issue if it was a persistent
problem. The maximum fund balance had been 18 percent and was raised to 25 percent by state
legislature.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
City Council Minutes - February 10, 2015 (p.19)

Bob Wright, resident, said he was concerned about transferring general fund money for CIP and
wondered if grants could be applied to those projects instead. Mr. Wright also asked for
clarification on refunding the bond.
Mr. Manning said grant money could not be used for CIP or general fund. Mr. Nelson added that
grant funds were only allowed to be used for the specific purposes the grant was awarded for.
Grant money was restricted in its use, whereas money being transferred from the general fund
had “no strings attached" and could be used for various things.
Mr. Davidson explained that the budget amendment regarding the bond refund was a formal
recognition of action taken in 2014, not a new action.
Mr. Wright asked if any CIP funds could be used to retire the bond.
Mr. Davidson said they could not, and the purpose for refunding bond money in 2014 was to
garner better interest rates that would allow the City to dedicate the funds toward construction
projects from those savings instead of paying interest on debt. It was a more appropriate use of
those resources.
Mr. Wright thanked Mr. Davidson and Mr. Nelson for the clarification.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend the Current Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget
changing the amount going to Capital Improvement Projects to be $2,795,000 instead of
$2,800,000. Mr. Seastrand seconded. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE - Amend Amplified Sound language addition to Chapter 13 of the Orem
City Code
Mr. Hirst reviewed staff recommendation that the City Council add, by ordinance, the following
language to Chapter 13 Parks and Recreation of the Orem City Code:
13-1-13.
Sound GeneratingActivities-RestrictionsinRecreationAreas andParks.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct live bands, DJs, dance concerts, movies, or similar
activitiesin anyRecreationAreaorPark.
1. Exemption: City-sponsored events and activities conducted in any Park or Recreation
Areaareexemptfrom thisprohibition.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use sound systems, microphones, speakers, or any other
sound amplification device in or on any Recreation Area or Park.
1. Exemption: The following are exempt from the prohibitions in subsection B:
a.City-sponsored events or activities;
b.  Events and activities at one of the following locations subject to the conditions included
in any rental agreement or use permit issued by the City:
(1) The Stage at City CenterPark;
(2) The Large Pavilion at Scera Park;
(3) The Bowery at Nielsen's Grove;
(4)
The Hosting Center at Timpanogos Park;
(5) The Pavilion at Lakeside Park; or
City Council Minutes - February 10, 2015 (p.20)

(6)TheScera Shell.
c. Personal sound amplification devices that are played or operated in such places and at
such times so as not to disturb other persons in their use of anyPark or RecreationArea.
TheCityshall takeintoconsideration thefollowingfactorswhendeterminingwhetherto
enter into a rental agreement or issue a use permit under subsection B.1.b:
a. The impact of the event or activity on other Park or Recreation Area users;
b.
The benefit the event or activity provides to the residents of the City; and
c.
d. The general public's access to the event or activity.
Activities in the parks were managed either by policy or ordinance. Policies were established by
the Director of Recreation and worked best for minor issues like gates, faucets, access,
geocaching etc. Ordinances were adopted by the City Council and were better suited for the
major park regulations: curfew, smoking, alcohol, animals etc.
The recommended language had been part of the park policies for decades, and had worked well
for managing sound generating activities in the parks. Since sound generating activities in the
parks were of major concern, moving the current policy language into ordinance form would
help in the management of the parks. The proposed amendment made clear that large, potentially
disruptive events and activities would not be allowed in City parks and recreation areas. The
amendment would, however, provide for the use of sound amplification devices at limited
locations within certain City parks and recreation areas subject to a user entering into a rental
agreement or being issued a use permit. These locations had been exempted from the sound
amplification restriction because  they  had  sufficient  facilities  to accommodate  sound
amplification use and had sufficient buffer zones to insulate adjacent property owners from
possible disturbances. In determining whether to issue a user permit or enter into a rental
agreement, the City was required to consider a number of objective factors to determine whether
the proposed event or activity would cause disruption within the parks and recreation areas and
surrounding areas andwhether thepublicwill benefit.
The amendment would also allow anyone that was researching City parks for an activity that
would involve sound, the ability to search and locate the sound regulation. It was recommended
that the above language be added to Chapter 13 of the Orem City code and listed as
ordinance 13-1-13.
Mayor Brunst asked about the stage at the City Center Park and the kinds of complaints
neighbors had about those uses of the stage.
Mr. Hirst said if complaints had been made in the past, they had not reached him. Typically the
stage was only used for City-sponsored events.
Mrs. Black moved, by ordinance, to amend amplified sound language addition to Chapter 13 of
the Orem City Code. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F.
Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
City Council Minutes -February 10, 2015(p.21)

COMMUNICATIONITEMS
BUDGETREPORT-December2014
TheBudgetReportwasincluded in thepacketsdistributed to the CityCouncil.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
Mr.Davidson reminded the City Council that the library was closed for the week for
maintenance and new carpet going in the children's wing.
Mr.Davidson said he was havingconversations about the court building thatwas part of the City
Center campus.He had met with thecourt's property manager and the discussionsweremoving
forwardforconsiderationofpurchasingthatbuilding.Mr.Bellwascoordinatingwithstafffor
inspections to ensure the building was mechanically operational.Mr.Davidson said that no
decision had been made, but the City was doing the due diligence before moving forward. He
said theCitycouldownand continuetolease thespacetostate agenciesthatneeded tostayin
Orem.
Mayor Brunst asked if the City would be doing its own appraisal. Mr. Davidson said the property
assessment would befirst,but an appraisal would be thenext step.
Mr.Davidson gave a brief update on itemsofnote being discussed in the State's legislative
session.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Macdonald moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting
aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer,
andBrentSumner.Themotionpassed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 6:56 p.m.
OREM
CITYOF
CORPORATE
SEAL
mmaR.Oleaven
Donna R.Weaver, City Recorder
Approved:February24,2015
City CouncilMinutes-February10,2015（p.22)