City Council · 2015-02-24

CITY OF OREM
CITYCOUNCILMEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
February 24, 2015
3:00P.M.STUDY SESSION-PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst, Jr.
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
APPOINTED STAFF 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; Jason Bench, Planning
Division Manager; Neal Winterton, Water Division
Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division Manager;
Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie
Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
UPDATE-MasterPlan-Utilities
Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director, introduced Tai Riser, K.C. Shaw, Carol Walker, Jim
Michaelis, Bill Peperone, and Reed Price of the Public Works Advisory Committee (PWAC).
Mr. Tschirki then turned the time over to Keith Larson of Bowen Collins&.Associates. Mr.
Larson introduced Fred Philpot, with Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, who had done
most of the financial work and modeling associated with the rates. Mr Earson then'-presented
information on water, sewer, and storm capital facility plans and rate impacts.
Mr. Larson reiterated points made in his presentation to the City Council in the. study session
held January 13, 2015. He then gave a presentation on funding options for.the proposed capital
facility plans, noting that it would not require new debt or additional bonding, but would be on a
pay-as-you-go basis. He said that, even with proposed increases, Orem had competitive low
rates. The punchline was an average annual increase to the residentiar monthly-bili for all three
utilities at $9.38. The implementation of meter improvements and rate structure changes would
give customers greater control of utility bills.
Mr. Larson said there were three rate scenarios for each utility to get the historic level of funding
to match the required long-term level of funding. The scenarios were (1) a one-time increase,
(2) follow the capital improvement plan as was, or (3) a five-year level increase. For all utilities,
City Council Minutes -- February 24, 2015 (p.1)

scenario 1 would generally collect more revenue over the five-year period. Scenario 2 would
remain the same, neither decreasing nor increasing. Scenario 3 would eventually collect less
revenue over the five-year period.
Mr. Larson shared the following other considerations:
·Water
0Move to a seasonal water rate
·better matched cost of service
encouraged conservation when needed most
gave residents greater control over bill
■
. Sewer:
O Move to base rate per unit
"eliminated subsidy and improved fairness
■ increased revenues by $500,000 to offset additional increases
All Utilities:
0Consider adoption of citywide impact fees
Mr. Larson showed comparisons of annual water rates, sewer rates, and storm drain rates for
average residential customers in cities throughout Utah. He showed projections on where Orem
would be in five years moving forward with the proposed changes. Mr. Larson said the
recommendation was to move forward with scenario2on all three utilities.
Mr. Tschirki said Provo City was looking to make similar changes on sewer base rates, and the
matter had already been before the Provo Council in a study session.
Mayor Brunst asked how many cities did not charge impact fees. Mr. Larson said only one city
they knew of did not charge impact fees, which was Orem. An impact fee study would be
completed before anything changed.
Discussion included the following issues:
Sewer Timeline
 Proposed change from per connection account to per unit go into effect January 1,
。
2016
■Numbers subject to change if implementation later than January 1, 2016
City Council would ultimately make determination
0Proposed change for residential fees go into effect July 2016
 Followed direction from City Council that those using services should pay
for those services
· Rectify unfair subsidy of those paying fair prices
· Residential -- according to individual units instead of accounts
 Non-residential (commercial, industrial, etc.) - according to meter
size and American Water Works Association (AWWA) multiplier
AWWA multiplier currently used for water, but not sewer
Water
0Federal money had funded Orem's water treatment plant initially
City Council Minutes -February 24, 2015 (p.2)

•
Orem had paid usage charges, but nothing toward capital improvement
since the 1970s
•
Federal funds were drying up· and would not be available for the future
o
Many variables affected pipes
•
Proactive maintenance kept pipes in good condition
•
Looking for funding before pipes were in complete disrepair would put
Orem ahead of other cities in terms of maintenance and CIP
•
Citywide impact fees
o
PW AC strongly encouraged Orem to consider citywide impact fees for
maintenance and growth
o
Would be fair over the life of the utility
o
Perception was that other cities were considering similar changes, Orem was not
alone in proposed changes
•
More established citiŒs already had infrastructure, water rights, etc. but
needed to keep up with maintenance and improvements
•
Newer cities and towns were not included in comparison because most
already had high impact fees
o
Controlled replacement would save significantly long-tenn
•
Replacement on as-needed basis at appropriate time rather than needing to
overhaul system all at once
• • Current assets needed to be preserved
•
General Concerns
o
Scenario 3 would be unsustainable and would require bond, unless amount was
raised
o
Orem still below average on most utilities ·in 2020 even with· proposed changes
•
Proactive approach important, as services would be necessary beyond the
five year period
•
Increase according to inflation, rather than large jumps after many years
•
Project had been identified for the next ten years
o
Fees would cover replacement and repair to aging system
•
No negligence on system, but meeting lifespan of certain infrastructure
•
Population had _increased significantly since installation
•
Older system seeing greater demand with limited improvements
•
Fees would cover only capital improvements, no increase to operational
costs
o
Significant jump to meet required level of funding
•
Proposed changes would be less than $10 dollars
•
Examine range possibilities to lessen amount for residents
•
Range of costs would be in construction estimates
•
Would be to avoid bonding to cover required improvements and
maintenance
•
Residents had not been paying appropriate apportion of costs, now needed
funds to make required improvements
City Council Minutes- February 24, 2015 (p.3) 



·Public Reaction and Education
0Proposed implementation dates to give time to educate public on need for changes
·Public hearings
Openhouses
Newsletter
■
Multimedia effort and outreach
■
·PWAC additional resource
OResidents needed to know what fees funded
Capital Improvement Projects would mostly be underground, but signs
could explain what improvements were done with the funding
0 Could see significant push-back
oFee schedule would be reviewed in May
·All three utilities would be considered
■Recommendation was to move forward with scenario 2
Mr. Tschirki said Tyler Peay, Engineering Water Utility Specialist, was heavily involved in
looking at the various options for automated meter readers. A sample number of them had been
installed and were linked to a website, eyeonwater.com, where historic water usage could be
viewed. When consumers were able to see breakdowns of hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly
water usage, it gave them more control and increased awareness of water usage. A smart phone
application for eyeonwater.com was also available, so consumers could view water usage and
receivealertsofleaks.
vendors who could provide the service. If the Council supported the capital facility rate structure,
staff would do an open bid for a vendor and look at long-term contracts to provide the
multimedia service to residents. Installing new, more accurate meters would be the real cost but
would make the system more efficient. New meters would eliminate meter readers.
Mayor Brunst thanked the PWAC and Mr. Tschirki and his staff for their efforts. Mayor Brunst
said he preferred further discussion on the topic before moving forward. Mr. Davidson said that
could be arranged.
UPDATE-ArsonInvestigation
Chief Giles gave a brief update on Orem's arson investigation. He said there were some active
leads that investigators were exhausting. There were some investigative tools being used that
required the use of outside sources. Many construction sites had security and were taking further
preventative measures. Police and fire officers continued to do extra patrols.
Chief Gurney said officers were making their presence known as they were out and about on
routine and extra patrols and were stopping at construction sites to discuss safety precautions.
Many developers and construction personnel had thanked them for their extra efforts.
Mayor Brunst said another $1,000 was added to the reward amount, which brought the total to
$13,500.
City Council Minutes - February 24, 2015 (p.4)

UPDATE - Community Garden with IHC
Mayor Brunst said Intermountain Health Care was looking to put together a community garden
program for Spring/Summer 2015 at the Orem Community Hospital.
Mr. Downs said there was a meeting scheduled March 17, 2015, at 5:30 p.m. with Scott
Mortensen, the CEO of Orem Community Hospital, for any interested resident to get more
information about the garden program and how to volunteer and get involved. Another meeting
was scheduled for May 2015 to look at the progress of the program.
5:00P.M.STUDY SESSION-PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst, Jr.
ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
APPOINTEDSTAFF
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 · Attormey,  Ryan  Clark,  Economic
Development Division Manager; Jason Bench, Planning
Division Manager; Neal Winterton, Water Division
Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager;
and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
Preview Upcoming Agenda Items
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Agenda Review
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.
City Council NewBusiness
There was no new City Council business.
The Council adjourned at 5:53 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst, Jr.
City Council Minutes -February 24,2015(p.5)

ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers 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 yAttorney;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; Ryan Clark,
Economic Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to
the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City
·Recorder
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Paula Jarmin
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Ben Jones
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Sumner moved to approve the February 10, 2015, City Council meeting minutes. Mr.
Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F.
Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed.
MAYOR'SREPORT/ITEMSREFERREDBY COUNCIL
Upcoming Events
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mr. Macdonald moved to appoint Jeff Lambson, Annette Harkness, LaNae Millett, and Patricia
Olsen to the CARE Advisory Commission. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye:
Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David
Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed.
Mr. Macdonald moved to reappoint Barbara Willes and Thomas Carlile to the Senior Advisory
Commission. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans. Andersen, Margaret
Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner.
The motion passed.
Mr. Macdonald moved to appoint Griffin Harris, Rebecca Pipkin, and Scott Henricksen to the
Transportation Advisory Commission. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye:
Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David
Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed.
City Council Minutes -- February 24, 2015 (p.6)

RecognitionofNewNeighborhoodsinActionOfficers
There were no new Neighborhoods in Action Officers recognized.
Report - Beautification Advisory Commission
Aaron Orullian, chairperson of the Beautification Advisory Commission (BAC), introduced
BAC members Carol Manwaring, Phebe Hawkes, Gayla Muir, and Sean Orullian. Mr. Orullian
enumerated the accomplishments of the BAC through the year 2014, including Arbor Day events
and presenting awards for holiday home decoration, business beautification, and residential
beautification.
Mr. Orullian said the UVU and Orem banners that hung from street light poles were in poor
condition, and the BAC would like to examine ways to improve the look. The BAC was working
with UVU to improve the flags.
The BAC had a Facebook page to share news of winning beautification awards, and other BAC
projects. The BAC had previously been involved in the SummerFest parade and would be doing
more through the summer and into the fall.
One project the BAC had completed in the past year was the clearing of the flower beds in front
of the City Center. Miss Orem, Miss Teen Orem, and student council members from Orem and
Mountain View high schools had volunteered to clear the flower bed of weeds and rocks and
prepare the ground for future planting.
Ms. Manwaring introduced some BAC objectives for the upcoming year, including the Adopt-A-
 e noe o sss   o so o   od o
flower pot and be responsible for the upkeep. This would beautify the city without cost to the
city, and allow businesses to express pride in their community.
The BAC would continue to be involved with SummerFest and Arbor Day events. They would
also increase beautification recognition awards and try to award them sooner in the season.
Mrs. Black and Mayor Brunst thanked the commission for their efforts.
CITYMANAGER'SAPPOINTMENTS
Appointments toBoards and Commissions
There were no City Manager appointments.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
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.
Susan Lee, resident, said she believed the City should look into replacing some traffic lights with
roundabouts, excluding the large intersections in the city. Ms. Lee said her proposal information
came from the Intermountain Health Care Center Cardiac Unit, the Hinckley Charitable Institute,
City Council Minutes - February 24, 2015 (p.7)

Roundabouts USA, and the Federal Highway Administration Safety Board. 80,0o0 people died
from air pollution related diseases like asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, and cancer each year.
Roundabouts would significantly cut the time cars spent idling at empty intersections, and would
lessen the air pollution which had been a problem in Orem for years. Ms. Lee believed there
would be economic advantage in replacing light signals with roundabouts in terms of air quality,
public health, and no longer needing to maintain traffic lights.
Gayla Muir, resident, gave a brief report of her time as Orem's representative on the Utah
Spanish Fork. Ms. Muir said she was heading up a Seniors Day at the fair opening on
ceremonies of the fair. She said she had spoken with Orem's library director about a talent
competition at the outdoor stage that would feed into the finals at the Utah County Fair.
CONSENTITEMS
There were no Consent Items.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
6:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Economic Development Strategic Plan
RESOLUTION - Amending Chapter 6, Economics, of the Orem General Plan and
approving the Orem Economic Development Strategic Plan
Ryan Clark, Economic Development Division Manager, recommended that the City of Orem, by
resolution, amend Chapter 6, Economics, of the Orem General Plan and approve the Orem
Economic Development Strategic Plan. Mr. Clark introduced Suzy Becker with Zions Bank
Public Finance Municipal Consulting Group (ZBPF) to present to the public a presentation on
the proposed Orem Economic Development Strategic Plan.·
Mr. Clark said the General Plan was a written guide for the future development of the City.
Chapter 6 of the General Plan discussed economics. The chapter currently described the City's
intent to maintain a healthy working relationship with the Commission for Economic
Development in Orem (CEDo) in order to achieve the most desirable results in economic
development pursuits.
In 2012, CEDO was integrated into the City of Orem and the Economic Development Division
(EDD) was created. The EDD was now tasked with the responsibility for economic development
in the City. Over the last year, in conjunction with Zion's Bank Public Finance, a new Economic
economic development for the next five to ten years. Many goals associated with the EDSP
require zoning and land use coordination. Therefore, in Chapter 6 of the General Plan, reference
to the EDSP as a guiding document for economic development should be included to ensure
coordination between land development goals and economic development goals.
City Council Minutes -February 24,2015(p.8)

It was proposed that Chapter 6, Economics, of the Orem General Plan be modified to reflect the
dissolution of CEDO, the creation of the Economic Development Division, and the addition of
the Economic Development Strategic plan dated December 2014.
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-
term 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
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
 s   s   e d     
economic nodes along State Street
a.Provide better connections between State Street and Orem Blvd.
b. Long Term: Future expansion of the City Hall
C. 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
iii. 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
City Council Minutes - February 24, 2015 (p.9)

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
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
i. Labor Costs
ii.S State andlocalincentives
iii. Highway accessibility
Availabilityofskilledlabor
iv.
Energy availability and costs
V.
Vi. Proximity to major market
vii. Tax exemptions
viii. Occupancy/construction costs
ix. Corporate tax rate
x.  Availability of buildings
Ms. Becker said Orem had room for improvement, but was doing the right things to move
forward. She thanked the City for allowing her to work with Orem.
Ms. Becker said UVU was a great part of the community, but more could be done to integrate the
university with the city. The student village idea was a general idea they had come up with to
connect university students more with the community surrounding UVU.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
Jim Fawcett, resident, said he had attended the three-day workshop ZBPF had put on. Tax
increment financing was allowed for the mall project, which he felt was an excuse. Mr. Fawcett
had looked at Chapter 6 in the General Plan which referred to the EDSP. The number twelve
listed goal in Chapter 6 was to develop CDAs for TODs (Transit Oriented Developments). It
referred to key sites or nodes where TODs would be pushed. He said he was concerned with tax
increments, especially for TODs. He wondered why the City would develop private property
with incentives.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
City Council Minutes -February 24, 2015 (p.10)

Mr. Andersen said he wanted to continue the thought from Mr. Fawcett. Mr. Andersen said he
believed strongly in private enterprise and did not believe in CDAs. He felt when the City used
tax dollars to subsidize some businesses and not others it was no longer private enterprise. He
felt it violated morals and private enterprise by picking winners and losers. Mr. Andersen said he
looked at Washington, D.C. and the millions of dollars that went to getting politicians elected.
The University Mall gave some $18,500 dollars to candidates running for office in Orem. He
S  sd    d s        
D.C., which he felt corrupted the elective process. Creating more CDAs would corrupt the whole
process of private enterprise and development. Mr. Andersen said money would go toward
businesses instead of police and fire departments, streets and roads, and schools. Residents
would pay higher taxes so businesses could pay less.
Mayor Brunst said he was in favor of the proposal and thought the strategic plan was an
important tool that would help the community as a whole to move forward in terms of growth
and infrastructure, and in providing for the needs of the community.
Mr. Macdonald said Mr. Andersen did not believe in win-win opportunities. EDAs were not
designed to take money away from tax payers but were designed to increase the tax base. When
the University Mall CDA was approved, everyone in the community benefitted from it. Mr.
Macdonald said he understood some opposed the idea, but he believed it was a popular idea with
the majority of Orem residents. Everyone who had ever run for Council had received a benefit
from the mall, in one way or another. Perhaps the benefit was not in dollar amounts, but the
candidates were allowed to post campaign signs at the mall. Mr. Macdonald said he was elected
to be a leader, not a politician. He would vote against ideas and projects if he did not believe in
them, no matter who proposed them. Mr. Macdonald stated that for someone to make innuendos
and question his integrity was an offense to him and should be an offense to every voter in the
city. He could not sit idly while being backhandedly accused of improprieties. He was an
honorable man and believed others on the Council were as well. Mr. Macdonald said he would
not go on radio talk show and "throw people under the bus." He said he would speak positively
in meetings and outwardly, and if he disagreed he would voice that disagreement in the meeting.
He said the City Council members were honorable people who tried to serve all of Orem, even
those who had not voted for them, and he was grateful to serve with them. Mr. Macdonald said
the EDSP was a blueprint, not a command. Property owners would have the ultimate say of what
was done with properties. He said he was grateful for a good community of good people, and he
wasproudtorepresentthem.
Mr. Sumner said Mr. Macdonald touched on many points he wanted to make. Mr. Sumner
reiterated that the EDSP was a plan, not a required development. Planning had to start
somewhere, or there was no forward movement or direction. He said he was encouraged by the
plan. Each increment of the plan would need to be approved by the City Council. This was not a
sweeping move but a vision for the future. He thanked Mr. Clark and Ms. Becker for the work
that had gone into the plan.
Mrs. Black said the Council was trying to make Orem a better place for the future and to provide
opportunities for the citizens. There was no dark effort or conspiracy behind proposed projects.
The future had to be planned for, and there were great opportunities now to do that. Those
providing and presenting the data were professionals who knew what they were doing. Orem had
City Council Minutes -February 24,2015 (p.11)

invested in data and was moving forward with that information. She said CDAs, EDAs, and
URAs were tools that could be used for certain things, which was why Utah was in great
economic state. Mrs. Black stated that she was also offended by the idea that Councilmembers
had been bought for votes in the future. She said believed everyone on the Council had good
intentions and wanted the very best for Orem. Said she was in favor of the EDsP and appreciated
all the good work by staff and the consulting groups that had gone into making this plan in a
professional way.
Mr. Seastrand said he appreciated the plan. The key element he walked away with was that Orem
was in a strong position in a number of areas. He said he thought it was wonderful to be part of
and that was because of the University Mall. Because of the sales tax revenues the mall
generated, the property tax in Orem had not increased since 1978. Many surrounding cities had
no such benefit and had seen significant property tax increases. Mr. Seastrand said he thought
working with businesses for planning and economic development could open doors to some
 n   s         s    
something to work toward.
Mayor Brunst moved, by resolution, to amend Chapter 6, Economics, of the Orem General Plan
and approve the Orem Economic Development Strategic Plan. Mrs. Black seconded. Those
voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David
Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Hans Andersen. The motion passed, 6-1.
6:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PD Zones
ORDINANCE - Amending a portion of Section 22-5-1 of the Orem City Code to include
and update the names of various PD zones
Jason Bench reviewed with the Council the Planning Commission's recommendation that the
City Council, by ordinance, amend a portion of Section 22-5-1 of the Orem City Code to include
and update the names of various PD zones.
Article 22-5 of the Orem City Code listed the various zones established by City Code including
all of the Planned Development (PD) zones. Many new PD zones had recently been adopted and
an update to section 22-5 was needed to include the names of these new PD zones. The names of
several PD zones had also changed over time and the proposed amendment would show the
current names of these PD zones as well.
The proposed changes were as follows:
22-5-1.Establishment.
The City of Orem is hereby divided into zones and districts as follows:
PDZONES
PD-1 Between CenterStreet and165South andbetweenOremBoulevard and 200WestStreet.
PD-2 800Northbetween200East and 400East.
PD-3 800Northbetween100West and 200East-Repealed.
PD-4
800Northat800East.
PD-5 1200Southto1400Southbetween200Eastand400WestStreet
City Council Minutes - February 24, 2015 (p.12)

PD-6 Timpanogos Research & Development Park.
PD-7 100Southbetween 400West and 200West.
PD-8 PalisadesDrivebetween600Northand800North.
PD-9 Palisades Drive between 500North and 600 North.
PD-10 Northwest Cormer of 800North and 800East.
PD-11 1430 South Sandhill Road.
PD-12 SouthwestCormerof1300SouthandMainStreet.
PD-13 SouthwestCormerof400NorthandOremBoulevard.
PD-14 Residential Estate Zone.
PD-15 2000 West Springwater Park Drive.
PD-16 400South1800West.
PD-17 1200SouthBetween50East and150East.
PD-18 ResidentialEstateZone,TheBerkshires,1300SouthCartervilleRoad.
PD-19 SouthRimPRD,1755South750East.
PD-20 JamesonPointPRD,1559South850East.
PD-21 Student Housing Village Zone, 1200 South Geneva Road.
UrbanVillage.
PD-22
PD-23 Midtown Village, 320 South State.
PD-24 CarraraEstates,1300North400Eastand1600North400East
PD-25
Verona,600South800East.
PD-26 Tanglewood, 1600 North 1200 West.
PD-27 Blackhorse Run I1, 700 South Geneva Road.
PD-28 NorthPointePlaza,1600North1030West.
PD-29 SienaVillas at Columbia Lane.
PD-30 Centennial Plaza.
PD-31 IntermodalCenter-1350West1000South.
PD-32 MBARQSeniorIndependentLivingFacility-256EastCenter.
PD-33 TransitOrientedDevelopment-800SouthGenevaRoad.
PD-34
UniversityPlace-1300SouthStateStreet.
PD-35 Windsor Court, 320 West 1360 North.
PD-36 Orem FallsBusinessPark,1200North Geneva Road.
PD-37 Legacy at Orem - 1450 South State Street.
PD-38 Summit Ridge Apartments - 1697 South 400 East.
PD-39 Cascade Village, 920 North and State Street.
PD-40
460SouthStateStreet.
PD-41 1200WestCenterStreet.
Mr. Bench said the proposed changes were to correct an oversight and correctly label the names
of the PD zones in the code.
S d       s      s 
Bench said it would not. It simply listed the names of the PD zones.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, so Mayor Brunst
closed the public hearing.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend a portion of Section 22-5-1 of the Orem City
Code to include and update the names of various PD zones. Mr. Andersen seconded. Those
voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E.
Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed, 7-0.
City Council Minutes -February 24, 2015(p.13)

6:20 P .M. PUBLIC HEARING - Utility Connections 
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 20-3-5 of the Orem City Code pertaining to sg,arate 
sewer connections 
Mr. Bench reviewed with the Council. the Planning Commission's recommendation that the City 
Council, by ordinance, amend Section 20-3-5 of the Orem City Code pertaining to sewer 
connections. 
Article 20-3-5 currently required separate sewer connections "for every building and for every 
dwelling unit in buildings having more than one dwelling unit." By implication, this language 
did not require a separate sewer connection for every commercial unit in a building containing 
multiple commercial units. By deleting the word "dwelling," the proposed amendment would 
correct this problem and would require a separate sewer connection for all units of any kind in 
buildings having more than one unit. 
The existing exception allowing multiple connections to a single sewer lateral where justified by 
a fixture count analysis would continue to apply to buildings containing multiple dwelling units 
such as an apartment building with 12 units. 
The proposed amendment was shown below. 
20-3-5. Separate connections required.
A separate and independent building sewer shall be provided for every building and for every unit in
buildings having more than one unit, except that multiple family buildings may perform a fixture
count analysis to justify multiple dwelling connections on a single lateral. The analysis will be
approved by the Director before the lateral is installed. Where one building stands at the rear of
another on an interior lot and no private sewer is available or can be constructed to the rear building
through an adjoining alley, court, yard, or driveway, the building sewer from the front building may
be extended to the rear building and the whole considered as one building sewer, but the City does not
and will not assume any obligation or responsibility for damage caused by or resulting from any such
single connection.
Mr. Bench said the request was simply to strike the word "dwelling" from the language in the 
code section. They required separate· sewer connections for each unit, and removing the word 
"dwelling" made the language more clear and understandable. It would also make the language 
more defensible when people would ask why they needed a separate connection. The purpose for 
the separate units was for sampling, and if there was a sewer issue they could isolate the 
individual connection for repair rather than shutting down a group of connections. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, so Mayor Brunst 
closed the public hearing. 
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 20-3-5 of the Orem City Code pertaining 
to sewer connÖctions. Mr. Spencer seconded. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret 
Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. 
The motion passed, 7-0. 
City Council Minutes-February 24, 201S (p.14) 



6:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -Residential Parking Permit Area
RESOLUTION - Establishing a Residential Parking Permit Area between 800 South and
925South and600West and725West
Chief Giles, Orem Chief of Police, recommended that the City Council, by resolution, establish a
residential parking permit area between 800 South and 925 South and 600 West and 725 West in
Orem, Utah.
Chief Giles said the City of Orem was responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general
welfare of the City. With the ongoing enrollment of students and the expansion of Utah Valley
University, there had been an increase in the number of nonresidents who were using 600 West,
725 West, 925 South, 950 South and the connected cul-de-sacs as on-street parking during the
university's business hours. The nonresident motor vehicles would remain on these streets for the
majority of the day between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. This increase in use of these streets as
parking for students and others visiting Utah Valley University had caused increased traffic
congestion and had contributed to the inability of residents and their visitors to park near their
homes. A group of individuals who resided in the area filed a petition with the Orem City Police
Department asking that a study be conducted to determine whether it would be appropriate for
the City to create a residential parking permit area between 800 South and 925 South and 600
West and 725 West.
Chief Giles said the Orem Police Department had conducted the study and concluded that (1)
during business hours, the area was congested with motor vehicles that were not owned by those
living in the neighborhood; and (2) after 5:00 p.m., the majority of the motor vehicles occupying
on-street parking are gone.
Having completed the study, the Orem City Police Department recommended that the City
Council create a residential parking permit area between 800 South and 925 South and 600 West
and725West.
If the City Council created the residential parking permit area as proposed, any resident within
dwelling in the residential parking permit area, and each dwelling within the residential parking
permit area would be given two (2) visitor/guest permits.
Chief Giles said the notice for the public hearing had not clarified specifically if the south side of
800 South was included in the permit area, but that area was included on the petition. For that
reason, he believed they should proceed with the other specified streets and bring the issue of the
south side of 800 South back to the Council at a later time. Chief Giles noted that 800 South was
an area of concern for parking, so he anticipated permitting that specific area of the south side of
800 South as soon as possible.
Mr. Stephens said because the original petition did request 8o0 South be included, the only issue
was in regards to the notice for the public hearing. He agreed with Chief Giles that they should
proceed and revisit the item for the south side of 800 South at a later date.
City Council Minutes -February 24,2015 (p.15)

Mr. Sumner asked about the north side of 800 South and said the parking issue was as bad on the 
north side as the south. Chief Giles said the petition did not include the north side of 800 South, 
and only specified the south side. 
Mr. Macdonald asked about 880 South in the general area. Chief Giles said that area was not 
included in the petition, and he was not aware of an area there that students were using to reach 
campus. 
Mr. Spencer asked about other problem streets in the area. Chief Giles said there were areas with 
red curb but the red curb ended adjacent to a fence as opposed to in front of a home. The original 
request included down to 750 West, but Lt. Craig Martinez, who had conducted the study, found 
the real problem to be in front of residential areas. 
Mr. Seastrand said his experience in the past with residential parking pennit areas was that the 
vast majority of neighbors were in favor of the permit area, but he asked if any neighbors were 
opposed to the permit area. Chief Giles said he believed it was a majority of the area that had 
signed the petition and had not heard neighborhood opposition to the change. 
Chief Giles clarified that the pennit area would be enforced during daytime school hours 
Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except on holidays. All vehicles registered 
to residences in the area would be given a permit, and they would also be given two visitor 
parking passes. Visitors or residents would need to display the parking permit tag if parking on 
the street. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if officers would routinely monitor the area or would it be residents making 
calls to report violations. 
Chief Giles said it would be difficult in terms of time and manpower to have routine monitoring 
of the area, but volunteers would check in as often as possible. The bulk of enforcement would 
come from neighbors reporting non-permitted cars being parked in front of their residence. 
Mayor Brunst asked if these would be annual permits. Chief Giles said there was no expiration 
date on the permit, and the neighborhood could change its mind about the permit area at any 
point. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 
Sherry Jenkins, resident, said she wanted to clarify some of the areas and questions that were 
brought up. The homes to the north of the isolated neighborhood requesting permits were already 
permitted. UVU was not going anywhere, and the parking continued to be a problem. The south 
side of 800 South was originally in the petition. All but the neighbors who were not home were 
represented on the petition. Ms. Jenkins said a couple of neighbors thought the permit area might 
be inconvenient but still wanted to remove UVU students parking in their neighborhood. She 
said she was concerned about revisiting the south side of 800 South at a later date because she 
anticipated the parking to become an even bigger problem once the other streets were permitted. 
City Council Minutes-FebIUaI)' 24, 2015 (p.16) 



Steve Albrecht, resident, said he supported the parking permit area. His reasons were that (1) it
was dangerous, with kids running from behind parked cars; (2) it lowered property values as the
neighborhood became a parking lot with cars from UVU students who did not want to pay for
parking. (3) there would be a lot of strangers wandering through the neighborhood because they
were parked there, and (4) the neighborhoods to the north and to the east were already permitted,
and yet their neighborhood did not have permits. They would appreciate the help from the
Council to eliminate these problems.
Don Jenkins, resident, did not have anything new to add but agreed with what Ms. Jenkins and
Mr. Albrecht has said. He was also concerned that the parking would be a bigger problem on
800 South if it was not included at this meeting. He appreciated the time police had spent looking
into the matter.
Mark Tippets, resident, wondered about the number of permits that were allowed for residents.
He said he had four children who would visit with grandchildren asked wondered if it was
possible to receive more than two guest permits.
Chief Giles said it was possible. He said typically every vehicle registered at the residence would
 sd    n  m n q sd    d  s
appropriate.
Mr. Tippets said Pear Hollow Street should be considered in the permit area, because there was
an empty lot that students would often park by and walk through to campus.
Christie Richards, resident, echoed the sentiments that had been shared. She said there were
many cars parked on her street and students walking through yards. The parking situation caused
increased traffic, vehicular and pedestrian.
Mayor Brunst asked about people going through the vacant lot.
Ms. Richards said they often went through on 800 South, but there were constantly pedestrians
walking through the area. She agreed that the parked cars made it difficult to see beyond them.
Jesse McGrath, resident, said Cherry Drive was not permitted. He said he was also concerned
about how far he needed to pull his vehicle out to see if the roadways were clear. The area had
gotten busier, and he had seen many near-misses as far as vehicular-pedestrian traffic.
Caleb Anderson, resident, said he did not mind his neighbors walking through his property but
did not want strangers or students using it. He wondered if there would be flexibility on the
permit numbers.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Black said she thought it was clear they should move forward with what they could approve
at that point, and revisit the item as soon as possible to correct any oversight on the part of the
permit area.
City Council Minutes -- February 24, 2015 (p.17)

Chief Giles said they would bring the item back after noticing the public hearing.He clarified
that any neighborhoods beyond those specifically cited in the petition would need to submit their
ownpetitiontomoveforward.
Mrs.Blackmoved,byresolution,that the City Council create a residential parkingpermit area
between800Southand925Southand600Westand725West.Mr.Macdonaldseconded.Those
voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E.
Seastrand,David Spencer,BrentSumner.Themotionpassed,7-0.
RESOLUTION -Authorizing the Transfer $5.0o0 from the City Council Contingency
AccountasaCitymatchfortheArsonReward
Mr.Davidsonreviewedwith theCouncil arecommendation thattheCityCouncil authorizethe
transfer of $5,ooo from the City Council Contingency Fund to theappropriate account to fund
the City's portion of a reward for informationleading to the arrest of an arsonist.
The City had two large fires caused by an arsonist(s) within the past two months. These fires had
caused a tremendous amount of property damage.The Council desired topledge$5,oo0 as part
ofarewardbeingofferedbytheCityandlocalbusinessownersforinformationleadingtothe
arrest ofthe arsonist(s).
MayorBrunstmoved,byresolution,toauthorizethetransferof$5,ooofromtheCityCouncil
ContingencyAccountas a CitymatchfortheArsonReward.Mr.Seastrandseconded.Those
voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E.
Seastrand,David Spencer,BrentSumner.Themotionpassed,7-0.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
MONTHLYFINANCIALSUMMARY-January2015
TheMonthlyFinancialSummarywasincludedinthepacketsdistributedtotheCityCouncil.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
TherewerenoCityManagerinformationitems.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Andersen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those
voting aye:Hans Andersen,Margaret Black,Richard F.Brunst,Tom Macdonald,Mark E.
Seastrand,David Spencer, andBrentSumner.The motionpassed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
CityCouncilMinutes-February24,2015（p.18)

lommaR.Oeaver
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder
Approved:March10,2015
OREM
CITYOF
CORPORATE
SEAL
City CouncilMinutes-February24,2015（p.19)