City Council · 2015-11-17

I 
I 
·1
CITY OF OREM 
CITY COUNCIL MEETING 
56 North State Street Orem, Utah 
November 17, 2015 
3:00 P.M. WORK SESSION -PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
EXCUSED 
Mayor Richard F. Brunst 
Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner 
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant 
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard 
Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, 
Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation 
Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott 
Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police 
Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; 
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Paul Goodrich, 
Transportation Engineer; Keith Larsen, Traffic Operations 
Engineer; Sam Kelly, Engineer; Neal Winterton, Water 
Division Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division 
Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; 
and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder 
David Spencer 
DISCUSSION - Citizen Survey Results - Y2 Analytics 
Mr. Downs introduced Kyrene Gibb with Y2 Analytics and turned the time over to Ms. Gibb to 
present the survey results. Ms. Gibb said Y2 Analytics had conducted a general citizen 
satisfaction survey toward the end of September. The survey asked respondents to assign ratings 
and answer a variety of multiple choice and open-ended questions. She said the survey had a 
response rate of just over 20 percent which was remarkably high. The typical response was 
between 10 and 12 percent. She said Orem had been proactive in collecting the data and 
informed the panel of potential respondents that the data gathered would be important to making 
decisions and shaping Orem going forward. 
Mr. Macdonald commented that the response rate was impressive since the survey had over I 00 
questions. 
Ms. Gibb shared some data from the Orem 2015 Citizens Survey-Public Opinion Research. She 
highlighted seven things to keep in mind throughout the presentation, which were: 
I. Surveyed Orem residents, including a new sample ofUVU students via an online survey.
2. Overall, Orem residents were happy with the way the city had been run.
3. Nearly all City services received majority approval ratings.
4. Many had not participated in or were unfamiliar with City events. Youth rec programs
and the Senior Friendship Center were largely unknown.
City Council Minutes- November 17, 2015 (p.l) 
-.... -



5. The majority of citizens who interacted with City staff were satisfied with their service
experiences.
6. Public transportation was not well utilized and residents wanted more options.
7. A utility fee increase was feasible and there did not seem to be a strong threshold for
pnce.
Ms. Gibb reviewed the survey methodology which was intended to minimize error. She shared 
the following points about the methodology used for the survey: 
• 
• • 
• 
Sampling frame consisted of a combined panelists from all households in the Orem City 
utilities accounts arid the City newsletter databases, plus a sample of 5,000 students living 
in Orem who attend Utah Valley University (UVU). 
Duplicate email. addresses were discarded and 6,878 emailed invitations were sent. 
Of those, 1,383 residents responded. with. 1,322 completed online surveys. Each email 
address could respond only once. 
With 1,322 interviews out of an estimated adult population of 61,612, the results in a 
margin of error was plus or minus 2.68 percentage points. Responses were weighted to 
better approximate city demographic composition, 
Ms. Gibb shared some of the questions and responses: 
•
Orem' s direction
•
Perceptions
•
City services
•
City events
•
Recreation programs
•
City employees
•
UTOPIA use and availability in Orem
•
Communication from the City
•
City initiatives
•
Public transportation
•
Utility fee increase.
She said perceptions of Orem were down from previous surveys, but she thought that was likely 
due it being an election year. She said the average rating for quality of life in Orem was 76.9 
percent which was about average to other cities in the valley. She said she believed Lehi was a 
few percentage points lower than Orem, and Provo was a few percentage points higher. She said 
Salt Lake City typically fell around 65 percent on quality oflife. 
Ms. Gibb said respondents were asked to rate the city compared to ƽve years ago. The majority 
said Orem had improved in those five years, with about a quarter of respondents saying it was 
somewhat or much worse. 
What people like most about Orem: 
•
Location
•
Proximity of amenities
•
Family-focused atmosphere
•
Safety of the community.
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p2) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Most important problems facing Orem: 
•
Growth
•
Traffic.
Ms. Gibb said respondents were asked to rate the overall appearance and physical attractiveness 
of their neighborhoods and the city as a whole. There were high ratings overall, with the majority 
rating the city at a four out of five. When asked about Orem's image over time, 47 percent of 
respondents said the city's overall image had probably or definitely improved and 25 percent 
said it had probably or definitely deteriorated. She said about 82 percent would recommend 
Orem as a good place to live. When asked about the satisfaction of services received for their tax 
dollar, 65 percent rated satisfaction at "good" or "excellent." 
Ms. Gibb said the next section of the survey focused on Orem City services, and asked residents 
to evaluate the following service categories: 
•
Orem Library
•
Garbage collection
•
Drinking ( culinary) water services
•
Fire protection services
•
Emergency medical services
•
Police/Crime prevention services
•
Street lighting
•
Utility billing system
•
Cemetery
•
Street Sweeping
•
Recycling program
•
Storm water drainage
•
Traffic enforcement
•
Sidewalk maintenance
•
Animal control services
•
Snow removal services
•
Surface maintenance on city streets
•
City code enforcement, neighborhood preservation
•
Land use, planning, and zoning
Ms. Gibb said the library received the highest satisfaction ratings, and the majority of services 
had received somewhat or very satisfied ratings. Some had never been utilized by respondents. 
She said that, while there was always room for improvement, there were not large percentages of 
dissatisfied ratings on any service. The highest dissatisfaction rating was for land use, planning, 
and zoning. She said that category was very broad and residents may not have been as familiar 
with those. 
The event ratings gave Summerfest the highest, followed closely by the Timpanogos Storytelling 
Festival, then library events and the Lights On! tree lighting event for overall awareness. Many 
City events were largely unknown to the residents, but those who attended were satisfied overall. 
Ms. Gibb said residents, with an 86 percent response, gave the appearance of City parks a 
somewhat or very satisfied rating. Trails and open space, Orem Fitness Center, and Scera Park 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.3) 



Pools also received high satisfaction ratings. Programs available for youth recreation and at the I
Orem Senior Friendship Center had overall satisfactory ratings, but had very high ratings of 
unfamiliarity. She said the Orem Fitness Center was brought up most often. Some people said 
the Orem facility did not need to compete with Provo while others said they wished Orem had a 
new recreation center like Provo's center. 
Ms. Gibb said respondents were asked to rate the courtesy and overall performance of City 
employees. Courtesy of 'employees received a rating of 60 percent somewhat or very satisfied, 
and overall work performance received 59 percent somewhat or very satisfied. She said in the 
open-ended question there were not many stand-out comments, but the words used often were 
"helpful", "friendly," and "great." Sixty percent of respondents said they had contacted a City 
office in the past year. Of that percentage, 67 percent said they were somewhat or very satisfied 
with the City's response. She said having the majority of respondents say they were satisfied 
with their experience was not a luxury all cities enjoyed. 
Ms. Gibb said they asked about UTOPIA, with 15 percent of respondents reporting they 
connected to the lliternet through the UTOPIA network. Of those who were not currently using 
UTOPIA, 35 percent said they would if it was available to them, 29 percent said they would not, 
and 36 percent did not know or were undecided. 
Ms. Gibb said the preferred channels for City information were digital mediums like the email 
newsletter, Facebook and other social media outlets, and the City website. Postal mail was also a 
highly ranked channel to receive City information. When asked to select which channel they 
I
most preferred, 58 percent of respondents preferred the emailed newsletter, 21 percent preferred 
postal mail, and a combined 17 percent preferred Facebook, social media, and the City website. 
Respondents were given a list of eleven possible Orem City initiatives and were asked to sort the 
initiatives as "important" or "not important" to them, and then rank them from highest priority to 
lowest priority. She said all respondents sorted the initiatives as important to them, with the 
lowest ranked initiative still receiving a 48 percent "importance" rating. The highest ranked 
priority was preserving and maintaining quality neighborhoods, followed by investing in core 
infrastructure (i.e. utility lines, roads, sidewalks, etc.), supporting local businesses and attracting, 
retaining, or expanding businesses, etc. 
Ms. Gibb said 10 percent of respondents said they used public transportation monthly or more 
often. Twenty-six percent said they strongly agreed that Orem needed more public transportation 
options and many pointed to lack of options for why they did not utilize the system. She said 
overall the message was that people wanted more options for public transportation. 
Ms. Gibb said they asked if residents would support the necessary utility fee increases if they 
knew the money would be used for necessary water and sewer infrastructure projects. She said 
65 percent of respondents said they would somewhat or strongly support monthly fee increases. 
They randomly asked about resident's willingness to pay specified increases over specified 
periods of time. The first question was a $5 increase over nine years, and 67 percent of those 
responding said they were somewhat or very willing to adjust to this scenario. The second 
question was a $6.50 increase over seven years, with 63 percent being somewhat or very willing. 
The final question was an $8 increase over five years, with 63 percent being somewhat or very 
willing to this scenario. She said there was not a lot of threshold for cost, and people expressed 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.4) 
I 
• I 



I 
I 
:I 
roughly the same amount of support for the increase whether it was a higher amount for a shorter 
period of time, or vice versa. 
Mayor Brunst said some other cities in Utah Valley were looking at significant increases, some 
as high as $14.00 a month. Ms. Gibb said she had not worked with other•cities on that subject 
and could not compare. 
Mr. Andersen asked for the presentation to be emailed to him. Mr. Downs said he would .send it 
to the Mayor and City Council. 
DISCUSSION - Bill Hulterstrom - United Way 
Mr. Bybee introduced Bill Hulterstrom, president and CEO of United Way of Utah County, to 
speak to some of the concerns expressed about new buildings in Orem, the proposed State Street 
Master Plan, neighborhood plans, etc. Mr. Hulterstrom would address ways to build and 
strengthen a safe community with people from all different backgrounds. 
Mr. Hulterstrom said that, in his thirty-two years in the human and community services industry, 
one of his favorite words was the word "neighbor." He referred to the work of political science 
author Robert Putnam who studied the influential aspects of predicting crime. While the 
prevalent belief was that crime would always be higher in low-income neighborhoods, Mr. 
Putnam found that when neighbors knew one another, crime was lower. Knowing neighbors 
provided a greater counter-predictor of crime than factors like income levels; politics, race, 
education level, owners vs. renters, etc. Mr.. Hulterstrom referred also to a study conducted at 
Harvard by Dr. Felton Earls which presented two points on the quality of neighborhoods: 
1. Neighbors knowing each other
2. If neighbors believed they had 1;he power or ability to do something in their community.
The third principle Mr. Hulterstrom spoke to was the principle of triangulation, from Dr. Leland 
Kaiser. Triangulation was the concept that-people wanted to be near something when gathering, 
rather than being exposed or out in the open. That was why office conversations took place 
around the water cooler or coffee machine, and why people in parks gathered near benches or 
picnic tables. Those inanimate objects created points of safety and connection, and made 
socializing more easy and open. Mr. Hulterstrom asked how to encourage neighbors to get to 
know using those three principles together. 
Mr. Bybee commented that he had heard that Wal-Mart greeter created an instant point of 
connection. Mr. Hulterstrom said the greeters were in place to create those connections to help 
reduce shoplifting and create a more connected shopping experience. 
Mr. Hulterstrom said theorists believed the automatic garage door opener had changed 
interactions between neighbors since people could drive right in to their garage and close the 
door behind them. Neighbors rarely conversed with each other at the mail box or over the fence 
anymore. Implementing the principle of triangulation, cities could design spaces and plan 
activities that created opportunities for neighbors to interact and get to know each other. Mr. 
Hulterstrom said bonding social capital was strong along the Wasatch Front, and there was a 
disproportionate amount of bonding versus bridging in the community. He said an example of 
strong bridging social capital could be found in the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) group for 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.5) 



an elementary school, and he felt that was an untapped pipeline of community leaders from 
diverse backgrounds. 
Mr. Hulterstrom said the City could encourage developers to design their projects in such a way 
as to create points of triangulation and gathering. Events could be planned in ways to bring 
people together, and could be done to engage on a smaller, neighborhood level. He said it was 
important to understand that young millennials as well as retirees were moving more than they 
ever had before, and those groups wanted quality housing for times before and after living in a 
single-family home. He said those groups needed to not be isolated, but to be used as strengths in 
the community instead of fearing changing demographics. When neighbors were proud of their 
neighborhoods and owned those identities, it allowed for natural, strengthened connections. 
Mayor Bruns! said Orem had strong neighborhoods and strong families, which helped keep the 
safety rating high and helped during times of emergency. 
Mrs. Black said in some ways the Neighborhoods in Action (NIA) program had been valuable 
for strengthening neighborhoods . and encouraging neighbors to take ownership of their 
neighborhoods. She said the PT A made sense as a bridge because anyone with kids in school 
was part of that community, regardless of religion or socioeconomic status. 
Mr. Hulterstrom said he found in his research that when adults in a neighborhood knew the 
names of the children in the neighborhood, those children were more likely to be successful. 
I 
Knowing neighbors affected poverty, education, behavioral, health, etc. Connections were 
I 
crucial. 
Mayor Bruns! said a dynamic shift moving toward apartment and condo housing would be harder 
in some ways to create those connection points. Mr. Hulterstrom agreed, saying it was even more 
important to because it was harder. He felt there was a stigma for apartment housing which 
needed to be overcome. 
Mr. Davidson said it was important to, note the difference of fostering an environment that 
encouraged neighborhood involvement and forcing involvement. The City tried to plan activities 
and events that engaged residents and created points of connection. He asked how they could 
maintain_ the enthusiasm for events without trying to force interaction. 
Mr. Hulterstrom said people were not as used to the concept of bridging social capital, and it 
seemed to almost threaten the way things have been done .before. He used the example of a dog 
barking in the night, and how many people these days would think to call the police or animal 
control before they would think to call their neighbor who owned the dog. There should be a 
balance between natural neighborhood interactions and City services, and the City could help 
facilitate neighborhoods finding their identities. He mentioned a program in Savannah, Georgia, 
where the neighborhood had received a $300 grant to facilitate many neighborhood events. They 
considered it a point of pride to have done so much with such a small budget. 
Mr. Bybee said. the hope was that those principles would be considered when discussing some of 
the issues Orem was facing. It would help with planning to consider points of triangulation and 
how to engage with and appeal to a wide variety of people of all ages and backgrounds. 
City Council Minute. -November 17, 2015 (p.6) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Davidson said City staff had many points of triangulation a)ready in place. What they they 
needed was points of triangulation that people wanted to be a part of. City parks and trails, 
recreation facilities, the Senior Center and library programming, etc. were points of triangulation 
residents connected with. To keep them, it was crucial to maintain and improve existing 
amenities as needed. 
UPDATE - Siemens Energy Update 
Mr. Bell said this would be the last update on this project until it came before the Council for a 
vote. He said the negotiations with Siemens were considerably lower without lowering the scope. 
The project had the potential to save the City a substantial am9unt of money, up to $50,000 a 
month in energy savings. He asked the Council to.provide feedback on the scope and hoped they 
would reach out if they had any questions. ot issues they would like addressed. He turned the 
time over to Mark Cram for the presentation." 
Mr. Cram said Trevor Mays and Kevin Brown, also with Siemens, were present to help answer 
any questions the Council had. He said the purpose of these types of projects was to provide 
savings to the cities so they could then fund facility improvement projects and slow the increase 
in utility costs. The City had implemented supply-side solutions and continued to negotiate better 
rates for water, natural gas, etc. He said there would be savings both during and after 
construction. Jf the City delayed the projects it would cost them more. 
Mr. Cram explained the extra value to the City from performance contracting: 
•
Utility incentives assigned to. subcontractors resulted in reduced first costs
•
Reduced pricing negotiations had already been credited to Orem City
•
Savings guarantee
•
Project time frame and master schedule - 18 months
•
Warranty- extended beyond standard warranty periods
•
Audit, counts, scope guarantee
•
No change orders - firm fixed pricing
•
Annual reports to the City throughout the term of the agreement
•
Siemens would be the general contractor for the City and manage all vendors, inchiding
schedule, material, labor and all documents.
Mr. Cram emphasized that Siemens would be under contract to complete those projects in the 
time projected, or Siemens would have to make up the difference in lost savings. He reviewed 
the various improvement projects and said the numbers had changed significantly from the first 
draft, but were now fixed. 
Mayor Brunst said· some neighbors had concerns about the brightness of the lighting in street 
lights. Mr. Cram said that LED lights would have similar light output, but the wattage would be 
lower. 
Mr. Macdonald asked if they planned to do all the listed projects. Mr. Cram said they were 
because the savings allowed the City to do projects that had not been completed previously. 
Mr. Bybee said if they took out the two long-term payback projects, the implementation cost 
would be relatively minimal. 
• 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.7) 
•, .. 



Mr. Davidson said it would carve out $80,000 and the payback would go from 11.1 to about 
10.8. 
Mrs. Black asked for clarification on what this would accomplish. 
Mr. Davidson said they looked at a way to do things efficiently under one project management 
team, in order to gamer all the savings that had been mentioned. Orem staff had the capacity, but 
it Would take much longer to complete. Siemens had (2) access to vendors, (2) project 
management expertise, (3) contractors-lined up, and (4) could do the work relatively quickly. 
The sooner the projects were completed, the less likely costs would go up. He said there were 
warranties to guarantee the work would be done right. Mr. Cram added that it was a guaranteed 
savings, because Siemens would make up the difference if their work did not reach the savings. 
Mr. Bybee said for every month the projects went undone, the City lost savings. 
Mrs. Black asked if the City had money for the costs in the current budget. Mr. Davidson said 
they did not, but the City would enter into a lease arrangement backed with the guaranteed 
savings. Those would pay down the cost of the improvements. At the end of the lease the savings 
were Orem's. He said .the payback timeline would need to be such that the savings would pay for 
the costs. 
Mr. Cram said it did not impact bonding capability and would be a budget neutral approach to 
I 
the project. The City was already spending on utilities, so they would do projects to reduce those 
1· 
costs. The guarantee was that Siemens could cover the difference if it did not come out as 
outlined. Some potential measures that did not make the list were perhaps less critical in nature 
and did not need the attention as quickly. For the projected cash flow for project, some 
assumptions had been made. One was the annual interest rate, which they would not know until 
the City engaged the third-party for the loan. The finance period would be approximately fifteen 
years. 
Mr. Bybee said the City would receive the benefits if more savings were garnered than projected. 
Mrs. Black asked about Siemen's track record for completing projects. Mr. Cram said they had 
worked with hundreds of cities, including several in Utah. Siemens had been in this business for 
twenty-seven years doing energy performance contracts. 
Mr. Davidson said the relationship with Siemens began with an RFP, soliciting bidders under the 
2010· law. Taggart Bowen added that there had been four respondents to that RFP. 
Mr. Cram said they were 99.3 percent accurate in their savings projections. If they missed, they 
paid. The next steps would be. for the Council to make decisions regarding the scope of the work. 
The goal was to finalize near the end of the month, get the response from the bank, and have that 
back to the Council for the December 8th meeting. 
Mayor Bruns! said he believed it was a good program. The interest rate currently was opportune. 
Mr. Manning said that could change, bµt historically this was a good rate time. 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.8) 
I 



I 
I 
! 
I 
Mrs. Black asked about the scope of the work. 
Mr. Davidson said they had been discussing for several years the need to do something with the 
projects. The challenge was that the City would have to spend money to save money, and it was 
hard to spend money they did not have. With this proposal, however, they could move projects 
forward with the means to make this work financially for Orem in the short and long terms. If the 
Council was comfortable with the concept, they would meet with the City's financial advisor to 
negotiate the capital lease. The staff recommendation was to move ahead with the current list of 
projects. 
Mr. Sumner said, if they had questions, who they should speak with between now and December 
8th and was told the Council members should talk to Mr. Bell or Mr. Bowen. 
The Council then asked and received input on _some of the proposed projects.
Mr. Andersen inquired about operation saving, and Mr. Brown said it was the energy savings 
plus operation--capital cost avoidance. Mr. Andersen asked for the presentation to be sent to him, 
and Mr. Brown said it would. 
The general consensus of the Council was they were comfortable with the proposed list. 
Mr. Andersen asked if the City would put up any money. Mr. Davidson said they would be 
taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. Cash flow-wise, it took nothing from 
the budget. 
Mr. Sumner wondered about draws. Mr. Davidson said there would be contract management 
team, and the City would control financing. The Development Services team would work 
through the retrofits and installs. 
Mr. Davidson said Siemens was required by State law to provide an annual accounting. 
UPDATE-Transportation Master Plan 
Mr. Goodrich introduced John Domy and Kevin Croshaw with Horrocks Engineers. He said his 
presentation was similar to previous ones with a few minor changes and was just a draft. If the 
City wanted federal, state, .and county funding, they needed to adopt a master plan. It also helped 
with mandating setbacks for future development. 
Mayor Bruns! asked how projected traffic increases were determined and how it was determined 
to increase speed limits or to limit on-street parking. 
Mr. Goodrich said that in the past the Level of Service (LOS) with a grade of A through F was 
assessed when a developer wanted to rezone a property. He said the grading is not exactly like 
school grading. For example, with a population (he size ofOreni aLOS ofD is good. He said it 
was usually not cost effective to try to raise a LOS of D to a C or better. He shared !\ graphic 
which identified the roads by level of service. He said the roads that were either an E or F were 
approaching or at capacity. Those were the types where it would take more than one green light 
to get through the signal, and which caused people to eventually take a different route. 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.9) 



Mr. Goodrich said that, as the population grew in both Orem and the County, more roads would 
end up with an LOS of E or F-if there were no improvements. He said improvements might be I
as simple as putting in right turn lanes, such as at 400 South and State Street. He shared a map 
which showed some projects like that which could be accomplished with federal, county, and 
... 
MAG funding, He noted that the map did not show all the project Orem needed. 
Mayor Brunst asked how the LOS was ascertained as it changed each year. He also asked if the 
City was planning to be proactive in dealing with those changes or if they would need to wait 
and be reactive. 
Mr. Goodrich said they were trying to be proactive by developing a plan which would show the 
improvements needed in the next ten years and beyond. He said they used the same traffic 
modeling tool as the entire Wasatch Front. It divided .the Wasatch Front into traffic analysis 
zones (TAZ) and took into consideration the number of residences (including single-family 
homes and apartments), businesses, jobs, commercial, etc. The model was calibrated by taking 
traffic counts at hundreds oflocations every year. 
Mr. Davidson said the City had been studying all along but had been using a baseline study that 
was completed many years ago. If the TMP were adopted there would be a new baseline and .a 
new analysis. 
Mr. Domy said Orem counted traffic more than other cities did, so they had an abundance of 
data. 
Mayor Bruns! asked projection population growth. Mr. Goodrich said they had done traffic 
modeling to figure out a general plan for all the cities along the Wasatch Front. He said the 
information in the State Street Master Plan was not included in MAG's modeling because the 
plan had not yet been approved 
Mayor Bruns! asked if there should be on-street parking on State Street, or if that space was 
needed for traffic. 
Mr. Goodrich said there were streets throughout the City where the capacity could be increased 
by reducing friction factors such as parking and signal timing. He said new technology could 
track personal devices, and traffic counts at intersections can be updated in real time. 
Mrs. Black said she had seen the video about freeways. She asked how it would work for State 
Street. 
Mr. Goodrich reviewed the process and showed a video called "Managed Motorways" which 
compared vehicles in traffic lanes to pasta in a funnel. By controlling how many vehicles entered 
the roadway at a time they could prevent bottlenecks and delays as well as monitor the different 
ebbs and flows through personal devices. That would reduce guesswork. He said Orem currently 
had a really good traffic signal management program, recognized throughout the state. They 
were currently working on .a time-of-day system, where they would do counts once or twice a 
year and set the controllers up by that data. Unfortunately, not every day was the same, so using 
continuous traffic counts with the new technology Would be better. 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.10) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Goodrich said the current system determined that some traffic signals, such as at State and 
University Parkway, were more important because of the traffic volume. They were "master 
signals." Others were "slave" signals because they were dictated by what the master signal did. 
With the continuous traffic counts signals could be "peer-to-peer" signals rather than 
"master/slave" signals. On State Street they would be able to control how much traffic got on the 
signals every quarter mile; it would pour the "pasta" in at different locations. 
Mayor Bruns! expressed concern that more lights would be counter-productive. 
Mr. Goodrich said that, years agq, the traffic operations department decided to squeeze off time 
on side streets to get State Street to flow better, but there were complaints so they adjusted to let 
more people in at those locations. Even signal spacing made a difference, so they would address 
that. Streets with a better grid system had more capacity. He said Orem had a good grid system, 
except at State Street. 
Mrs. Black noted that much of the plans concerned .north-south traffic. She asked if ignoring the 
east/west streets caused problems for north/south. 
Mr. Goodrich said improving east/west streets would improve north/south traffic on State. 
Mayor Brunst asked if more cars would be idling and causing more pollution. Mr. Goodrich said 
the even spacing of the signals would keep traffic flowing. Mayor Brunst said he would like to 
see how other cities had done this and been successful. 
Mr. Goodrich said UDOT had gone to Australia to find a similar system, so this was still an 
unknown locally. He said UDOT weighed the advantages of reducing the friction factors over 
spending the money to widen the roads. He said that, as redevelopment occurred, friction factors 
could be reduced. For example, McDonalds was planning to reduce the number of accesses from 
both State Street and Center Street when they expanded. Also, raised medians would reduce 
friction factors while still allowing left turns at various locations. 
Mr. Goodrich said UDOT had increased ridership by increasing the frequency of buses. He said 
the State Street Master Plan provided for possible light rail in the future, as well as other options. 
They were also looking at increasing the number alternate north/south corridors. 
Mr. Goodrich said they planned to come back on December 8th for final approval of the master 
plan. 
5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION - PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
Mayor Richard F. Brunst 
Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom 
Macdonald Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner 
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant 
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard 
Manning, Administr,ative Services Director; Bill Bell, 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.l I) 



EXCUSED 
Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation 
Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott 
Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police 
Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; 
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Paul Goodrich, 
Transportation Engineer; Keith Larsen, Traffic Operations 
Engineer; Sam Kelly, Engineer; Neal Winterton, Water 
Division Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division 
Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; 
and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder 
David Spencer 
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 New Business 
There was no City Council new business. 
The Council adjourned at 5:53 p.rn. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting. 
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
Mayor Richard F. Bruns! 
Councilrnernbers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Torn 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer (electronic), 
and Brent Sumner 
APPOINTED STAFF 
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant 
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard 
Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, 
Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation 
Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott 
Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police 
Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; 
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Paul Goodrich, 
Transportation Engineer; Sam Kelly, Engineer; Steven 
Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, 
Deputy City Recorder 
INVOCATION I 
INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT 
Jonah Humes 
CityCouncilMinutes-November 17, 2015 (p.12) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
Jackson Thurman 
There were no minutes ready for approval. 
MAYOR'S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL 
Upcoming Events 
The Mayor referred the Council tq the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet. 
Appointments to Boards and Commissions 
Mrs. Black moved to reappoint Greg Brown to the CDBG Advisory Commission. Mr. Andersen 
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, 
Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
nnanimously. 
Recognition of New Neighborhoods in Action Officers 
There were no new neighborhood officers recognized. 
REPORT-Metropolitan Water Board 
Mr. Winterton introduced Jack Jones, Chairman of the Board for the MWBCD. Mr. Jones gave a 
history of the board. He said that, thanks to the Board members throughout the years, they now 
felt comfortable about the amount of water they have purchased for Orem's needs. He said the 
relationship with the City•was very good and none of it would have been accomplished without 
cooperation. Mr. Jones then introduced the members of the Board of Directors who were present: 
Alec Lott, Bill Gillman, and Mr. Tschirki. 
Mr. Winterton said he had assumed that role of water manager in April 2015. He said the board 
had acquired a few irrigation canal shares in the past year. They had also gone through an 
adjudication by the State, and it was determined that the City's water rights were intact and in 
good shape. He said the City had significant shares in irrigation companies and those rights. 
would be adjudicated in the coming year. The City would neeq to be prepared to explain its use 
and need for the water. 
Mayor Brunst asked how long Mr. Jones had servšd on the MWBCD. Mr. Jones said he had 
served for thirty-eight years and would be ninety years old on the cgming Friday. Mayor Bruns! 
mentioned that Orem had been awarded "best tasting water in the state." Orem' s great water 
supply was in large part due to the vision the water board members. 
CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENTS 
Appointments to Boards and Commissions 
There were no appointments to boards and commissions. 
City Cowicil Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.13) 
.' I 



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. 
Carolyn James, resident, said she lived two blocks from the UVU campus and represented the 
Sunset Heights community. She said they were opposed to the Ivory or ICO development in their 
residential neighborhood. The proposed plan-two blocks from her home-was for a six-story, 
ultra-high density student housing with over I, I 00 beds on a five-acre parcel and could have as 
many as 3,000 students once fully constructed. She noted that this would be the tallest and most 
densely populated zone in the Orem' s history. She asked the Council to wait to see if existing 
apartments were filled since the proposed project would decrease property values; reduce 
privacy; block views; increase traffic, noise, and light; had inadequate parking; was a threat to 
children's safety; and would probably increase crime rates. She said Orem's motto was Family 
City USA and not "Apartment City USA." 
Craig Doxey, resident, said he lived in Sunset Heights and was also opposed to the Ivory project. 
He said there would be six buildings running the length and width of the property, five stories 
high, with only a seven- to twelve-foot setback. He said it would be double the density of BYU 
student housing with no density cap. He echoed concerns that_property values would decrease, 
and family neighborhoods would become student rentals. They worried it would inean the 
I 
destruction of their neighborhood. He asked the City to turn down the zoning request and open I
the door for a discussion. Mr. Doxey said the City Code stated that PD zones should be 
sufficiently restrictive to protect the character and _ quality of neighboring properties. Thɴ 
proposal protected neither. 
Richard Dewey, resident, said he lived in the Sunset Heights neighborhood. He said he bought 
his first home there in I 99 I and had moved twice in the same neighborhood because it was a 
hidden gem. He was a retired police officer, not for Orem, but he chose to live here because it 
was Family City, USA, and a great place to raise a family. He provided the Councilmembers 
with a crime map and asked that the City slow things down concerning apartments until they 
could see the effect they would have. He said the project could not be done without rezoning. 
Noting that light areas indicated higher crime, he said every light area was in high-density 
housing. They were fertile hunting grounds for auto burglaries. 
Dora Schoenfeld, resident, said she had lived in Orem for about 20 years and liked how it was. 
She said it appeared that the Orem City Council had an agenda, embracing a socialistic type of 
government which had total control without listening to the voice of the people. She said she 
supported everything that had been said about not more high-density housing. She urged each 
Council member to search their consciences as to what their agenda was as representatives as the 
citizens of Orem Ci'ty and to let them keep the current environment. 
Barbara Petty, resident, said she wanted to speak about the proposed raises for the mayor and I
council. She thanked thɵm for their service and the good things they did. She was not against 
them being paid. People should not be excluded from serving because they were not wealthy. 
However, their salaries and benefits were paid by the citizens of Orem, and she found it curious 
that they were considering a raise to benefit themselves. She said many in the City were working 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.14) 



I 
I 
I 
multiple jobs just to provide necessities for their families. She assumed that most of the 
counci!members had other sources of income and that their check from the City was a 
convenient supplement which helped them maintain a nice lifestyle. She said they should ask 
who would benefit from such a raise, how it would bless the citizens of Orem, and whether or 
not such a raise would show compassion for the poor. She said the Council should consider why 
they would get an increase without giving the citizens some relief froni fees or taxes. 
CONSENT ITEMS 
There were no Consent Items. 
SCHEDULED ITEMS 
MOTION - Canvass and Certification- 2015 Municipal General Election Results 
The City Recorder recommended that the City Council complete the canvass and, by motion, 
certify the 2015 Municipal General Election results. Mr. Bybee presented. 
He said the Council, acting as the Board of Canvassers, would be asked to certify the results and 
to declare the three candidates with the highest votes to be elected. He noted the 
Councilmembers-elect elect would take the oath of office on Monday, January 4, 2016, at noon 
in the City Council Chambers. 
Mr. Bybee reported the election night results received from the County Clerk that afternoon at 
2:00 p.m. that day, as follows: 
Mark Seastrand 
Debby Laurel 
Sam Lentz 
Hans Andersen 
Claude Richards 
8,665 
8,149 
8,093 
6,225 
5,025 
Mr. Bybee also reported that the local option sales tax question was not passed. There were 
6,217 "Yes" votes and 7,333 "No" votes. 
Mayor Brunst said that in the Primary, with the Vote by Mail (VBM) system, 10,929 people 
voted, which was close to 25 percent. In the General the total was 13,908, which was over 3 2
percent. He said that was double the turnout from four years ago. He said that the VBM system 
had worked very well. He expressed appreciation for all who ran during the ·Primary and General 
elections. 
Mrs. Black moved that the City Council: 
1.
Certify the election results with the following changes:
City Council 
Mark Seastrand ..................... 8,000 ... : ......... to ................. 8,665 
DebbyLauret ........................ 7,509 ............. to ................. 8,149 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (pJ5) 
', 
,.r 



Sam Lentz ............................. 7,430 ............. to ................. 8,093 
Hans V. Andersen Jr . ............ 5,633 ............. to ................. 6,225 
Claude C. Richards .............. .4,527 ............. to ................. 5,025 
2.
Declare 4-year term City Council candidates Mark Seastrand, Debby Laure!, and Sam Lentz
to be elected.
Mr. Andersen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard 
F. Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion
passed unanimously.
6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-Budget Amendment- Compensation 
ORDINANCE - Amending the Current Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget to amend 
Compensation of Elected Officials 
The City Manager recommended the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss amending the 
compensation of elected officials and, by ordinance, amend Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget. 
The City Council appointed an ad-hoc citizen committee to evaluate the compensation offered to 
the City of Orem' s elected officials. The Committee examined the time commitments of the 
legislative positions as well as the compensation offered to elected officials in cities with the 
City Manager form of government and of a similar size as Orem. The current salary level of the 
Mayor was $26,400/annually and the City Council was $13,200; respectively. 
Mr. Manning said he recognized how difficult this was for the Council and Mayor to discuss 
their compensation. This was an opportunity to review the options and recommendations. He 
said the ad hoc citizen committee did a very thorough job evaluating the positions of mayor and 
city manager and deciding whether the mayor should be part- or full-time, as well as considering 
compensation. They considered expectations, roles, issues, concerns, etc. In June and July they 
did research, speaking to Orem's elected officials and staff, as well as officials and staff in other 
cities throughout the state. Their recommendation was for the Mayor to stay part-time, but 
recognizing the role's responsibilities had increased. Mr. Manning said the question of part- or 
full-time was not so much a question of hours, but was more a question of whether or not this 
position was something people would seek to do citizen service, or would seek for the 
compensation it gave. The committee decided the mayor should be considered a citizen serving 
for a period of time and then going .back to the community. 
Mr. Manning said the committee also recommended that the City establish a process for 
prioritizing time and demands, and allocating assignments so there was some fairness among the 
councilmembers. 
Mr. Manning reviewed the current compensation for the mayor and councilmembers, which had 
been in place since FY 2008. He said that, prior to that, it had changed annually. He said 
currently the Mayor earned double the salary of Council. The recommendation from the 
committee was to increase the salary for the council members, and change the compensation for 
the Mayor from two times to three times what the council was compensated. They also 
recommended that there be a committee to look at the compensation on a regular basis. The 
recommendation was that changes should be made at the end of a term of office. They 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.16) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
recognized that this was difficult since the terms of the councilmembers were staggered. The 
committee recommended that all councilmembers receive the changes at the same time. 
Mr. Manning continued, saying the budget impact was fairly minimal and, if approved, should 
take effect in January, 2016. He said that, for the balance of the current year, the budget-if this 
item were approved as proposed-would change $10,800 for the council and $18,600 for the 
mayor, for a total change of $29,400. When. the variable benefits were added, the total change to 
the current fiscal year budget would be $36,600. He said the purpose of the current hearing was 
to amend the budget by ordinance. 
Mayor Brunst .said the salaries of the council and mayor had ·not been changed for seven years. 
He said there had been an increase given a year ago to employees, who had not been given an 
increase for about five years prior, and another modest increase to employees this year. 
Mr. Andersen said one Mr. Stocks' recommendation was that no pay increase happen until the 
election took place two years from now, when there could potentially be a new mayor. He said 
Mr. Manning was using minutes as his authority for saying the compensation should be raised. 
He said he emailed Kevin Stocks to clarify ifhe had understood Mr. Stocks' recommendation on 
the timing and was told his understanding was correct. 
Mr. Manning said he took the information he presented from the report of the committee. 
Mr. Andersen expressed concern that the Council did not have the minutes yet from that 
meeting. He reiterated that, at the September 8, 2015, meeting, he had asked a direct question of 
Mr. Stocks, and Mr. Stocks had said any change would take place at the next election. Mr. 
Andersen said he asked Mr. Stocks to clarify if that meant two years from now, and Mr. Stocks 
said it did. He asserted that the minutes the· Council had not yet received were incorrect and 
suggested that Mr. Manning go back and read them. He stated that Mr. Manning should not say 
that this was what the committee recommended, when it was not. 
Mr. Davidson said he appreciated the work and efforts of the compensation committee. He said 
they were an advisory group. They made the recommendations, but the ultimate decision rested 
with the Council. 
Mr. Macdonald said his understanding was that the numbers Mr. Manning presented were 
correct, but that there might be a question as to when it would be implemented. 
Mayor Brunst asked when raises that were given in the past had been implemented. Mr. Manning 
said implementation of those raises did not wait for election. He said they had been handled as 
part of the normal budgeting process, taking effect in July. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 
Kathy Gowans, ad hoc committee member, said the goal of their recommendations was to create 
conversations so the Council could make decisions. As a result of the email question Mr. 
Andersen sent out, the committee members had met and chatted. She said her email response to 
that question was the following: 
"If the council decides compensation adjustments should be made, we would suggest 
reviewing and implementiµg ch;mges for 1111 positions at the same time." 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.17) 



She said it would not make sense to stagger implementation but to do all the same time. Their I
recommendation would not get in the way of implementing a change at the first of the year, if 
that was what the Council chose. 
Mr. Andersen asked if Kevin Stocks said the same thing. Ms. Gowans said he had written his 
response, and then the three of them discussed the issue. She said Mr. Stocks had emailed Mr: 
Andersen before the three committee members talked. 
John Reinhard, resident, said that for the most part he supported the proposal and appreciated • 
• 
/ 
their efforts. He wondered, other than the money, what benefits elected officials received. He 
asked if their benefits continued once their term was up. 
Mrs. Black said it was called the guillotine; when they were out, they were out. 
Sharon Anderson, resident, said she appreciated the time the City Council and Mayor did for 
Orem. She questioned how the raise helped the citizens since they would foot the bill. It seemed 
strange that the public servants would be asking for an increase when so many were living in 
hardship conditions. 
Melodee Andersen, resident, said it seemed strange the Council could vote their own wages up. 
She said she thought the citizens should vote on it. Then, if Council members did not live up to 
what the citizens wanted, the citizens would not have to increase their wages. 
LaNae Millett, committee member, said the charge given to them was to review the salary of the 
I
Mayor and the city council and city manager, which led to avenues where they could review the 
service being given and the time being put in, and to see how it compared to other cities in the 
state. She said they recognized the importance of being open and equal 'and implementing in a 
timely mauner. She said they had recommended implementing at the end of a term, because they 
were analyzing only the mayor. Their intent was not to suggest that half the Council receive an 
increase two years after the other half did. She echoed Mr. Davidson's comment that the ad hoc 
committee was advisory; the decision was the Council's. 
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing. 
Mayor Bruns! then said the City Council was the legislative branch of the City, and it was their 
responsibility to vote on compensation packages, including their own. He reiterated that neither 
the mayor nor the councilmembers had received a raise in eight years, and it was proper to look 
at the service given by the mayor and the council. People would be surprised how much time and 
energy the councilmembers put in. He said that when he was first elected, he understood this was 
part-time so he set his schedule accordingly, but soon realized it was a full-time job where he 
spent between forty to fifty hours a week out doing the job. He said he served on committees, 
supported charities, worked with the State legislature, and spent hundreds of hours with various 
economic development projects. He said he felt what the citizen committee had suggested was 
proper and correct. 
Mr. Sumner said he had served under three mayors and recognized it was a tough job with a 
large time commitment. He said he had watched the mayor perhaps more closely than. the others 
and was grateful for the time he had given in his service. Mr. Sumner said the mayor's office was 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 201S (p.18) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
the face of the city, and he felt Orem needed to keep up with other communities. He asked how 
they should talk about the proposaL 
Mayor Bruns! said there were three issues to consider: the Mayor's wage, the C;mncil' s wage, 
and when to start it. 
Mr. Seastrand said he appreciated the comments that had been made. He said every decision 
made on the Council was toµgh and had a big impact. No decision was taken lightly. He said he 
had spoken at length about the issue of mayoral compensation with former Mayor Washburn. 
When the City Council had considered increasing his wage, he had declined. He said he was 
retired, and it was his passion to serve the city. But he recognized that the mayor was asked to
give countless hours. It was difficult to work a full-time job and be the mayor. He said 
compensation would be the wrong reason to run for office. Mr. Seastrand said he recognized the 
additional requirements and expectations for the ·mayor and felt comfortable increasing that 
wage. He said it was not a full-time wage, more like a very heavy part-time position. While he 
felt the City Council's compensation should stay the same, he believed the mayor's 
compensation should be increased. 
Mr. Macdonald said he was humbled and honored to serve. He said he had never been paid so 
much for volunteering, never been paid so little for working. He did not know, before the Mayor 
brought this up to tlie Council, that they would consider the wage amounts, and he had .suggested 
the citizen committee. As part of his own study of the issue, he spoke to five other mayors, and 
spoke about how cities were governed and compensated. He echoed Mr. Sumher's comments 
about how much time and effort Mayor Brunst gave. He was comfortable with the increase for 
the mayor. He said some candidates spent almost as much on their election as they earned when 
elected, so many citizens were not willing to rim. People said they would be happy to serve, did 
not want to go through the meat grinder that was an election. He said they were certainly mindful 
of citizens who .strµggled financially and sought to serve them, but the compensation was not a 
huge issue for those who were financially comfortable, but he was happy to listen to the 
committee's recommendation, particularly concerning the mayor's compensation. 
Mrs. Black said she felt like she could speak differently because she was leaving the Council. 
She had no dog in this fight, but she had been in the fight for nine years and knew what this fight 
was· like. She said that at first she did hot even know she would get a salary; she just wanted to 
serve. She said nobody on the council was a money-grubber, but she had realized, after getting 
into the council, that the members were worth some compensation. She said she had no problem 
with the Council receiving what the committee recommended, because she knew they earned it. 
She said she also had no problem moving from two times to three times the council's pay for the 
mayor, but not more. She said that, up there on the dais, they all had the same legislative power 
and responsibility. The reason the mayor got more, was that he had more of .an outreach 
assignment. She said all of the councilmembers had outreach assignments, but the mayor had 
more. She was in favor of whatever the decision on the raise for the Council, but thought the 
mayor should get the three times that amount. 
Mr. Andersen said he went back and looked at the report given by the committee, artd the charge 
they were given was to evaluate whether the position ofmayor should be designated as part-time 
or full-time. He said they grattiitously offered to give a: pay raise to the Council, but this was not 
part of their charge. He said now the tail was. wagging the dog. He said it was agreed that the 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.19) 
: 



mayor would not get a raise, but then they decided to raise them all together. He said the Mayor 
did have more responsibilities and was paid twice -as much, and he agreed that the mayor did 
more work than that. He said the problem was that there were six cities in this state that had this 
fonn of government. He said they were putting a Band-Aid on a problem and instead should 
change the fonn of government. He said they should put a face on legislation what was 
introduced to the City. He said that the propose ordinances were arranged by the CM, aud he 
could keep things from the council as he saw fit. He said he did not believe a Mayor would do 
that type of thing, plus there would be a face on ordinances that were being passed. He said they 
should have been changing the fonn of government, not putting a Band-Aid on a poor fonn of 
government. 
Mayor Bruns! said that when he brought this forward, it was with the idea that the fonn of 
government would not change, nor would the roles of city manager and mayor. He said it was 
strictly looking at compensation for the Mayor and Council since no increase had occurred in 
seven years. 
Mrs. Black said she felt compelled to answer those comments about the fonn of government. She 
said it was great, and she was grateful for it. She mentioned' David B. Haight, who was a fonner 
mayor of Palo Alto, California. She said that Betty Washburn, widow of fonner Mayor 
W ashbum, said Mr. Haight and Mayor Washburn met. She said that when Mayor Washburn told 
Mr. Haight what kind of government Orem had, Mr. Haight said it was the best fonn of 
government there was. She said she respected his opinion and experience. This fonn gave the 
City a professional city manager who was a steady influence in the City, not somebody who 
could be changed by the whims ofpolitical pressures. She said that was a blessing for the city. 
She said the Council could hire or fire the city manager; they held that power. She said this was a 
more economic fonn of government, as Orem paid a lot less to ernployees than did a city like 
Provo. She said Provo paid a great deal of money to both a city administrator and a full-time 
mayor. She said each legislator hired their own staff, so in terms of cost, Orem's fonn of 
government was exceedingly superior. 
Mr. Macdonald said the fonn of government was the most popular in the United States. He said 
it was not as popular in Utah, but it was the most popular in country, and was on the increase. He 
suggested they think long and hard about that. 
Mr. Spencer said he knew how many hours the Mayor put in above and beyond the other council 
members. He said he had no problem with mayoral increase, but would vote no on a city council 
increase. He said that if they still wanted the mayoral salary to be as high as it would have been 
with an increase to the city council's pay, which was the baseline, they could increase .the 
mayor's pay to 3 ½ times the current city council pay. 
Mayor Bruns! moved, by ordinance, to amend the Current Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget to 
amend Compensation of Elected Officials; that the salary of the mayor be increased to three 
times that of the City Council and that the City Council receive a raise from $13,200 to $15,000; 
to establish a committee to regularly evaluate the salaries of elected officials on four-year basis; 
and that the change take place January 1, 2016. The motion failed to get a second. 
Mr. Macdonald.moved, by ordinance, to amend the Current Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget to 
amend .Compensation of Elected Officials; that the salary of the mayor be increased to three 
City Council Minutes - November 17, 2015 (p.20) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
times that of the City Council and that the City Council salary remain at $13,200; to establish a 
committee to regularly evaluate the salaries of elected officials on a four-year basis; and that the 
change take place in January, 2016. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. 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. 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-State Street Master Plan 
RESOLUTION - Adopting the State ·Street Corridor Master Plan and amending the City of 
Orem General Plan to include the State Street Corridor Master Plan as Aru,endix A 
The Development Services Department requested the City Council approve, by resolution, the 
State Street Corridor Master Plan and amend the Orem City General Plan by adopting the State 
Street Master Plan as Appendix A. 
The City of Orem partnered with UDOT, MAG, UTA, and the City of Provo to select IBI Group 
in September 2014 to complete the State Street Corridor Master Plan. The purpose of the plan 
was to provide long range recommendations regarding transportation improvements, land uses, 
economic development opportunities, urban design guidelines, and high density housing options 
for the corridor. The plan was organized into five main sections: vision and framework, mobility, 
land use, urban design, and implementation: 
An extensive public outreach effort was launched to seek public input regarding the plan, 
including six public open houses, noticing to all businesses in the study area, three public 
engagement websites (which had over 35,000 page views from 11,000 unique visitors), 
presentations to citizens' commissions and councils, and other presentations and outreach 
opportunities. In addition, the City mailed 3,504 notices to all property owners and businesses 
located within the State Street Corridor plan area. inviting them to a luncheon on November 9, 
2015 where City staff explained and addressed questions concerning the proposed plan. The 
input received from the various public outreach efforts was the primary force in developing the 
major goals, objectives, and recommendations of the plan. 
Major objectives of the plan were developed based on public input, best practices, and staff and 
City Council guidance. These objectives included: 
1. Create a boulevard on State Street.
2. Provide flexibility to incorporate future transit.
3. Develop a safe and complete bikeway along State Street.
4. Connect State Street to Orem Boulevard.
5. Develop unique and strategic growth areas.
6. Create an identifiable downtown and center for the community.
7. Develop a strong open space network along State Street.
8. Preserve and connect existing neighborhoods.
9. Create a family-oriented environment.
10. Encourage economic development.
This was a long range plan to guide future development and provide recommendations to City 
staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council for future development along the corridor. In 
placing the plan in the City's General Plan, it was the intent of City staff to begin incorporating 
theǺe goals and objectives into the relevant land use, transportation, housing, and urban design 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.21) 
, . ,. 



sections of the General Plan. This plan was a developer-driven approach to redevelopment, 
meaning that it provided recommendations for changes that could be incrementally implemented I
as private development and redevelopment occurred. It was an advisory document and not a 
mandate for development. 
. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the State Street Corridor 
Master Plan and amend the City of Orem General Plan to include the State Street Corridor 
Master Plan as Appendix A. City staff supported the Planning Commission recommendation. 
Mr. Bench introduced Dave Nicholas from IBI. Mr. Bench said that IBI had helped develop this 
plan, starting in September of 2014. They had used thirteen different methods to get the word out 
to elicit participation to come up with the best plan for the citizens of Orem. Other groups that 
helped included the Planning Commission, the City Council, and various committees. They had 
given twelve different presentations to the various city commissions. There was a technical 
committee made up of UDOT, UTA, MAG, representatives from Provo City, and many 
employees of Orem City. These groups gave not only time but also funds to help develop this 
plan. A lot of business owners, property owners and community organizations had also 
participated. A lot of citizens had participated online and in public hearings. He said this was the 
biggest outreach plan he had seen in his time at Orem City, trying to get everybody involved in 
the plan. 
Mr. Bench said that part of why they took this route to do a master plan was that, according to 
the Governor's office, Utah County would grow over 1 million people in 25 years. That would 
I
be an increase of 425,892. The same report indicated that Orem City would increase by 23,960. 
He said about 7 percent of that growth would come from children and grandchildren of current 
residents. He said that the number of vacant properties left in Orem was minimal, including the 
newly annexed area. If the City rezoned all the remaining property as R8, the typical residential 
zone, there would be a total of only 1,160 lots. That would only accommodate about 3,800 
people. He said the proposed plan showed how to accommodate that growth by consolidating it 
on State Street. 
Mr. Bench said the State Street Corridor Master Plan, which would become a part of the General 
Plan, focused on State Street. He said it was an advisory document and did not mandate the City 
or Council to follow the General Plan. He said the General Plans were recommendations; they 
were advisory. He said this was a market driven plan. The City would not dictate how parcels 
were developed, but would work with developers and property owners to increase their potential, 
and everyone's potential in Orem. He said the Council would be the authority ort anything 
coming forward. He said the plan limited the impact on single-family neighborhoods, and helped 
maintain Family City USA. 
Dave Nicholas, IBI, said he appreciated the time and participation of those who had worked on 
the plan, and said it was an unbelievable result and something to be proud of. He.said it had been 
created by citizens and staff, and a lot of energy and enthusiasm had been brought to the process. 
He said the plan was generated by a lot of public input, through many different mediums. He 
said the plan consisted of a 100-page report with 5 appendices and an existing conditions report. I
He said the five key issues identified from the public input were mobility, aesthetics, identity, 
safety, and economics. 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.22) 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Nicholas said the first section was Vision and Framework, which was made up of the Vision 
Statement, design principals, basic goals, and plan objectives. He said the Vision Statement was 
very powerful and he hoped all :would read it and understand it, and he reiterated that it was 
generated through public input. He said it was a guide to future growth with the goal of 
economic development initiatives, meaning to attract private investment 
Mayor Brunst said the plan was a guide for future growth; nothing was set in stone. He said the 
City needed a plan for the future. 
Mr. Nicholas agreed. He said it also intended to guide and inform transportation solutions. He 
said that State Street was the major vehicular corridor, and it needed to become multi-modal in 
the future, providing additional choices besides vehicular. He said the plan was also about 
community identity and image, giving Orem City a downtown. A goal was to promote the 
family-friendly culture, and that was something woven through the plan. There was also a goal to 
provide an attractive urban lifestyle alternative for growth. 
Mr. Nicholas said those goals were supported by design principles which incorporated the five 
key issues stated above, as well as responsible land use and· family-friendly urban design. He 
said the committee and consultant team used those goals to create the ten plan objectives listed 
above. 
Mr. Nicholas explained the next section of the plan which was Mobility and covered the first 
four objectives. He explaint;d that "boulevard" included the concept of beautification but was 
primarily about transportation. He said that creating a boulevard would maintain current traffic 
capacity and possibly increase it. By adding medians and consolidating some curb cuts, friction 
would be reduced, resulting in a more and safer environment. When the 79 percent of 
respondents who felt that State Street needed improvement were asked what one thing they 
would change, their first request was to make State Street more attractive. Their second request 
was to improve the pedestrian experience, third was more choices in transportation, and fourth 
was creating a sense of place. 
Mr. Nicholas said that the first four objectives were to improve the flexibility of the vehicular 
network. He said that by using Orem Blvd. and creating a smaller block pattern, the area would 
be .more walkable, more friendly, and a better economic engine from land use perspective. It Was 
recommended that two new signals be added, at 200 South and 600 South, for better east/west 
connectivity. 
Mr. Nicholas said the next section of the plan was Land Use and related to the next three
objectives. Transportation and land use needed to be looked at together, as they were the keys to 
driving change and economic development. The plan identified five key nodes or growth areas, 
and these were locations where future transit stations would likely happen. He said each growth 
area would have unique characteristics which would give them a sense of place, including an 
identifiable downtown. He said this would not happen overnight, but that the City should focus 
on the corridor from Center to University Parkway as the core toward downtown Orem. He said 
the idea of a downtown was anchored on the north at Center Street, the civic and employment 
center, and on the south by the dining, shopping, entertainment district at University Parkway, 
and it was all tied together by the arts and culture district at 800 South. He said those were the 
key elements that made up downtowns throughout the country. 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.23) 



Mayor Brunst said Orem was different from a typical city with a downtown, but that was an asset 
to be amplified and improved upon. 
Mr. Nicholas said the public would like to see more open space along the corridor. They thought 
it needed to be made more family fiiendly by adding piazas, pocket parks, event venues, etc. 
This would also improve safety and pedestrian connectivity. 
Mr. Nicholas said the planners also worked to preserve existing neighborhoods. Adjacent to the 
State Street corridor, there were well-established single-family residential neighborhoods, so 
they worked to identify key growth nodes where growth could occur within a boundary and not 
impact or infiltrate into the surrounding neighborhoods, but rather provide better goods and 
services to attract people from those neighborhoods to the State Street corridor. He referenced 
the current population density areas, around 1-15 and University Parkway, and the projected 
changes in population density by 2040 which would be more along the State Street corridor. He 
said the goal to preserve a family-fiiendly environment was woven all through the proposed 
plan. 
Mr. Nicholas said a big strategy of the plan was to encourage economic development. The 
economic growth would need to support itself, so the City could help guide that growth. He said 
the plan supported the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan to provide long-term 
success, and to increase property values and tax revenues. 
I 
Mayor Brunst pointed out that the plan encouraged mixed-use facilities with retail on the bottom 
I
and residential on the top as residential development increased along State Street. He also 
reiterated that it would be along State Street and not in the neighborhoods. 
Mr. Nicholas said if that could occur, it would be market driven. There might be horizontal 
mixed-use conditions. He said that when they looked at more compact, walkable, transit-oriented 
development patterns they typically saw structured parking wrapped with ground floor retail. Mr. 
Nicholas then summarized the six key sections of the report. He shared some simulations which 
showed how State Street would look with added landscaping and medians, different curb cuts, 
etc., including potentially allowing for transit to run down the corridor. He said that the existing 
land use within the five growth areas consisted of about 11 percent residential, 9 percent office, 
and 74 percent retail/commercial, with about 6 percent industrial. He said the proposed changes 
twenty-five years out, predicted a change to about 64 percent residential; 22 percent office space; 
and only 14 percent retail/commercial. He said those ratios of land use were similar to other 
transit-oriented work around the country, which allowed for less need for vehicles as people 
would live, work, and shop in the same area and could utilize public transportation. He said the 
land between the nodes would be left as-is. He also showed a predicted increase of about 190 
percent in property tax value with the projected changes and a taxable sales increase of about 40 
percent. 
Mayor Bruns! asked if property tax revenue would go up more than sales tax revenue because 
office space was up. Mr. Nicholas said that was correct. He said the sales tax revenue would still 
increase about 48 percent even though the amount of space was reduced. He said it would be the 
type of space that would generate more dollars per square foot. 
City Council Minutes -November 17, 2015 (p.24) 
I 



I 
I 
Mr. Nicholas said that 2040 the corridor could accommodate up to 75 percent of the projected 
residential growth, or about 9,400 residential units and about 18,000 residents within the growth 
nodes. He said there would be about 4,000-5,000 new jobs in the additional office space. 
Mr. Nichols said the land-use section of the plan outlined a five, ten, and twenty-five year vision 
within each node. He used the Center Street area as an example, where over the five, ten, and 
twenty-five years it was predicted to be a little heavier on the office space than retail or 
residential. 
Mr. Nichols .said the urban design section of the plan dealt with the look and feel, or the image 
and identity of the area was addressed. He said this was where good principles abounded and 
good planning practices could be implemented. He said it was about creating a sense of place 
through recommending appropriate places and uses for parking because parking could take over 
a situation and needed to be n:ianaged appropriately. It was also about developing open space, 
and looking at signage and visual clutter. He said it dealt with improved walkability, livability, 
and function through streetscape enhancements. The urban design components were critical to 
the overall sense of place, identity, and image. 
Mr. Nichols said the last section of the plan was about implementation. He said the general 
policy updates were actually marching orders for the staff, the Planning Commission and the 
Council to use in developing action strategies. The first of these was to adopt the plan and update 
the General Plan. He said there would be updates, amendments, and further studies through the 
entire corridor. That section included specific action plans for each growth area. 
Mr. Nichols said there were four appendices in the plan, the first being about the multiway 
boulevard strategy which had been studied throughout the first part of the process. He said the 
second was the L YRB economic report. The third was a brand audit and image report prepared 
.by Blakesly Advertising. The fourth was a report on the safety impact of adding medians to the 
corridor, prepared by UDOT. He expressed his appreciation for all who had worked on the plan 
over the fourteen months. 
Mayor Brunst thanked them for a job well done. He noted that, since State Street was not a City 
road, UDOT helped fund the study, as did Provo, UTA, and MAG, along with Orem City. 
Mr. Seastrand said he had spoken with a lot of residents about the issue and there were concerns 
about the mass transit option down Sate Street. He understood that State Street was designated as 
the preferred route for a mass transit option ifit were ever needed, and he asked why that was the 
best location. 
Mr. Nicholas said MAG had recently prepared an updated regional transportation plan, and had 
identified a corridor for light rail along the Geneva Road corridor. He said the options had been 
discussed throughout the process and that .the consensus was that a State Street location would 
provide better opportunity down the road for attracting business and growth. He said that, 
allowing that to be on.the radar, told MAG that this was the City's vision, and MAG was there to 
support the cities. He said the goal of the idea was to build in flexibility for that to happen in the 
future. 
City Council Minutes- November 17, 2015 (p.25) 



Mr. Seastrand asked if the theory was that if development went as projected, it would be an 1· 
option to alleviate traffic congestion. 
Mr. Nicholas said that once density got to a point where ridership would be valuable, it would be 
an option under the vision of the plan. 
Mr. Seastrand said there was a perception that State Street would be reduced to two lanes with 
mass transit, thought the drawings indicated it would stay three lanes each way. He asked for 
clarification. 
Mr. Nicholas said they never looked to reduce capacity, only to maintain or increase capacity. He 
said the reported maintained all three lanes in each direction. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if the planners anticipated that traffic would increase beyond what it 
currently was if the plan were established. 
Mr. Nicholas said that the boulevard concept with its raised medians and consolidated curb cuts 
would decrease friction and improve the capacity and flow. He said they also recommended 
signals at 200 South and 600 South and a new street system between State Street and Orem 
Boulevard, which would help the flow and east/west connectivity. 
Mr. Bench clarified that UDOT, while participating on the committee, had said that they could 
1 · 
not reduce the number of lanes on State Street, and so they never looked at that. 
Mr. Sumner said he appreciated the effort going into the plan. He said he had spoken with 
neighbors, a businessman and a developer, and he felt there were a lot of questions still out there, 
and a Jot of fear of the unknown. He said it was important to communicate moving forward. He 
expressed concern about the demolition of some businesses, and about the City purchasing 
rundown areas and selling to developers. He asked if that meant condemnation. He .also 
referenced a part that said a city could not make plans to improve the community without coming 
into conflict with individual property rights. He said that frightened him. He thought that also 
frightened a lot of people about what might come. 
Mr. Nicholas said it was never intended to be a property capture plan, but was an effort to create 
a vision for what the city wanted the corridor to be like in the future. He explained that the plan 
said the City could assist strategically down the road in property acquisitions and helping private 
development progress in the corridor. He said it was a plan for the City to improve the safety, 
identity, and image, and improve economic enviromilent so that private investment and the 
market could drive the show. 
Mr. Sumner said he agreed with what was being said, but the vision said differently. 
Mr. Davidson said that over the years the City had· worked with property owners in the 
assemblies of properties. From time to time it was necessary for the City to acquire property in 
order to facilitate a road or construction of a park or other types of amenities. He said there were 
hundreds, if not thousands, of property owners along the State Street corridor, so part ofthe role 
that the City potentially envisioned was trying to facilitate the acquisition or the assemblage of 
CityCounci!Minutes-November 17. 2015 (p.26) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
parcels along the corridor so that development could take place. He said the City had a particular 
expertise in that area because they had done it on many projects. He said the City could work 
with property owners along key corridors for something like a road .expansion. He said the City 
would not necessarily be the developer but could be the facilitator of that kind of thing. None of 
it had ever been done under threat of condemnation, but with willing property owners who 
negotiated and worked with the City and developers. He said the City would be the facilitator 
rather than the catalyst. 
Mr. Sumner asked if light rail would eliminate street parking on State Street. 
Mr. Nicholas said that was. the recommendation in the report. 
Mr. Sumner asked what the next process would be for each node, if the plan were approved. Mr. 
Bench said ·they would look at the City Center node first and it would take several months to get 
that going. He said they would in no way force anyone out of business or to leave; everything 
would be market and developer driven. He said the City would facilitate it through the zoning 
process, but they anticipated a lot of citizen and business owner participation. The City could 
facilitate, and would anticipate more citizen participation and from property owners. He said 
they would not bring anything to the Council without the participation of the citizens 
Mr. Sumner said that it was important to include the people within the node in the discussions, 
and that there be a good channel of communication. Mr. Bench said that in a recent meeting they 
sent out about 3,000 notices to businesses and property owners, got about 100 responses, and had 
about 50-60 people at the meeting. He said they would continue to do that kind of outreach. He 
said a lot of the planning was driven by the comments of property owners and citizens. 
Mr. Andersen said one of his concerns was with brand messaging and communications plans. He 
said some people he had spoken to were concerned that the plan said revitalization of the five 
nodes would not happen organically. He then read from the plan the following: 
The curious mix we have here in Orem of laissez-faire capitalism, pioneer frugality, and 
conservative limited government operations have created the State Street that we have 
today. 
He said that when he ran for office in 201 I he did a lot of polling, asking what was the ugliest 
thing on State Street, and everybody mentioned Midtown Village. When he told them that Orem 
City Council put up $7 million in bonding to help that happen, they blamed "this bunch" 
(indicating the Council). He said someone told him it would not have happened without the seed 
money to pay for the parking, that it only ended up at $4 million and it got paid off last year. 
Mr. Andersen continued quoting from the plan: 
Clearly, in order to create a better solution for our families and the families that will call 
Orem home in the future, we'll need a different approach. 
He wanted to know what the Council was promoting instead, if State Street was a creation of 
capitalism, pioneer frugality, and a limited government. 
Mr. Nicholas said the primary goal was to create a vision, and that had not been done before. He 
said it was a different approach to planning, to create vision that would guide growth rather than 
all owing happenstance to occur over time. 
City Council Minutes- November 17, 2015 (p.27) 



Mr. Andersen asked how that would happen, if it did not happen by private enterprise, with I
limited government. He asked what would be different and where the money would come from 
to pay for it. He also asked what percentage of businesses would be gone because of the plan. 
Mr. Nicholas said he could not answer the last question, but the intent of the plan was to attract 
private development and have it be market driven and paid for by private enterprise. 
Mr. Andersen asked if that was not subsidies, identical to University Mall-$58 million, 
70 percent of it being paid for by the Alpine School District. He said that, according to the 
February 24th plan, that was to be driven by economic development with subsidies (referring to 
the use ofRDAs). 
Mr. Bench said CDAs were tools available for use any city in the state. He said that did not mean 
the City would use the tool, but it was available for use by the Council in the future. He said it 
was quite common. 
Mr. Andersen said the plan stated that 35 percent of existing businesses would be gone. Mr. 
Nicholas said that was a reduction of total square footage of retail space within the five areas. He 
said that, with the development of a more compact, walkable development pattern, the types of 
retailers changed. There would no longer be big-box or mid-box retailers within those growth 
areas, but smaller, more boutique, higher-end businesses that would gross a higher volume per 
square foot. He said it would be an improvement in the quality of retail and an increase in sales 
tax. 
Mr. Andersen said he thought that would eliminate businesses. 
Mr. Bench said that would be the° decision of the business owners. He said the plan did not 
eliminate anything and did not force anyone out of business or out of Orem. He said the plan 
would concentrate the opportunities for business owners within the nodes and would give them 
the opportunity to perhaps relocate or work within the node. It would still be up to the individual 
business owners to make the plan work. He said it was a long-term vision that would require the 
businesses to help make it work. 
Mr. Andersen asked if it was IBI that came up with the list of businesses that would be limited in 
growth. Mr. Bench said that list had come from City staff. Mr. Andersen asked if zoning would 
be a part of nudging businesses out. Mr. Bench said he did not anticipate that, but it could be a 
part of the neighborhood meetings and could be a discussion that could come up in the future. 
Mr. Andersen said at the node around University Parkway and State Street, one quarter of the 
node was the mall, which was done with an RDA, $58 million worth. He said ifRDAs were the 
most common method of accomplishing that, he saw more $58 million dotting the area, running 
the little guys out and helping the rich get richer. He said the University Mall developers laid out 
what they would do if the City gave them a bunch of taxpayer money. He said those big 
buildings that had a 68 percent discount on their property taxes for twenty years would still want 
fire and police protection, and they were not paying their fair share for those services. He said he 
saw a repeat of that in the five nodes. He said he was concerned that the taxes for the little people 
would grow while the rich got richer. 
City Council Minutes-November 17,2015 (p.28) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Andersen then commented on the BRT and the railroads coming down. He said the County 
had just had a vote on the BRT and 57 percent had said no. 
Mr. Bench said that vote was not _for the BRT-that the BRT was already funded on the 
Parkway. 
Mr. Andersen said that was where the money was headed, whether it was called BRT, UTA, or 
FrontRunner. He said they were all the same umbrella. Mr, Andersen said the 57 percent of the 
citizens of the County voted against giving them any more money. He asked how the City could 
change people's attitudes and make them want to ride the BRT when they did not even want to 
fund it. 
Mr. Bench said the .proposed plan was a long-term, minimum 25-year plan. BRT was something 
that could be considered in the future, according to the plan. He said that if it did not make sense 
to put BRT in, they would not do so. He said that if, in the future, the City chose to put in light 
rail, the preferred place to put it would be down State Street, since it bisects the city. He said this 
plan did not dictate where it should go. 
Mr. Andersen said anyone should be concerned when an organization came into Orem and said 
problems had been created by pioneer frugality, capitalism, and conservative limited government 
expectations, that it was what created Orem's problems and they were going to fix it with 
redistribution of wealth, helping the rich get richer, and running smaller businesses out. 
Mr. Bench said they were not redistributing wealth, but it was a.long-term plan of how the City 
could develop State Street. 
Mrs. Black said the bottom line was there had not been a plan on State. That was why it grew the 
way it did, and now they wanted to develop .a plan. She did 'not see any hidden conspiracy in that 
plan. 
Mr. Andersen said that, to him, there were a lot of beautiful pictures, but until he raised the 
question they had not discussed how it would be paid for or how it would affect property rights. 
It was like running for class president, and offering incentives like ice cream. He thought that 
would downgrade current businesses and put people out of their property rights. 
Mr. Seastrand said when Brigham Young came to Salt Lake, he had a vision for the entire valley 
that was reflected in the great city planning there today. Mr .. Seastrand said the proposed plan 
was looking to the future, knowing there would be issues of traffic, housing, and preservation of 
neighborhoods. If they went with no plan State Street would continue to be what it currently was, 
which most people did not like. The plan allowed people to see where things were going and 
what was behind the changes. He said the business owners he had spoken with could see 
positives coming with greater accessibility and exposure, and' better traffic. He said they felt the 
plan gave them more options than in the past. He felt they saw a vision they could connect to, 
instead of more of the same. He said the real question was what the vision should look like, and 
that was where the discussion came in and why they brought in outside opinions from other areas 
which had already managed growth. He said the .vision. changed it from a congested area to a 
place thatwas lovely to look at, had businesses thriving, and was a great place to call home. He 
said this plan was not to go backwards, not to take away rights, and not to take from the poor to 
give to the rich. He said this was about making Orem a better place. 
, 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.29) 



Mayor Brunst said that, in a recent survey, 70 percent of residents requested that something be 
done about State Street. He said the planners had received public input through email notices, 
open houses, discussions, citizen commission presentations, back to school nights, utility notices, 
etc., over fourteen months. He said this was a huge effort from the citizenry, the businesses, 
major government transportation agencies, and a qualified group of advisors. He said it would 
not force anybody to go anywhere, but it was a vision for the future and it was the Council's 
responsibility to move forward with it. He said Sate Street needed attention. 
Mayor Bruns! opened the public hearing. 
Jim Fawcett, resident, said he was against the proposed plan totally. He said the General Plan 
was already in place, and it had been in place since he had moved here. He said this would be a 
UTOPIA the City would regret later. He said he liked having multiple outlets from shopping 
areas, but this talked about having public parking garages. He wanted to know who would pay 
for that in the nodes. He said this was an Envision Utah idea, enforced on Orem using transit­
oriented developments. He said it was not Orem's idea. He went to an Economic Development 
Strategic Plan meeting and when they were asked where they wanted a "downtown" the people 
said right there, meaning the City Center. He said they were told that University Place was where 
they wanted it. He said they drew a long circle making downtown all the way down there. He 
said that this plan would tell private property owners that they had to put their buildings right up 
against the street. Form-based code would make businesses nonconforming and they would not 
be able to get loans. 
Monta Rae Jeppson, resident, said she had served on a committee with the Mountainland 
Association and on the UTA Board of Directors. She said she was told then that Orem and Provo 
were just farm communities, and Orem'.s main street was just one long road from one end to the 
other. She was offended by that comp1ent, and she showed the assistant manager of UT A the 
more affluent areas, and told him Orem was not a "Podunk" farming community. Since then, she 
said, State Street had been an embarrassment to her, knowing what others in the area thought of 
it. She said that, even before the Olympics, she had asked MAG why this valley could not be 
upgraded like Salt Lake and Ogden. She said that the design committee had taken on the task of 
making it look like a real downtown. She said she was on a citizen's committee and had seen it, 
and it would be beautiful. She was excited to see it come about, and not let Orem die. Regarding 
comments that things had always been one way, she said people were just used to seeing it one 
way. She said they did not notice what other people moving in or visiting have said. She thanked 
the City for moving in the direction to make the Orem beautiful. She also commented that she 
agreed with the wages increase for the city council and the mayor. 
Sara Bateman, resident, said she moved to Orem fourteen years ago. She came out to meetings 
and open houses, and tried to engage in the community. She said she was excited about the State 
Street Master Plan and its vision. As for transportation, she said that a few years ago she had 
lived· in Singapore and used public transit everywhere, and appreciated the efficiency of it. Last 
month she. went to SLC for five days, taking FrontRunner and Trax, and the parking lots both 
were full, indicating there was a market for those services. She commented that having a 
planning document for the nodes would help reduce future friction with buildings like Jive. She 
said she disagreed with the location of that building, but having a master plan would have allow 
places to put those buildings where they were a more natural fit. 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.30) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Brian Kelly, resident, said he had talked to a State senator about the Jive building, and she had 
made a point that if the citizens were not involved with the master plan, that was a grave concern 
to her. He said that, concerning the Jive building, people felt steamrolled and not listened to. He 
thought that Jive-type buildings were going to go in all over the city. He commented that he had 
seen some young millennials at a sushi J;>ar who were upset that they could not share the cost of 
one plate. He believed that some millemiials would buy homes, but all of the apartments going in 
would bring this type of immigrant: rnillenrifals who did not want to spend money. He said there 
was trouble coming down the road and Orem peeded to be prepared. He said there were a lot of 
millennials and Generation ,Xers who wanted to raise their families in Orem, but would not
because of all the apartments. 
Melodee Andersen, resident, said she wanted to talk about pages 84 and 85 of the plan. After 
quoting from those pages she asked what was wrong with laissez-faire capitalism, pioneer 
frugality and conservative limited government that the plan called a "curious mix" which had 
created State Street the way it was now. She said those things had been major factors to making 
the country great. The statement was a direct attack on Momion culture and pioneer heritage. 
She said those teachings had made Orem "Family City USA." She felt the State Street plan said 
that frugality was bad,; capitalism was bad; and conservative, limited government was bad. She 
said "our pioneers" and "our prophets" taught people to avoid debt. The plan would put 
excessive debt on families and destroy them. She said' that money issues were the number one 
cause of divorce in .the nation. The cost of the plan was not known. She felt that Orem citizens 
were being manipulated into thinking that being old fashioned was stupid and out of date. She 
said that, even without pages 84 and 85, the plan was declaring war on Mormon culture by 
putting Orem deeper in debt and by trying to turn Orem into an advanced urban environment. 
She was not against development, but was against subsidies and government intervention in 
private affairs; socialized transit; .and socialized internet; etc. She said the Council was doing 
what Washington did when it passed Obamacare and then read it later. She said there was no 
guarantee that this plan would not tum around and bite the City like Midtown and UTOPIA did, 
if the economy took a downturn. She said that was the excuse when Midtown failed. She said the 
huge subsidy to mall was one example of this plan, while a third of the business space would be 
eliminated. She asked that the Council take a second look at the plan and the burden it would put 
on Orem residents; stand up for freedom, pioneer frugality, and conservative limited 
government; and vote down the plan. 
Merlin Weekes, resident, said he wanted to recognize the importance of planning. He had 
travelled in other parts of the world and saw that in Japan they had' an excellent transit system. 
What he liked about it was that it was owned by individual companies. He noted a national 
movement called Agenda 21, which had a goal of helping the environment by stopping 
automobile traffic. He said it promoted high rises and a lot of traffic by rail, cycling, walking, 
etc. He was troubled that there was not a plan to keep people well employed. He noted that in 
Los Angeles they found that people wanted to drive their cars and there was a negative impact on 
people where traffic was limited, particularly hitting low income employees. He said that longer 
transit times reduced people's ability to earn. He said automobiles needed to keep moving at a 
effective rate. He felt that putting rails down the middle of the street and removing parking and 
would heavily impact businesses. He wanted more information from a. better cross section of the 
citizens before moving forward. 
City Council Minutes- November 17, 20!5 (p.31) 



Addison Jenkins, resident of Provo, said he was a prospective college graduate and former Orem 
employee. He was about to graduate and needed to find somewhere to live, and the way ·Orem I
was now he wo
f
uld never con
1
sider liʄg here
d
be
th
cau
1
se of mobility issues;
4
the
d
kind of
f 
h
th
ousin
1 
g; 
and the kind o jobs availab e. He re1erence 
e anguage on pages 8 an 85 o . ·. e p an. 
regarding capitalism, pioneer frugality, laissez-faire, and said that people were confused about 
the laissez-faire part. He said that, the way Orem was now with separated land uses, factories or 
certain types of businesses could not be built right nextto homes, but when.people were allowed 
to put whatever kind of business they wanted on their private property there could be problems. 
He said the problem was not capitalism or pioneer frugality; it was when somebody wanted to 
put an auto shop next to a daycare. He quoted that "Where there· is no vision, the people perish" 
and said that this was just a plan. He said this plan would allow capitalism to do what it did best, 
which was to harness the values of pioneer frugality arid capitalism while using principles of 
planning and design that allowed everybody to make the most of the land they owned. He 
reiterated that the plan proposal was a plan, a vision for people to refer to. He said that the 
amount already living here would double, and if we did not have plans in place, we would get 
what State looked like now. 
Judith Skousen, resident, said she had been to a lot of the cities in the world and their mass 
transit was great, but Orem was not huge, like those cities and did not want to become huge. She 
wanted to know the reasoning behind the huge buildings in the city. She especially wanted to 
address the idea that the plan wanted to reduce the use of private vehicles by slowing traffic and 
eliminating convenient parking places. She said that automobiles were superior to the 
alternatives because they had more flexible cargo and carrying capacities; allowed direct point-
·1.
to-point service; allowed self-scheduling; saved time; had far better multi-stop trip capabilities; 
were safer; and had a more comfortable and controllable environment. She said that limiting 
automobile use would punish working mothers the most. Superiority of autos also expanded 
worker access to jobs; improved purchasing options; lowered consumer prices; and widened 
social options. She noted a study that said a 10 percent reduction in travel time increased worker 
productivity 3 percent and increasing from 3 mph walking to 30 mph in cars created a 
900 percent increase. She cited a Harvard study that said, for people who did not have a high 
school diploma, owning a car increased their monthly earnings by $1,100. She said cars were the 
only way to amass enough customers to sustain large stores. 
Brayden Santo, resident, said he saw a documentary about city design as it related to public 
health. The documentary said that the ways cities had been designed had been making people 
sic k. He said cities were designed for cars, not for people, with physical activity removed from 
people's lives. He said Orem's flawed city design had restricted opportunities for people to make 
healthy choices, which contributed to public health epidemics. He said that 100 years ago the 
spread of communicable diseases was addressed with effective city design, with running water 
and sewage. He noted that problems today included heart disease, diabetes and obesity. He 
believed the S'tate Street Master Plan would help design Orem creatively for people and would 
be a public health solution for all. 
Brittany Harris, resident, said she spent twenty years of her life in Orem. She loved growing up 
here, and shl) was blessed to go out and see the· world and she could see the benefits of a plan like 
this, which provided mobility for a younger group, especially those without cars. She said some 
could not afford cars, but still needed jobs, and this plan provided more transit and housing 
opportunities. She loved that it addressed a specified area. The plan would keep close-knit 
City Council Minutes -November 17, 2015 (p32) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
neighborhoods, as well as create places to go and be social and see a lot of people. She • said 
citizens could interact with more people and get different perspectives. She felt it would add to 
what Orem already had. 
John Reinhard, resident, said he lived relatively close to State Street. He felt the City needed a 
plan. He said he still had concerns, but having a plan was better than no plan. In relation to 
neighborhood preservation, he was concerned that there was no declaration for preserving areas 
outside or'the nodes. At the Planning Commission meeting, a staff member had mentioned the 
intent for areas now zoned C2 to stay that way in hopes of supporting big box commercial 
development, but he could not find that in the plan. He wanted an appendix speaking. to the non" 
node areas. He was concerned that a developer would come in, find cheaper land outside of the 
nodes, and ask the city to allow them to move outside of the node areas. He wanted to see a 
commitment to the node idea to keep developers in line. 
Sam Lentz, resident, said there had been a candidate at the "Meet the Candidates" event joking 
that the way to fix the growth problem was to stop having kids. He commented that he and his 
wife had already broken that rule, and the growth in Orem was not artificial growth but was 
natural from children and grandchildren. He said that this plan did not decide that Orem would 
grow, but provided a framework to manage that growth. He said the plan was not a mandate for a 
35 percent reduction in retail square footage, but rather it was a forecast since the retail space 
was declining due to online commerce and mail delivery. He said that the plan allowed Orem to 
grow into a modem economy that protected Family City USA. He noted that the plan did not 
belong to the mayor, the city council, city staff, or consultants; it was the residents' plan, and 
thousands of residents had participated in the process. He said he had been a part of the open 
houses and email surveys. He said a vote for this plan would be an acceptance of the will of the 
people. 
Leslie Nelson, resident and member of the Traffic Advisory Commission, said she had not seen 
at the meetings any of the people who were speaking against the plan. She was in favor of the 
plan. She said she was a sixth generation descendant of Utah pioneers, and had. gone to Santa 
Barbara recently. She said the population there was almost exactly the same as Orem, but they 
had implemented city planning. A major fire in Santa Barbara in 1926 had provided the 
opportunity to improve the city, and it was now beautiful and attracted people and money from 
outside of the city. She referred to UTOPIA and noted that she was on her third provider of 
crappy internet at her house since she did not live close to the infrastructure and because of the 
lies told to keep UTOPIA from growing. She said she would hate to see similar obfuscation slow 
down improvements to Orem. She believed the Council understood the value of long-term 
planning, and hoped the residents would as well. She felt the plan would provide a greater 
standard of living. She appreciated the work done by all the parties, and the vision that allowed 
opportunities for pioneer descendants as well as new people to the area. 
Sharon Anderson, resident, said she agreed that planning was important but she had some 
concerns about the plan. She said she had spoken to people around the city, and said this was not 
their plan. She accepted that 79 percent said they wanted improvement in Orem, but that was like 
asking someone if they would rather go on a vacation to Mexico, Italy or Tahiti. In the question, 
the information was not given about the cost of the vacation. She felt like these kinds of pie-in­
the-sky questions were what this plan was doing. She said cost was not discussed, like making a 
list for Santa Claus. She believed there was a great deal of illusion about the public involvement, 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.33) 



She said soqie of the community members were Planning Commission members; her 
Neighborhoods in Action chair did not know she was on the committee; business participants I
included Woodbury, Taco Bell, and seven others who did not own property on State Street. She 
said that more than half of the steering committee was city staff and employees. She felt the plan 
was not responding to the citizens. She said that IBI was a global firm found on five continents, 
and was not sensitive to the particular needs of Orem. She said they promoted public/private • 
partnerships that gave privileges to certain businesses. 
Mickey Cochran, resident, said he had lived in the same house for thirty-one years. He said .he 
loved this place. He said he had been involved for fourteen months in a neighborhood planning 
advisory commission. He said he had not seen anybody in that room at those meetings, and they 
lived in his neighborhood. He said this plan was part of the Master Plan, and was only one 
portion of it. He said people ought to get online and read it. He said he had been intimately 
involved in looking at it for fourteen months. He said he had gone out of his way to look at ways 
to improve the city. He said there were going to be ten separate neighborhood plans, and there 
was a vison for that. The proposed plan was visionary, and most of people in the room would be 
dead before it was finished. He asked what kind of legacy they would leave their children, 
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He said he was willing to talk to anyone there about 
what the scriptures say about the vision of the Earth. He said they were there because they 
• • wanted to keep their families and their conununities growing and vibrant. He said nobody was
talking about getting rid of capitalism or laissez-faire or limited government, but about
preserving what made the community great. He said that was what the plan would do. He said
there would be private capital. He said the people there should get involved and not just come to
I
a meeting when the plan was completed just to complain. He said they should be part of the
solution. He said the Council should vote for it. He said he knew some of the people who worked
for IBI and they were some of the greatest engineers in Utah, and this was their community, too.
He urged the council to vote for the plan.
Mayor Bruns! closed public hearing.
Mayor Bruns! said he was •in favor of the plan and thought it was an excellent vision to help the
City move forward. He said he would like to eliminate the first paragraph on page 84.
Mr. Seastrand said he appreciated the conunents and recognized the different perspectives. He
expressed appreciation for all who participated in finding a vision for the future of Orem.
Regarding Mr. Fawcett' s question about parking, he suggested that people look at Center Street
and University Avenue in Provo. He said that was a good idea of what the nodes could be like,
with office buildings, restaurants, shops, beautiful landscaping, walkability, and connectivity
with the community and the world. He said the parking structures in the back of the buildings
maximized the utilization of that prime land. He said no businesses were driven out, but they
were converted into a thriving part of the Provo community. He said it drew people to that part
of the city. He envisioned the City Center area being even better than that in terms of beauty,
aesthetics, and functionality. He said the businesses would build the parking because that would
make them successful.
In response to Ms. Skousen's concerns, Mr. Seastrand said.he was not against cars, but realized
that more cars were corning. He said the plan was to make things more effective for that
increased number of cars. He said the worst thing a city could have was congestion, which would
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.34) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
cause cars to leave the main corridors and drive quickly through the neighborhoods. He said the 
idea was to make the corridors more successful and able to handle the growth. He added that 
mass transit a solution for those who did not have cars. He asked why FrontRunner was so 
effective, if cars were the only solution. He said he often rode the train and saw people stopped 
on the freeway. He felt mass transit offered a better experience. 
Mr. Seastrand responded to Mr. Reinhard's concerns regarding the surrounding neighborhoods, 
saying that part of what the plan would do was focus on an area with challenges that would 
experience growth, and by keeping the growth in that area, it would preserve the neighborhoods. 
He said the plan identified where the growth would take place in order to preserve the safe, 
beautiful neighborhoods. He said the individual neighborhood plans would look to improve the 
safety, transportation, and appearance of the neighborhoods, allowing those who lived in the 
neighborhood could create their own vision and solution. People can look at their own area and 
come up with their own solutions. 
Mr. Seastrand concluded that he liked many elements of the plan. He did not think it was perfect, 
, but he knew future councils could modify and amend it based on what was actually happening. 
He said the plan helped give the City a shot at a positive solution. 
Mrs. Black said that, the last time she ran for the council, one of her goals was to do strategic 
planning for the City with citizen input, and nothing would make her happier than to pass this 
master plan. She noted that State Street was five miles of road that needed to be taken care of and 
she believed the node idea would work. She said she might not be here in twenty-five years, but 
she would be smiling down from heaven. She was excited about the downtown area, the civic 
center area, etc. She was happy that the neighborhood plans would continue to happen, and that 
would extend to the whole city to make plans for their neighborhoods. She said that Orem had a 
bright, wonderful, vibrant future with this plan. 
Mr. Andersen alluded to his flyer and its picture of the budget and said that, even if people didn't 
like it, it was straight from the City's website. He did not want to eliminate the comment on page 
84 because it identified what the State Street Master Plan thought was the problem in Orem City. 
He said it was what had made Orem great; it was not a problem. He wanted the paragraph left in 
because it identified what people like him wanted to preserve, and what the City saw as wrong. 
He said people would not know what the City was attempting to eliminate unless it was left in. 
Mr. Andersen said nobody had mentioned that money would just be taken from one group to 
given to another group. He said that was how it was funded and that was how it was proposed 
and nobody wanted to talk about it. He said it would be paid for with subsidies. He said the mall 
was one quarter of one node, and that it was a $58 million subsidy. He said three-quarters of 
what was being built would not be built without a subsidy. He said subsidies created more of 
what should not be there. He said it was not private enterprise, it was subsidies, transferring 
wealth from one to another. As for parking, buses, and Frontrunner, he said 85 percent of the 
tickets on those systems were subsidized. He said that 85 percent of $17 dollars, left $2.50 that 
people paid for. He said that was not good. 
MayorBrunst said he was here forty-five years ago, and he remembered what Orem looked like 
before the mall, before UVU, and before the WordPerfect buildings, with drive-in theaters and 
such. He said that, back then, the City had a vision for five areas that could be something really 
special, and he had seen those things come to fruition: Macey' s, WordPerfect, US Synthetic area, 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.35) 



University Mall, and the auto complex. He said it was interesting that by having good retail sales I
and those areas for jobs, property taxes had stayed low. He said people enjoyed a quality of life 
in Orem that few people had, including parks, arts, and recreation. He said it had been done 
before, and it was important to envision the future and work toward that. 
Mr. Sumner said he realized it was only a plan and a vision, but he wanted to go on record that 
the Development Services office said they would involve property owners and businesses in this 
process. 
Mayor Brunst moved to adopt the State Street Corridor Master Plan and to amend the City of 
Orem General Plan to include the State Street Corridor Master Plan as Appendix A, and to 
eliminate the first paragraph of page 84. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. 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. 
COMMUNICATION ITEMS 
MONTHLY FINANCIAL SUMMARY -October 2015 
The Monthly Financial Summary was included in the packets distributed to the City Council. 
CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS 
There were no City Manager information items. 
Mr. Davidson noted that the Council had been given information regarding insurance open 
enrollment in their packets. 
ADJOURNMENT TO A CLOSED-DOOR MEETING- Pursuant to Section 52-4-205(l)(c), 
Pending Litigation 
Mr. Macdonald moved to adjourn to a closed-door meeting to discuss pending litigation pursuant 
to Utah Code Section 52-4-205(1)(c). Mrs. Black 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 unanimously. The meeting was held in room #I 07. 
The meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. 
CLOSED-DOOR SESSION 
A closed-door session was held at 9:29 p.m. to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Utah Code 
Section 52-4-205(1)(c). Those in attendance were: Mayor Richard F. Brunst; Council members 
Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent 
Sumner; staff members Jamie Davidson, Brenn Bybee, Greg Stephens, and Jackie Lambert. 
The meeting adjourned at 9:51 p.m. 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.36) 
I 
I 



I 
12 
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder 
Approved: January 12, 2016 
I 
I 
City Council Minutes-November 17, 2015 (p.37)