City Council · 2015-12-08

I 
I 
I 
CITY OF OREM 
CITY COUNCIL MEETING 
56 North State Street Orem, Utah 
December 8, 2015 
3:00 P.M. WORK SESSION - PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
Mayor Richard F. Brunst 
Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom 
Macdonald, M11rk 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 Larson, 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 
DISCUSSION - Draft Storm Water Utility Master Plan 
Mr. Tschirki introduced Keith Larson with Bowen Collins & Associates who had worked with 
staff on the update of the draft Storm Water Utility Master Plan. He reminded the Council that 
the following presentation was a review of previous ·presentations, and said they planned to bring 
the formal adoption before the Council during a January City Council meeting. He then turned 
the time to Mr. Price for the presentation. 
Orem City Storm Water Master Plan 
• Storm Water Intro
0 
1987 
•
Congress mandates EPA to control certain storm water discharges
o
1990
•
Utah issues first permits to large municipalities
0 1996
■
Orem Storm Sewer Utility created in march
•
Numerous findings
•
Improve water quality
•
Protect health and safety of public
•
Enhance water availability
•
Reduce flooding potential
o
One of numerous unseen utilities
City Council Minutes- December 8, 2015 (p.l) 



•
Infrastructure used to convey stonn water runoff
•
87.1 miles of pipe
o
Range from 6" to 54" diameter
•
1,759 sumps
•
36 Detention basins
•
Manyprivately managed structures
•
Storm Water Pipes and Detention Basins (map)
•
Storm Water Sumps (map)
•
Purpose of Master Plan
o
Contracted with Bowen/Collins & Associates, Inc.
•
Provide recommended improvements to resolve existing and projected
future deficiencies in the City's storm water system based on the adopted
General Plan.
•
Conduct a Rate Study to recommend stonn drain rates for the City
•
A working document
•
Scope of Project
o
Conduct a thorough analysis of City's stonn water utility system and its ability to
meet the present and future stonn water system needs.
•
Review
•
Existing InfoSWMM model
•
Known deficiencies with city staff
•
Collect
•
Supplemental data to update model
•
Modify
•
Existing InfoSWMM model for future conditions
•
Develop
•
Hydrologic model based on a IO-year stonn
•
Solutions to existing and future deficiencies and prioritize with
staff
•
Solutions to protect wellhead protection zones and prioritize with
staff
•
Utility rate options for the city.
•
Outreach
•
Public Works Advisory Commission
•
Public open houses to communicate needs to the public
•
Mailers to city residents
•
Website with planning infonnation
•
Wellhead Protection Areas (map)
•
Model Results (North) (map}
•
Model Results (South) (map)
•
Proposed Projects (North) (map)
•
Ten-Year CIP Plan
•
Proposed Project Costs (* indicates present value)
o
Major Conveyance Facilities (Pipelines)
•
144 projects (New, Parallel, Reroute, Upsize)
•
$54.6 million*
City Council Minutes - December 8, 2015 (p.2) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
o
Open Channel Improvements (Irrigation Ditches)
■ 
I project, Modify
■ 
$41,000*
o
Detention Basin Improvements
■
24 projects (New, Modify)
■ 
$6.5 million*
o
Culvert Improvements
■ 
3 projects
■ 
$216,000*
•
Storm Water Utility Funding
o
Storm Water Fee
■ 
Based on amount of impervious surface.
■ 
Equivalent Service Unit (ESU)
•
Equal to the average impervious surface of a residential property.
o
1 ESU = 2,700 sq. ft.
o
$5.25 per ESU (Current rate)
o
All single-family units are charged 1 ESU per month.
o
Businesses are charged according to their impervious surface area
• ■ 
Example: A business with 27,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface ( e.g., roof,
parking lot, walk ways) would be charged for 10 ESUs, or $52.50/rhonth 
•
OtherCities (chart)
•
Revised Storm Water Rates
o
Scenario 1 - Increase over 5 years
o
Scenario 2 - Increase over 7 years
o
Scenario 3 - Increase over 10 years
•
The Path Forward
o
Final review by the community and City Council
o
Finalize Master Plan and appendices
o
Formal presentation to City Council
•
Adopt Storm Water Master Plan
•
Adopt new storm water rates
Mr. Price said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was mandated by Congress in 1987 
to control certain storm water discharges. In 1990, Utah issued the first permits to large 
municipalities like Salt Lake City and in March of 1996 Orem created the Orem Storm Sewer 
Utility. The Orem Storm Sewer Utility was created to protect Orem' s underground water 
resources from contaminates, improve water quality, protect the health and safety of the public, 
enhance water availability, and reduce flooding potential during storm water conditions. Mr. 
Price said the storm water utility was part of the unseen infrastructure system in Orem that 
people did not readily think of. In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. Reed identified the 
locations of City detention basins and sumps. 
He said the Master Plan was a working document, and the prioritization of projects could 
change. He said Bowen Collins & Associates was asked to review the existing model and to 
address any known deficiencies using a newly developed hydrological model. They would also 
conduct a rate study to provide some options to determine what consumers should be charged for 
the use of the utility. 
City Council Minutes - December 8, 2015 (p.3) 



Mr. Price then reviewed wellhead protection zones, saying that when stonn water ran off the 
road into the sumps there was a potential for pollutants and debris to be collected into the sumps, I
which could then percolate into the low aquifers. They did not want that to happen, and so 
protecting wellhead areas was extremely important. Wells were used to supply drinking water, so 
they did· not want anything to contaminate the wells. They were hoping to pipe the water away 
from wellhead protection areas, instead ofrelying solely on sumps to manage the stonn drainage. 
Mr. Price said the outreach effort was important to the process. They sent out mailers and held a 
series of open houses to communicate with the public and receive public feedback. They had a 
website, utilities.orem.org, with infonnation for the public to review. 
Mr. Davidson asked if the connectivity of new piping would change retention basins, or if they 
would still be used as part of the new system. Mr. Price said they would still be used, and more 
detention basins could potentially be added. 
Mr. Tschirki said they had spoken with the Taylor family who operated Cherry Hill Farm, which 
had a conservation easement and agricultural protection overlay, about the major stonn drain 
system that flowed through their properties. An additional forty-two inch stonn drain line was 
needed in the effort to maintain a pristine ground water source. They needed to eliminate stonn 
water injection in the wellhead protection areas, and that could come at a high price. 
Mr. Price said they would use a mixture of sumps and detention basins in wellhead protection 
areas, and they would do what they could to keep costs low while still protecting underground 
water sources. He said the proposed projects had been prioritized as high, medium, and low 
priority, which were represented on the map as red, orange, and yellow respectively. Mr. Price 
said they had given a lot of thought to how to remove the water from those areas. He said the 
prioritization was in part based on the funding system that was suggested, which was to fund 
everything to a sustained inflation point. He said the project list would change baseȢ on the 
decisions of the City Council in how aggressively they wanted to address the projects. 
When Mayor Bruns! asked about a project near 1200 North, Mr. Price said the 1200 North 
project was slated for 2018, depending on the prioritization plan and funding. Mr. Price said they 
had been working on a thirty year plan, but had only prioritized the first ten years. He anticipated 
that the prioritization process would continue through the years based on needs and costs. He 
reminded the Council that storm water utility fees were based on the amount of impervious 
surface a given resident or business h_ad, accounted for in Equivalent Service Units (ESUs). One 
ESU was equal to 2,700 square feet of impervious surface, which had a fee of $5.25 at the 
current rate. Impervious surfaces included driveways, rooftops, sidewalks, etc. Mr. Price said 
businesses were charged differently than residential, because they typically had a more ESUs. A 
business that kept storm water clean by following specific criteria could receive a credit for those 
efforts. He said Costco, for example, was a business with 264 ESUs that regularly received 
credits for keeping stonn water as free of contaminates as possible. Businesses were encouraged 
to take advantage of the credit opportunities. 
Mr. Price showed a chart comparing the stonn water fees for residential customers with other 
Utah municipalities, with Orem being among the lowest in amount. He shared charts detailing 
the possible five-year, seven-year, and ten-year scenarios. He said the five-year scenario would 
City Council Minutes - December 8, 2015 (p,4) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
see the ESU cost go from $5.25 to $6.65, an increase of$ 1.40. The consultant suggested that 
jump to front end load to meet the proposed prioritization schedule. 
Mr. Macdonald asked for -a comparison on the municipality chart with an increase to $6.65. Mr. 
Price said that would put Orem closer to South Jordan's current rates. 
Mr. Macdonald inquired about the numbers listed at the bottom of the scenario charts, listed as 
"effect on CIP." Mr. Price said those numbers were to capture the amounts that would be lost in 
purchasing power by delaying the increases. In the seven-year scenario, that amount was around 
$699,754, and the ten-year scenario showed a loss of approximately $1.6 million. Mr. Price said 
the path forward would be to finalize and adopt the Storm Water Utility Master Plan and select 
the rate structure. 
Mr. Davidson said the full copy of the report had been emailed to the Council so they would 
have time to review it prior to consideration of adoption in the second meeting in January. Staff 
wanted the Council to be aware of the timeline. He asked them to consider how it would fit with 
the overall philosophical discussion about moving forward with fees. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if the motivating factor to updating this particular master plan was wellhead 
protection. He asked if there were other ways to tackle the issue. Mr. Davidson said there were 
several mandates that required the City to act. It was not just about building pipes but educating 
the public on how storm water would need to be handled. 
Mr. Tschirki said fifteen years ago there was not a storm water utility. The main focus was on 
managing storm water quantity and preventing private property damage, as well as protecting the 
natural groundwater resources. The mandates from the EPA continued to progress and water 
quality issues were a priority. There were over 2,000 public sumps, and they were looking at 
eliminating over half of them in an effort to maintain pristine aquifers. 
Mr. Seastrand asked what the pollutants were and if they were seeing an increase in them. Mr. 
Tschirld said salt, oil spills, heavy metals and other fluids from automobiles, and other debris 
were typical pollutants. He felt the level of pollutants in storm water was increasing, but did not 
have measurable data to back that up. He said there were innovative changes in sumps that could 
help, where pretreatment manholes allowed solids to settle in the system and jetvac equipment 
was used to pump it out. They used those to target areas with high levels of concern. 
Councilwoman Elect Debby Laurel asked about mandates from the EPA and what was 
absolutely required. Mr .. Tschirki said they were attempting the meet the base level requirements. 
Much of the plan correlated with sump elimination and protecting wellhead areas. 
Mr. Davidson said they would stagger into compliance with EPA requirements based on their 
timetable. He said they were seeing increasingly high standards, • particularly for larger 
municipalities. 
Mr. Larson said regulations were constantly evolving. A lot of projects were not specifically 
federally mandated, but progress needed to be shown. He said one good thing going for Orem 
was that everyone was in this situation to keep up with the regulations. Making steps in the right 
direction was more what they looked for. 
City Council Minutes- December 8, 2015 (p.5) 



Mr. Davidson asked what negative outcomes could result if the Council decided it was too I
expensive to make the changes to meet the EPA mandates. Mr. Larson said direct defiance of 
EPA mandates would not be received well. Mr. Tschirki added that not making the necessary 
changes would continue to put Orem's drinking water source at risk. 
Mr. Davidson asked if the plan was to pay-as-you-go or to finance up front. Mr. Price said they 
intended to finance with a pay-as-you-go option. 
Mr. Macdonald asked (1) ifbonding had been discussed; and (2) the approximate lifetime of the 
assets. Mr. Larson said almost all of the upgrades had a fifty year life expectation or more. He 
said that they had generally been instructed to look only at a pay-as-you-go option. Mr. 
Macdonald commented that most of these expenditures had been delayed during the lean years, 
and now was the time to pay for what would be needed in the next fifty years. 
Mr. Tschirki said they thought the plan was palatable and responsible but could be accelerated if 
that was the direction the Council wished to go. 
• Mr. Lentz asked if any unit that was not residential was charged as a business, be it a school or
state-owned unit. Mr. Price said the rates were based on ESUs, and typically businesses had
moreESUs.
Mr. Tschirki said the storm water utility had never been built out to the extent of the water or 
I
sewer utilities. There was no pipe network that went into all areas, so they had relied on 
detention basins and sumps. They hoped to have a more fully developed storm water utility 
system. 
Mr. Davidson said those updates were not a solution to solve every storm issue in Orem but to 
address many of them and come into compliance with federal regulations. 
Mr. Tschirki said infrastructure would not be replaced in a set timeframe, but as needed. They 
would do things in the most cost effective way they could; including the lining of pipes to 
increase their life time and use the most optimal technology. 
DISCUSSION -Neighborhood Plan (Canyon View, Orchard, Cascade) 
Mr. Bench said neighborhood plans had been in the works since last year, and would eventually 
yield ten individualized plans for specific neighborhoods. The first neighborhood plan involved 
the three neighborhoods of Canyon View, Orchard, and Cascade. He said approximately I 0,000 
mailers had been sent to invite neighbors to be a part of the neighborhood planning process. He 
said Mickey Cochran and Diane Fraser were some who answered that invitation, and they were 
in attendance to answer questions from the Mayor and Council. He turned the time over to Mr. 
Stocksdale for the presentation. 
Mr. Stocksdale reviewed the four major goals of neighborhood planning: 
•
Support the City Council's Areas of Focus
•
Promote community planning by identifying local needs and concerns
•
Improve City communication with residents
City Council Minutes- December8,2015-(p.6) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
•
Apply city-wide plans to the neighborhood level
Mr. Stocksdale said the public input had been included through: 
•
MindMixer and mySidewalk.com
•
3 Neighborhood meetings
•
3 Back-to-school nights
•
An advisory committee
Mr. Stocksdale said these processes gave the residents and business owners a sense of ownership 
in the planning. He shared the list of advisory committee members, which included 
representatives from schools, business, and the neighborhood residents. 
Diane Fraser, a member of the advisory committee from the Canyon View neighborhood, said 
she was impressed with the people who had presented .to the committee, and she felt the City 
wanted to listen to the residents and wanted to do things in an orderly manner. She said citizens 
were able to express their opinions and to be heard. 
Mickey Cochran, a member of the advisory committee from the Orchard neighborhood, said he 
had always been politically active, and when the opportunity came up he thought it was a great 
thing to do. He said they attended meetings and went to back-to-school nights, and interacted 
with a lot of different people and really enjoyed doing it. He said there was a fot of lively 
discussion, especially about the dog park, and he thought most of those who served on the 
• committee wanted to stay involved in one way or another.
Mr. Seastrand asked if there was good cross representation from the neighborhood. Mr. Cochran
said there was a wide spectrum represented, especially at the back-to-school nights. He said that
by getting people onto the mySidewalk platform they had made contacts that they were still
involved with. Ms. Fraser added that the different neighborhoods were represented in the
committee, and people's area of expertise and experience brought in information that might not
otherwise have been introduced.
Mr. Seastrand if there were any parts of the plan that were still controversial or if it represented a
pretty good consensus. Mr. Cochran said he felt it was as strong representation of what people
wanted. He said people were mainly concerned with preservation of their communities,
improving traffic, improving parks, and finishing sidewalks.
Mrs. Black said the members of the committee had felt safe in expressing their opinions.
Mr. Stocksdale said it was a community-driven process, and he appreciated the citizen
involvement. He said it was a vision from the people of what they wanted to see. The purpose
was to advise staff and the Planning Commission and the City Council as new projects or
challenges arose. They had identified neighborhood strengths and weaknesses, housing,
population growth, land use, transportation, and neighborhood character.
Mr. Stocksdale said the goal was to get through all the neighborhood plans in about five years
and then to go back and review them. He said they were currently working on the
City Cowie ii Minutes - December 8, 2015 (p. 7) 



Northridge/Heather Ridge/Windsor plan and that the Aspen and Timpview neighborhoods wonld 
begin their plan in the new year. 
Mayor Bruns! asked about specific projects that may have been mentioned. 
Mr. Stocksdale gave the example that 800 North at about I 000 East was missing a needed 
sidewalk. That funding was put in place as a result of the committee meeting, because that item 
was mentioned many times and they were able to do something about it. 
A summary of Canyon View, Orchard & Cascade Neighborhood Plan included: 
•
Orem Neighborhood Plans Program -Purpose
o
Support the City Council's Areas of Focus
o
Promote community planning by identifying local needs and concerns
o
Improve City communication with residents
o
Apply City-wide plans to the neighborhood level
•
Public Outreach
o
MindMixer & mySidewalk
o
3 Neighborhood Meetings
o
3 Back to School Nights
o
Advisory Committee (Committee members listed)
•
Vision Statement
o
"Enhance our quality of life by improving public safety and awareness; expanding
I 
transportation options through making streets safer for pedestrians, children, and
I
bicyclists; increasing access to parks and open space; and making wise land use
choices to consider future growth as we create homes that support the
preservation and beautification of our neighborhoods."
•
Neighborhood Concerns
o
Neighborhood preservation, clean up, and beautification
o
Maintain low density nature of neighborhoods
o
Traffic congestion and speeds on neighborhood roads
o
Improving walkability and safety, particularly around schools and parks
o
Increase access to parks and trails while improving the quality of parks
o
Develop or beautify vacant lots throughout the neighborhoods
•
Housing Statistics
o
Single Family Homes - 93%
o
Accessory Apartments -2%
o
Attached Homes -4%
o
Duplex-!%
o
Homeownership Rates
•
Land Use
•
Neighborhoods Owners -86
•
Neighborhoods Renters -14
•
Orem Owners - 62
•
Orem Renters-38
o
Existing Conditions:
•
Largely Single Family Housing
•
Commercial/Office uses on 800 North
City Council Minutes- December 8, 2015 (p,8) 
I 



I 
I 
-I
•
Parks built adjacent to schools
o
Future Considerations:
•
Infill development on vacant lots and orchards
•
Balance access to open space and parks; encourage new open space
development
•
Increased density through attached homes and accessory apartments
•
Development of churches on existing lots
•
Use of Professional Office (PO) zone on 800 North
•
Transportation Concerns
o
Improve safety around schools and parks
o
Improve nonvehicle transportation options and safety, including for bikes and
pedestrians
o
Improve trail and sidewalk facilities
o
Maintain traffic capacities on major streets and utilize traffic calming techniques
in the neighborhoods
•
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Tools
•
Reduce speeds on local roads while preserving traffic flow
•
Enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety
•
Improve crossings near schools
•
Traffic circles; raised crosswalks; bulb-out crossings; island
medians
•
Implementation
o
Vision Statement > Goals > Objectives > Actions
o
Timeline Horizons:
•
On°Going - Continuous
•
Short-Term - 0-2 Years
•
Mid-Term - 2-5 Years
•
Long-Term - 5+ Years
DISCUSSION - 2015 International Energy Conservation Code 
Mayor Bruns! introduced Don Jarvis, chair of the Ufah Valley Clean Air Task Force and chair of 
the Provo City Sustainability and Natural Resources committee. 
Mr. Clark said Orem participated on the Utah Valley Clean Air Task Force. Other participants 
included Provo City, MAG, BYU, Utah County Health Department, UCAR, the American Lung 
Association, UV Chamber, and various private businesses representatives. The Task Force was 
asking the City to execute a resolution in support of a change in the building code that would be 
coming up in the legislature in January. The Legislature would be considering the 2015 
International Energy Conservation Code. 
Mr. Clark said the Task Force was concerned about inversions, which had a negative effect on 
health and on economic development. Businesses have been driven away by the air quality in 
Utah Valley. The legislation to be considered would make changes in building codes, since 
homes and buildings account for 39 percent of air pollution in Utah. The new code would help 
reduce pollution from new homes beirig constructed. This would add some cost to new 
construction but the home owner would get that back within two years in energy savings. 
City Council Minutes- December 8, 2015 (p,9) 



Mr. Macdonald asked if the new code would be statewide if passed the legislature. Mr. Clark I
said it would. 
Mr. Jarvis said Provo had passed a resolution similar to the one being proposed for Orem. He 
said the changes would not only affect air quality but would have a positive effect on energy and 
heating bills. 
Mayor Bruns! asked where the proposed code could be found. He was concerned that different 
areas in the world were different and preferred that the code be site specific. 
Mr. Bell said the State had already adopted the 2012 international code but was still using the 
2006 energy code for residences. That needed to be changed. 
Mr. Jarvis said people should not be concerned that it was an international code. It should be 
much more stringent here than it would be in other areas of the country. He felt it could be a base 
to build on. The Legislature was poised to adopt most of it with some compromises which would 
weaken it a bit. The, resolution from the cities would ask the legislature not to weaken it too 
much. 
Mayor Brunst asked what the rea!tors thought of the new code. Mr. Jarvis said the new chair of 
the Utah County Association of Realtors was in favor of it. He said most realtors sold both old 
and new homes and were fairly neutral concerning the code. Old homes had to have an energy 
rating for sale while new homes did not, which was what builders did not want to change. 
I 
Mr. Sumner asked how that would help the inversion over ten years. Mr. Jarvis said there were 
federal standards to improve pollution from automobiles in the future, so a higher percentage of 
the pollution would be coming from homes and buildings, and that needed to be addressed. 
Mr. Bell said that every year the federal energy codes had slowly gotten tighter. Utah was behind 
most other states in the country because home builders had been lobbying against stricter codes. 
Now, rather than gradual changes, Utah needed some big changes. 
Mr. Clark said many builders had been implementing the codes for several years, regardless of 
mandate, because of the benefits ofa good, energy-efficient home. 
Mr. Macdonald asked for clarification about the cost per home. Mr. Clark said it would depend 
,on size and whether or not there was a basement, etc. 
Mr. Jarvis said the important thing was to encourage the legislature to address the code and they 
could adapt it as they saw fit. He said code updates used to be done every three years, but the 
home builders had lobbied against that. This update would save people money in the long run 
and would be good for the economy, but people did not always look ahead. 
Mr. Davidson said it might ·be good to note the percentage of state legislators who had some 
interest in development and home building activities. In the long tenn the list of benefits would 
far exceed the negatives. 
City Council Minutes-December8,2015 (p,10) 
I 
--' 
. J 
-· 
. J 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Lentz asked if it would be up to the cities to police the new policies. Mr. Bell said it would 
not because the homes were already being inspected. Mr. Jarvis said the inspectors often 
encouraged that people to meet the newer standards anyway. 
Mrs. Black asked how Mr. Jarvis got involved. He said he was head of Provo's sustainability 
committee, and was therefore interested in improving the air quality. 
Mayor Bruns! said his first home was built in 1861 and had many energy leaks. The home he 
was in now was much larger but he paid similar energy costs because it was more energy 
efficient. He said that also kept the emissions down. 
Mr. Jarvis said that was the goal. He said it was almost impossible to retrofit, but things could be 
done moving forward. He said houses could last 150 years, so it was important to make these 
changes. Mr. Clark said it was noteworthy that even the utilities were interested in higher energy 
standards and offered rebates for upgrades. He said those improvements should happen up front. 
UPDATE-All-Together Playground 
Mr. Downs said the overall theme was "Where everybody plays." "Playgrounds by Leather" had 
been chosen to design it. He said most of the cost would be covered by community involvement. 
The City was partnering with United Way, who were planning to build during the week of the 
"Day of Caring," the first full week in September. The City was also working with Kids on the 
Move to help identify the types of needs for the children. Habitat for Humanity also would be 
supplying some full-time people to help. It would be built at City Center Park. 
Mr. Downs said the designers would hear the ideas of the children and implement those in their 
plans, and a community celebration would take place to show the design. He said that Brian 
Regan has pledged some of his ticket sales from his March concert to the project. His shows 
were sold out and would potentially generate about $19,000. 
Mr. Downs said The Jimmer Foundation would sponsor a three-point-a-thon and pledge a dollar 
for every three pointer. Many corporations have been interested, but without the concept it was 
hard to know the funding issues. 
Mr. Hirst said more businesses could get involved once the design came forward. They would 
buy a specific part of the plan. 
Mr. Downs said most parks had a plaque specifying large sponsors. He said Excel, Fantastic 
Sam's, and others wanted to be involved. 
Mayor Bruns! said Zions Bank and Frontier Communications in Provo were also interested in 
helping. Mr. Hirst said the size had grown, they didn't really know what they were getting into 
when they started but the energy was building. Mr. Downs said had they known the full costs, 
the requests would have been different. 
Mr. Bybee said they had a template email that anyone interested could forward along. 
Mrs. Black wondered if the City would you ask for more money in the next round of CARE 
grants. Mr. Hirst said they were hoping to cover the costs with donations, but they would have to 
wait and see. He said the bathrooms were also an issue, and they needed to be redone. 
City Council Minutes-December 8, 2015 (p.11) 



5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION - PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
EXCUSED 
Mayor Richard F. Bruns! 
Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Mark E. 
Seastrand, David Spencer, 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 Larson, 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 
Tom Macdonald 
Preview Upcoming Agenda Items 
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items. 
Agenda Review 
The City Council and staffreviewed the items on the agenda. 
City Council New Business 
There was no City Council new business. 
Mr. Davidson spoke to the nature of minutes. He said it was a misrepresentation that minutes 
should be word-for-word. 
Mr. Stephens said the requirement was that it was a summary of the main points discussed at the 
meeting, who spoke, a summary of what was said, and the vote. He said it definitely was not a 
verbatim transcription of the meeting. 
Mr. Davidson said meetings were recorded and those recordings were available. He said pending 
minutes could be provided to the public upon request before they were approved. He said that in 
the future meetings would be streamed lived and archived online. 
I 
I 
Mr. Downs said there would also be some painting done in the council chambers and.a new City I
seal would be installed behind the dais along will). some sounding boards to improve the sound 
quality for broaƼcasting. 
City Council Minutes -December 8, 2015 (p.12) 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Tschirld previewed his presentation about the sewer base rate changes. Mayor Brunst said it 
was a big change, it was a fairness issue, but he anticipated much public comment. 
Mr. Winterton. said they would be working on educating in the next six months before 
implementation. And typically those who were upset at the beginning came to an understanding 
of the need. 
The Council adjourned at 5:53 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting. 
6:00 P.M. REGULARSESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
INVOCATION I
INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT 
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
Mayor Richard F. Brunst 
Councilmernbers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent 
Sumner 
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant 
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; 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 
David Christopherson 
Samuel Pollard 
Mr. Seastrand moved to approve the September 8, 2015, City Council meeting minutes. Mr. 
Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Hans 
Andersen. The motion passed, 6-1.
Mr. Seastrand moved to approve the September 22, 2015, City Council meeting minutes. Mr. 
Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Hans 
Andersen. The motion passed, 6-1.
Mr. Seastrand move\! to approve the October 13, 2015, City Council meeting minutes. Mr. 
Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, Tom 
Macdonald, Mruk E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Hans 
Andersen. The motion passed, 6-1.
City Council Minutes - December 8, 2015 (p.13) 



Mr. Seastrand moved to approve the October 27, 2015, City Council meeting minutes. Mr. I
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. 
Mr. Seastrand moved to approve the November IO, 2015, City Council meeting minutes. Mr. 
Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Hans 
Andersen. The motion passed, 6-1. 
Mayor Bruns! asked Mr. Davidson to review the information he had shared in the work session 
regarding the requirements for the minutes. Mr. Davidson deferred to Mr. · Stephens. Mr. 
Stephens said the minutes were supposed to be a summary of what happened in the meeting and 
were not supposed to be a verbatim transcription. He said State law indicated they should include 
the substance of matters proposed, discussed, or decided, and also the substance in brief of the 
testimony or comments provided by the public. 
MAYOR'S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL 
Upcoming Events 
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet. 
Appointments to Boards and Commissions 
• There were no appointments to boards and commissions.
Recognition of New Neighborhoods in Action Officers 
There were no new neighborhood officers recognized. 
Mayor Pro Tern 
Mayor Bruns! moved that Councilmember Seastrand serve as the new Mayor Pro Tern. Mr. 
Macdonald 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. 
REPORT- Arts Council 
Ms. Crozier introduced the members of the Arts Council. They included: Cody Hale from Hale 
Center Theater, chair; Casandra Barney; Cindy Clark; Cody Clark; Debby Laure!; Kate Monson; 
Peggy Philbrick; Ray Smith; Barry Merrell; John Reinhard; Nancy Peterson; Joseph Sorenson; 
and Adam Robertson, representing the SCERA. She thanked them for their service and 
expressed how passionate they each were about the Arts in Orem. 
Mr. Hale said the Arts Council had gone through many changes in the past year. He said the Arts 
Council had previously been a presenting organization, presenting things to the public. As a 
result of some of the changes, they now referred to it as Orem Arts Council Create! The 
difference was that instead of completely presenting things, they hosted participatory events. 
Those events had included: 
City Council Minutes-December 8, 2015 (p.14) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
•
the Orem Stories Project, which included history, writing, and art
•
a Jazz concert and jam session for high school students
•
the "Play in a Day" event involving mostly junior high aged students and younger
Mr. Hale said the next event would involve dance. He then reviewed some of the events they had 
been part of with the City Center Stage concerts and Summerfest. They had also worked with 
City planners on the State Street Master Plan regarding creating an arts district. 
Ms. Lauret said she appreciated the free events for families and commented on the amount of 
talent in the area. Mr. Hale agreed with that, saying he'felt this valley was the hotbed of talent for 
the world. He said the Arts Council wanted to keep fostering opportunities for those talents to 
grow and improve. 
Ms. Crozier thanked the arts providers in Orem who had not charged for their professional 
services or their facilities. She expressed appreciation for the corporate sponsorship they had 
received from Wayfair.com and were looking to expand that in the future. She also thanked Mrs. 
Black for her service to the Arts Council over the years. 
Utah Valley Women's Initiative 
Glynis Tolerico represented the Utah Valley Women's Initiative which was founded by Dr. 
Paula Fellingham. She said organization hoped to get the initiative in all the cities in the Utah 
Valley. At the foundational meeting in October they had discussed the major problems that kept 
"Happy Valley" from being as happy as it could be for thousands of women who lived there. 
They identified the following as primary problems: 
1. Women felt inadequate or alone, unfulfilled and lacking purpose
2. Women were addicted to a variety of things, i.e. eating, drugs, exercise, work, etc.
3. Women did not feel as safe as they would like to feel
4. Women.lacked healthy relationships and many struggled loneliness
5. Women were starting, but often not finishing, educational degrees
Ms. Tolerico said the initiative was formed to help create solutions, both short-term and long­
term. She said the initiative would officially be launched on January 15, 2016, at the SCERA. 
She said representatives to the initiative would: 
•
meet monthly to discuss the issues and solutions, with prtlsentations from experts
•
pre,sent free monthly educational and uplifting events for women in the valley 
•
collaborate with services and businesses to support women
•
publish a Utah Valley Resource Guide to help women connect with those services
•
provide programs to help women in all seven areas of their lives
o
mental
o
physical
o
emotional
o
social
o
spiritual
o
financial
o
relational
City Council Minutes - December 8, 2015 (p.15) 



Ms. Tolerico said the program also helped families, offering books, a guidebook, DVDs and CDs 
as well as family meetings. It used surveys at the beginning and the end to assess family I
strengths, weaknesses, and progress. She said the Utah Valley Women's mission was to 
strengthen women and families in the valley. Their motto was: "We are women helping women 
live our best lives." She invited Councilmembers and their spouses to. attend the launch of the 
program. 
**Mr. Seastrand left the meeting at 6:28** 
CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENTS 
Appointments to Boards and Commissions 
Mayor Bruns! moved to reappoint Karen Jeffreys to the Planning Commission. Mr. Spencer 
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, 
Tom Macdonald, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
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 represented the Chauntenettes women's chorus. She shared a 
I
history of the chorus and thanked the City for the CARE program funds that allowed them to 
purchase new sound equipment, music, bells and costumes. She said they had to hold a concert 
in the American Fork Tabernacle because there was.not a large enough venue for them in Orem. 
She thanked Mrs. Black for all her support to the chorus and to the arts in Orem and presented 
her with a thank-you gift. 
Ann Morey, resident, said she was opposed to the proposed zoning change at 800 West 800 
South. Her concerns included: 
•
Proximity to her home.
•
Traffic
•
Parking
•
Crime
•
Density of the project
Ronald Jones, resident, said he also lived close to the proposed. ICO development. He said he 
was especially concerned about the safety of area children crossing the street near such a dense 
development. It was easier to stop something from happening than to undo something that was 
already done. 
Jennifer Webber, resident, spoke about two Utah State Traffic Codes: Title 41, Chapter 6A, 
Part 4, Section 401.3 and Section 401.7. She said she was a crossing guard and had been hit by a 
car and severely hurt. The City of Orem did not fully uphold state traffic codes and would not be 
City Cowicil Minutes- December 8, 2015 (p.16) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
prosecuting the hit-and-run driver. Ms. Webber said the prosecutor and police should be 
upholding the law. 
Rebecca Daily, resident, spoke in honor of Hans Andersen and his service to Orem. She 
presented Mr. Andersen with a "Mr. No" plaque for his efforts to point the city in the right 
direction. 
Melodee Andersen, resident and Hans Andersen's' wife, honored her husband as a statesman, 
saying he knew the proper role of government. Sh!) said he was unpopular among progressives. 
She asserted that the City did not tell the people the whole truth. She awarded Mr. Andersen with 
a plaque naming him "Mr. Know" because.he wanted the citizens to know the truth. 
Brent Wood, resident of the Sunsets Heights neighborhood, talked about the high density 
housing project and said the neighborhood should be renamed "No Sunset Heights" because the 
building would block .the view of the residen_ts in that area. He expressed concern about the short 
length of!eases being proposed andinsufficient parking requirements 
Barbara Petty, resident, read a letter to Hans Andersen from five residents which thanked him for 
his service and for his perseverance in doing the right thing and putting principle over p_rofil. 
CONSENT ITEMS 
MOTION - 2016 Annual City Council Meeting Schedule 
Mrs. Black moved to adopt the 2016 Annual City Council Meeting Schedule. 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. 
SCHEDULED ITEMS 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- Sewer Base Rate 
ORDINANCE - Amending the sewer base rate for multiunit residential buildings and for 
nonresidential buildings with a water meter size greater than ¾" 
Mr. Tschirki and Mr. Winterton presented the recommendation that the City Council, by 
ordinance with an effective date of July 1, 2016, (1) charge a sewer base rate for each residential 
living unit, and (2) amend the sewer base rate for nonresidential buildings having a water meter 
size greater than ¾". 
The City of Orem currently charged a monthly "sewer base rate" for city sewer services. This 
charge was the same for all land uses and was charged based on the total number of physical 
sewer connections that serviced the account, regardless of the number of residential or 
nonresidential units associated with that account. That meant, for example, that an account 
holder with a 12-plex with one sewer connection paid the same sewer base rate as a single-family 
homeowner. Furthermore, a large commercial business paid the same base rate that a single­
family homeowner paid. The sewer base rate was intended to compensate the City forthe cost of 
making sewer service available at a particular connection point, including costs related to 
City Council Minutes-December 8, 2015 (p.17) 



infrastructure and maintenance. The "sewer volume charge" was a separate charge that was 
based on actual sewage flow and was intended to compensate the City for the cost of handling I
and trel!ting the user's quantity of sewage flow. 
Summary of Proposed Amendments: 
Effective July I, 2016, the City of Orem sewer base rates will change as follows: 
I. Each residential living unit found in a single-family dwelling, multifamily dwelling,
apartment complex, condominium complex,. etc. will be charged a sewer base rate. In
other words, a 12-plex would now be billed for 12 sewer base rates and not I sewer base
rate.
2. Nonresidential accounts will be charged a sewer base rate according to their water meter
size and the associated industry standard American Water Works Association (A WW A)
equivalent meter information.
3. Mixed-use developments will be charged by combining these two methods-paying for
each residential living unit plus the equivalent meter size necessary to service the
nonresidential portion of the building.
The sewer base rate for single family residences and the sewer volume charge remain 
unchanged. 
The new fees and charges information would read as follows: 
Monthly Sewer Rates 
Residential Base Rate1
Nonresidential Base Rate2
Mixed-Use Base Rate3
Volume Charge4
$9.32/Residential Living Unit (unchanged) 
$9 .32 x A WW A Multiplier 
$9.32/Residential Living Unit+ Nonresidential Component 
$1.42/1,000 Gallons (unchanged) 
1 Each residential utility account will be assessed a sewer base rate according to the number of 
residential living units associated with the account. For example, a single-family dwelling will be 
billed for I sewer base rate, a duplex (including single-family dwellings with an accessory 
apartment) will be billed for 2 sewer base. rates, a 4-plex will be billed for 4 sewer base rates, a 
12-plex will be billed for 12 sewer base rates, etc.
2 All nonresidential utility account holders will be billed using a water meter size multiplier
based on American Water Works Association (A WW A) guidelines. (Table 28-2 from American 
Water Works Association Manual of Water Supply Practices Ml - "Principles of Water Rates, 
Fees, and Charges" for water meters up to 3-inches in size .and Table 2-2 from American Water 
Works Association Manual of Water Supply Practices M6 - "Water Meters - Selection, 
Installation, Testing, and Maintenance" for water meters larger than 3-inches in size.) The 
following table details the A WW A Multiplier for various water meter sizes. 
Water Meter Size 
¾" 
1" 
I½"
2" 
3" 
4" 
6" 
8" 
10" 
A WW A Multiolier 1.00 
1.67 
3.33 
5.33 
10.00 20.00 41.67 53.33 96.67 
3 Mixed-use utility accounts will be assessed according to (I) the number of residential living 
units and (2) the nonresidential component of the mixed-use development. The nonresidential 
City Council Minutes- December 8, 2015 (p.18) 
I 
I 
I 
' 
. -
-
-
I-
.I 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
component is calculated by dete1TI1ining the equivalent water meter size required to service only 
the nonresidential portion of the mixed-use development using the International Plumbing Code 
2012 version, Appendix E201. 1 (pressure range over 60) and E103.3(2). The A WW A multiplier 
associated with the equivalent water meter size will then be applied to dete1TI1ine the 
nonresidential component of the sewer base rate. 
4 Effective July 1 of each year, the monthly charge shall be based on the average winter water 
usage for the preceding winter months. 
Mr. Tschirki said they had been working on this issue for about a year and a ha!£ He said that in 
the Spring of 2014, Bowen and Collins had been hired to help create the Sewer, Water, and 
Stoffil Water Master Plans. In December, 2014, the concept of the sewer base rate and how it 
was currently being assessed was presented to the Council. In February of 2015 the City hired a 
GIS graduate to identify all the nonresidential and residential units within the city. He explained 
that nonresidential could be retail, industrial, manufacturing, commercial, etc. In August 2015, 
the study was completed and it was presented to the Public Works Advisory Commission 
(PW AC) in September. 
Mr. Tschirki said the PW AC consisted of seven members, including professors, engineers, 
development directors and other professionals within the community, who had reviewed the 
study and given direction. He said the findings were presented to the Council in October and a 
notification to the public had been sent within the past week. 
Mr. Tschirki said it was the recommendation was that the Council adopt the new policy and to 
implement it July 1, 2016. He said the PWAC actually recommended implementation on 
January 1, 2016, but then it was felt that, as per the recommendation of Council, those who 
would be impacted should be given six months to plan for the changes. 
Mr. Tschirki explained that there were two different sewer rates in the city. One was the base 
rate for the connection to the sewer system, and it was based on an account basis. There were 
instances where multiple units were part of one account. The sewer volume rate was the "great 
equalizer" of the charges in that those who produced more or consumed more, were billed more. 
He said there were not sewer meters on the sewer laterals and so the billing was based on an 
industry standard of looking at internal water consumption during the winter months and using 
that as an average for the next twelve months. He said the typical utility service bill had two line 
items - the sewer base rate of $9 .32 per connection and the volume or production charge, billed 
at $1.42/gallon. 
Mr. Tschirki said that, before any rate increase, they looked at the current the billing process to 
identify any anomalies or inequities or fairness issues, and the sewer base rate be reviewed for 
inequities or fairness issues, and the PWAC felt like the sewer base rate was one of the most 
egregious fairness issues. He said the current base rate was based on an account, in other words a 
12-unit complex was charged the $9.32 which was divided by 12. In other accounts, there were
much higher numbers of units, only being charged one or two base rates as it was one or two
accounts.
Mr. Tschirki said that Orem currently had a sewer base rate that covered fixed costs associated 
with operations that did not vary. He said that at the treatment plant they treated about 8 million 
City Council Minutes-December 8, 2015 (p.19) 



gallons per day throughout the year. He said the sewer base rate was a charge for the privilege to 
connect to the public sewer system. The PW AC felt larger customers should pay a larger share 
than smaller customers. He said that, with the current structure, individual home owners were 
subsidizing larger customers such as commercial properties and multiunit developments. 
Mr. Tschirki said the first phase of the proposed plan would be to bill every unit the sewer base 
rate, so a 12-plex would be billed $9.32 times twelve. They also addressed the nonresidential 
component, which included commercial, retail, and industrial units, by billing them based on the 
meter size and a multiplier provided by the American Water Works Association's equivalent 
meter data. Mixed use developments would be charged accordingly by combining the two 
methods on a case by case basis. He pointed out that there were only three mixed-use 
developments in the community. 
Mr. Tschirki said the study reported that there were 21,847 data base entries in the utility billing 
system. Of those, 20,141 residential and 1,706 were nonresidential. They also determined that 
there were a total of27,472 residential units, which meant that 7,331 residential units were not 
being billed a sewer base rate. It was projected that, if the proposal were implemented, the 
proposed residential annual increase would be approximately $800,000, and the nonresidential 
annual increase would be about $300,000. Thus, the total projected annual increase would be 
$I.I million. He reiterated that the sewer base rate was for the privilege of connecting to the 
system and the volume rate was the great equalizer. 
Mr. Tschirki said the revenues generated by the base rate and the volume rate were used to pay 
for any costs associated with the sewer utility, including the installation, maintenance, operation, 
repair, replacement, personnel, and administrative costs pertaining to the sewer mains, manholes, 
lift stations, treatment facility and other infrastructure. This plan would· provide increased 
revenue as noted above, to cover these costs. 
Mr. Tschirki said that the staff recommended that the City eliminate the 21 cents of the thousand 
gallon increase in year one, which would equate to $600,000. This plan eliminate any 
subsidization that was currently occurring and would result in a $1,68 per month reduction for 
the average homeowner. They also said that future increase recommendations should apply to 
both the base rate and the volume charge to create more equity and fairness in the billing process. 
Mr. Winterton said an outreach campaign was done. They sent a mailer to every account holder, 
although it was .a little later than they had hope, and they had used email, and a robocall. They 
had emailed 995 businesses and 806 multifamily units, and had_ contacted 2262 businesses and 
1,200 multifamily units via robocall. He said he had personally -fielded a lot of calls, and so had 
Steven Downs and their secretaries. He said the inquiries had come from single-family homes, 
businesses, and multifamily unit landlords and property managers. 
Mr. Andersen asked when the people had received the flier. Mr. Winterton said they probably 
would have received their flier that very day. The email and newsletter had gone out the previous 
week, the information had been oh the website, and they had presented this topic in a premeeting 
in October. Mr. Andersen asked if Mr. Winterton remembered when the City was asked to alert 
the landlords. Mr. Winterton said it had been in the October 2015, meeting. Mr. Andersen asked 
if it was not also the previous spring that they were asked to do it. Mr. Winterton said they had 
not received direction from the Council whether or not it was something they wanted to pursue, 
City Cowicil Minutes -December 8, 2015 (p.20) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
so they had not sent out any notices at that time. Mr. Andersen said City had not done sent out 
notices until the previous five days. He said he wanted transparency when the City was doing 
stuff, and he felt it was lacking here. 
Mr. Winterton said based on the response they had received, they felt the message had gotten 
out. He said they had received a lot of feedback and one of the emails had come from the Utah 
Apartment Association. That association said that while, they did not endorse nor dissuade, they 
would not oppose the change. They said the new system would be consistent with whaf other 
communities did. He said there were questions about the fairness concerning the number of 
sewer lateral connections, but the reality was that the City did not maintain the laterals. All utility 
account holders were responsible for their laterals. 
Mr. Winterton reviewed the concept of peak flows and how sewer mains had to be built to 
accommodate them. Under the present fee structure, a single-family home paid the same rate as 
an entire apartment complex. He said arguments could be made that people living on a hill 
should pay more for snow plow services or people who lived ·farther from the treatment plant 
should pay more since the water had to travel farther in their pipe. The same storni water ESU 
was charged even though peoples' rooftops or driveways had different square footage. Charging 
the same base rate would make it fair without going into the minute details. Mr. Winterton said 
that, besides Provo, there were no other cities that operated the way Orem -currently did-· and 
Provo was considering making changes to how they based their rate. 
Mr. Winterton shared the existing fee and charge system and the proposed system where the 
residential base rate was by living unit, and the nonresidential was with the A WW A multiplier. 
A business owner he spoke with had not completely understood how the rate would be applied, 
and when it was explained the man realized it was not as much as he had thought. 
Mr. Winterton said there were no standards that required the City Council to follow any pattern 
or policy to support the water reclamation fund. The underlying principal was that the City 
needed the funding to support the everyday operations and everyday conveyance sewer. They 
had to meet the standards set forth in the permit that the City had to discharge through Powell 
Slough and eventually into Utah Lake, as well as to have a responsible CIP replacement • 
program. The proposed plan was what had been recommended by the Public Works Advisory 
Commission (PW AC) and by the hired engineering consultants. The A WW A multipliers were 
established and recognized throughout the industry and country to establish water and sewer 
rates. He shared an extreme example that highlighted the disparity between cities, using multiple 
accounts for one business owner with 192 units .. The base rate for that business owner under the 
proposed plan in Orem would be $1,826. Under Payson's current rate, that business owner would 
be paying $6,348. In Santaquin it would be $7,338. 
Mr. Swnner asked if all those cities charged by the door. Mr. Winterton said they did, except for 
Orem and Provo. He said there was not one city, besides Provo, where the business owner in the 
example would pay less than what he would pay under the new proposal. 
Mr. Winterton said .that the landlord should pass the cost along to the tenants so that each unit 
paid its share. He said he had spoken to single-family homeowners who could not believe 
Orem' s current system was still being used. Some people-argued that the burden would be passed 
on to poor students with only three people living in the unit. Mr. Winterton noted there were 
City Council Minutes-December 8, 2015 (p.21) 



homes that also had only three people in residence. In the example above, with three people per 
unit, each tenant would be paying only twenty-five cents per month for the connection. He said I
the Northridge HOA had 82 accounts of full-sized, single-family homes and it was charged only 
about $ I 8 per month for all 82 units. He said mobile home accounts were similar. He explained 
that the system had to be maintained for the highest possible usage to avoid sewer back-ups. He 
said the treatment plant didn't get smaller because people flushed their toilets less; it still needed 
to be maintained on the same level. He said the plan was about fairness. 
Mr. Sumner expressed concern that landlords would use this to substantially increase their rents. 
Mr. Winterton said the system had been unfair all .along and landlords had not decreased rents 
because of the disparity. He said they charged rents based on the market. Landlords would 
charge as much as they could, regardless of a sewer base rate. 
Mr. Tschirki said, referring to Mt. Andersen's previous questions, the information could not be 
sent out in February of last year, because it had not been compiled at that point. It was at that 
time that the City had hired a consultant to conduct the study that took about six months to 
complete. They did not feel they were able to present the information until now. In the spirit of 
transparency, they had done what they should. They did not want to bring people together 
without information being available. 
Mr. Macdonald said he had served with PWAC and felt there did need to be a change in the 
system to address the fairness issue. When he had first heard of it, he had worried about the 
I
widows, the retired, un or underemployed who had a home and were paying a higher rate than if 
they were in an apartment. He said it felt like a "reverse Robin Hood" to him, stealing from the 
poor and giving to the rich. Mr .. Macdonald said the late notice was a concern to him. He had 
received several emails indicating that the late notice might not have allowed enough public 
comment. He said the emails he had received had caused him concern. He said a single-family 
home and did use more water for lawns than an apartment renter might use. There was less 
piping and less expense in apartments than in separate homes. While he believed there should an 
additional charge per door, he was not positive it should be the same charge as per house. He 
thought there needed to be more study and feedback, especially in light of things he had heard in 
the past week from apartment owners and apartment dwellers. 
Mr. Sumner asked if Mr. Macdonald was advocating a sliding scale. Mr. Macdonald said he 
would like something different than what they were seeing in the proposal, and something 
different than what they were currently.doing. 
Mr. Andersen said quoted emails he had received from Marilyn Broadbent and Mark Haney, 
indicating that the same topic had come up in 1997 and that landlords had not been consulted at 
that time, either. They said that, after the threat of a lawsuit,. the City had conducted a study at a 
cost of $80,000, after which base rates were reduced and consumption rates were increased. Mr. 
Andersen proposed allowing the citizens to vote on the .issue. He said it was comparable to the 
UTOPIA tax increase a few years back. 
Mr. Macdonald clarified that the tax three years back was not a UTOPIA thing. That had been a 
decision on how to fund city operations, of which UTOPIA was a part. He said the citizens did 
not vote on UTOPIA. 
City Council Minutes - December 8, 2015 (p.22) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Andersen said he was at a Council meeting six days after he was sworn in and he was told it 
was for UTOPIA. He said he was told it in a closed-door meeting 
Mayor Brunst brought the discussion back to the sewer base rate. He said it was for the 
availability and privilege to connect to the sewer system, to cover the fixed costs and 
maintenance of the infrastructure. The volume charge was for the cost of treatment and for 
discharging the. water after it was cleaned. He said that each living unit was connected to the 
system and therefore should be charged both a base rate and a volume rate. It was important to 
consider how to do it fairly and equitably. He said the proposed base rate was something that 
should have been looked at some time ago .and adjusted. 
Mrs. Black said she agreed with the Mayor. 
Mayor Bruns! opened the public hearing. 
Fred Johnson, resident, said he had lived in Orem for more than 60 years and worked in real 
estate sales and development. He agreed with the Mayor that multiunit complexes should pay 
their fair share but he felt inore time needed to be put into studying the issue. 
Ray Springer, resident of Salt Lake City, said·he owned a forty-four unit apartment complex in 
Orem. He said on the surface the plan seemed very fair, but it would increase his cost by $382 
increase, and increase he would have to pass on to his tenants. 
Mark Haney, an owner of Orem apartments, said the presentation which compared costs for his 
business if he were located in other cities was deceptive because it only considered the sewer 
base rate and not the volume rate. He reviewed the history of the attempt years ago to increase 
the rate, noting the Council had reversed their decision. He said the base rate was never intended 
to cover the cost of infrastructure upgrades, b.ut was on! y to cover fixed costs, such as billing. 
The rest of the costs were to be covered by the consumption part of the bill. He asserted that the 
mailer conveniently left out infonnation about apartments using less water than single-family 
homes. He encouraged the Council to vote "no. 
Landon Conover, resident, said he lived in a townhome community and served on the HOA for 
that community. He said he heard about the issue by reading the minutes he subscribed to by 
email, and he also learned about it on Facebook. At first he had thought it was not fair but on· 
reading the agenda more closely he thought it was fair because bills were based on connection 
points. He said the volume charge was what made it all fair. He agreed with increasing the base 
rate because operating expenses had increased; he also agreed with Mr. Macdonald that a tiered 
system might be good 
John Shelley, resident, said he knew that infrastructure was important to maintain. He said he 
lived in a basement apartment, and the proposal would mean a substantial increase for him. He 
was fine with everyone paying their fair share, and if costs had gone up he knew that his base 
rate should go up. He said he did find it misleading or unfair to say that a basement apartment 
would be charged an extra $9.32. 
City Council Minutes-December 8, 2015 (p.23) 



Sarah Fuller, resident, expressed concern about the late notification, saying more work should be I
done to notify the public. She felt the $9.32 per door did not fully address the aspect of fairness 
and felt it should be based on consumption. 
• _ 
Jim Fawcett, resident, said the volume charge was going to be going up. He said the City was not 
falling apart • and failing, and this was a lot of money. He had questions about the various 
numbers being proposed, and wondered if an apartment owner would .need to pay the $9.32 for 
an empty unit. He asked if mixed-use facilities would get a better break or if they would be 
charged like a fourplex or an eight-plex. 
Tony Cook, resident of Lindon, said he owned a business in Orem, He thought there should be 
more emphasis put on the commercial side of water usage and whether that water was returned. 
He felt the City had been fair and hoped they would continue to be. He felt a per-door fee was 
fair. As the owner of a greenhouse that watered a lot of plants and did not return a lot of water 
into the sewer system, he felt that should be considered. He knew a scale system for every 
hookup was difficult, but there might be a few worth reviewing. 
Sam Lentz, resident and councilmember-elect, responded to Mr. Fawcett' s question of what the 
City had been doing before any increases. Mr. Lentz said the City had been going into debt. He 
hoped that would· not continue and not continue passing debt on to future generations. He said 
the current path was not sustainable. He said he recognized that the plan was not perfect and 
might need more time to review. It might be good to consider charging by the size of the 
connection, using the multiplier across the board. 
John Reinhard, resident, said studies he had read reported that high-density housing was used to 
subsidize single-family home costs. He said this would be the same thing. He liked the idea of 
tabling the issue and giving some more time to look at options. He said he iked Mr. Lentz's 
suggestion of going solely on the size of the connection. He did not think the system was fair the 
way it was, but the proposal might be swinging the pendulum too much in the other direction. He 
said it was wise to take care of the issue now .before the new housing units were all completed. 
Scott Blackham, resident, owned commercial property in Orem. He said he was charged $45 a 
month for storm sewer, but every time there was a storm the water came up over the gutter and 
into his parking lot. He had called the City to ask what he was ,paying for and was told the City 
had dug a hole, filled it with gravel, and put a grate over it, and that was his storm sewer. He 
wanted to know why he was still paying for that after fifteen years. He said this looked like a tax 
increase to him. He said the City should raise the taxes the same for everyone. He asked what the 
$1.1 million would be used for. He said Orem did not need to be like other cities. 
Daniel Broadbent, Provo resident, said he owned rental property in Orem. He said the fair way 
was to charge a base fee for billing, and base the rest on consumption. He felt the study had 
proved that eighteen years ago, and if the current rates were not covering costs, then the 
I 
consumption fee needed to be adjusted. He felt the proposal was targeting landlords. He thought I
they might examine raising the base fee for a larger hook-up, but believed the majority of the 
expense of the sewer system would be covered by an increase in the consumption fee. 
Conrad Diamond, resident, said he had received an email the previous week and seen the flier 
that day. He said fairness depended on the perspective of the person looking at it. He realized 
City Council Minutes - December 8, 2015 (p.24) 



I 
there were. issues in.trying to meter use on the sewer system vs. use on the water supply. He felt 
the per-door approach seemed reasonable, even if not perfect It was important to take care of the 
system upfront rather than wait and have to. do repairs. 
Mayor Bruns! closed the public hearing. 
Mayor Bruns! said the pµrpose of the proposal' was to make the system fairer, and raising the 
consumption fee for everyone would not address the fairness issue between homes, rental units, 
and commercial buildings. He said the base fee was not just for the infrastructure, it was the right 
to hook up to and to use the system, sharing the sump costs and the fixed costs. He felt the base 
fee going against a living unit was the proper and just way to address it. If the City did not fund 
maintenance, there would· be problems and backups. Orem' s rate was one of the lowest in the 
state, around one-half or one-third what nearby cities charged. While he understood the proposal 
would affect those in apartments, those living in a home were expected to pay for the same sewer 
usage. 
Mayor Brunst had some thoughts on timing, and noted that Mr. Seastrand had expressed a desire 
would be to continue this. Mayor Bruns! said the delay in the delivery of the fliers was due to the 
system that the post office used. There had been a tremendous amount of effort to try to reach 
out to make it transparent and available. He was open to the idea of continuing the item to have 
more public input. 
Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Broadbent if utilities were included in the rents, and Mr. Broadbent said 
if units had separate meters, renters would put the utilities in their own name. He said when 
contracts renewed they might increase rents, but that would depend on the market. 
Mr. Sumner asked for clarification, that if the utilities went up, the landlords would increase the 
rent. Mr. Broadbent said they would do the best they could. If everyone's rent was going up in 
Orem, people would move to other cities. Mr. Sumner suggested that the landlords would 
probably raise rents more than the actual increase of the utility fee. Mr. Broadbent said rents 
would go up based on what the market could bare, but if utilities were going up considerably the 
landlords would try to recover as much as they could. They would not want to lose profits. He 
said commercial properties took a bigger hit than residential, typically. 
Mr. Spencer said he wanted more time to do research and to review the sewer study from 
eighteen years ago. He would like to continue the discussion. 
Mayor Brunst said in any apartment, if gas or electric went up, it affected everyone. 
Mr. Davidson reviewed a comparison of usage rates in nearby cities, as well as the base rates. 
City 
Orem 
American Fork 
Payson 
Pleasant Grove 
Lehi 
Spanish Fork 
Base Rate 
$ 9.32 
$35.55 
$36.75 
$24.14 
$22.00 
$16.59 
Volume Rate/1000 gallons 
$1.42 
$1.40 
$1.09 
$2.29 
$2.00 
$1.52 
City Cowicil Minutes -December 8, 2015 (p.25) 
-I 
-
. 
. 
. 
' 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
.I 



Springville 
Provo 
$19.73 
$ 7.31 
$1.32 
$2.00 
He said the full picture represented that an Orem utility customer could potentially take ninety• 
minute shower every day, and still come in with a lower sewer and water rate than most of the 
surrounding cities. He said the City was looking at both rates and knew there needed to be a 
balance between volume and base, but if landlords were looking to move their apartments to 
these other cities, they would not find cheaper rates. 
***Mr. Seastrand returned at 8:27*** 
Mrs. Black said she wanted to give her opinion since she would not be on the Council at the next 
meeting. She foll this was a fair and equitable solution to the issue. It seemed unusual that an 
eighty-two-unit development like Northridge near her home did not pay the same $9.32 per 
home that she did. She said the base rate was the privilege to connect and the volume rate was 
how much was used. It was an equity issue that needed to be addressed. She said her friend from 
Pleasant Grove said she could not believe the complaints over Orem's rates which were so much 
lower than Pleasant Grove's. Mrs. Black said Orem was fortunate to have such low taxes and 
fees overall, but when studies were made they needed to be paid attention lo. 
Mr. David.son compared it with the fact that it was only those that got pulled over for speeding 
got a ticket. 
I 
Mr. Seastrand said her had made some inquiries about the study done in 1997/98. It was 
I 
important to find a fair and equitable solution, and he did not mind getting more information 
before making a decision. He would review the minutes and recordings to see what was done. He 
would like to continue the item. 
Mr. Spencer moved to continue the discussion. Mr. Andersen seconded the motion. 
It was asked if the public hearing would be continued. Mayor Bruns! said it would be a continued 
discussion to give time for the public to communicate with Cou11cil members. 
Mr. Spencer amended the motion to say that the discussion was continued to January 12, 2016, 
at 6:00 p.m., the public hearing having been closed. Mr. Macdonald seconded the amended 
motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, 
Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-Transportation Master Plan 
RESOLUTION - Adopting the December 2015 Transportation Master Plan and amending 
the Orem City General Plan to include the Transportation Master Plan as Appendix B 
The Development Services Department requested that the City Council adopt the Transportation 
Master Plan and amend the Orem General Plan by adopting the Transportation Master Plan as 
Appendix 8. 
The last time a full Transportation Master Planning document was approved was in 1988 and 
was titled: "STREET MASTER PLAN for City of Orem, Utah, January 1988." Multiple 
City Council Minutes- December 8, 2015 (p,26) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
amendments had been made to that Master Plan over the years, and. the Development Services 
Department felt that it was time to provide a.complete new Plan. 
The Development Services Department hired Horrocks Engineers to assist staff in developing the 
new Transportation Master Plan. A public outreach effort was launched to seek public input, 
including providing an interactive web page for citizens to provide comments on roadway, bike, 
and transit maps. Public outreach was managed by newsletter articles, City web page updates, 
project web page management, and other social media forms. 
The proposed Transportation Master Plan was finalized based on traffic modeling efforts and 
public input. A public open house was held on September 1, 2015 to showcase the draftPlan and 
the Transportation Advisory Commission also held several meetings through the process of 
developing the new Plan. A copy of the proposed Plan was included with the agenda summary 
and could also be found at http://www.oremtmp.com/. 
Having a complete Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was important for the following reasons: 
1. A TMP is needed to receive federal, state, and county funding for regionally significant
roadway improvements.
2. Developers will be required to follow the TMP and create proper setbacks for
development - and will also construct certain improvements if they create a legal nexus
due to development impacts.
3. The City will use the TMP in programming funding for needed transportation
improvements; however, the City is not bound financially to complete needed
transportation improvements identified by the Plan by any specific time.
The City'.s Transportation Advisory Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the 
Transportation Master Plan. 
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the Transportation Master Plan 
and amend the Orem General Plan by adopting it as Appendix B. Staff supports the Planning 
Commission recommendation. 
Mr. Goodrich introduced Sandy Lanshire with Horrocks Engineers; Blake DeVry; John Domy, 
transportation engineer; Kevin Croshaw; Sam Kelly, City Engineer; ahd Griffin Harris, chair of 
the Transportation Advisory Commission. 
Ms. Lanshire explained that having the Transportation Master Plan provided a citywide plan for 
roads, transit, bike and pedestrian. pathways, and other vital infrastructure. She said that having a 
plan also helped the City get federal funding. The last Transportation Master Plan that was done 
for the City was in 1988. The new plan studied (1) roadway network conditions, including travel 
demand modeling, roadway functional classification analysis, level of service (LOS), the 2015 
CIP program, and 2040 roadway improvements; (2) Alternative modes of Transportation , 
including transit, bicycle and pedestrian pathways curb radius; (3) other policies and guidelines, 
including truck routes, speed limit analysis, curb radius analysis, crosswalk analysis, traffic 
signal warrants, access management standards, traffic calming standards, traffic impact study 
requirements, and overall connectivity for the city. 
City Council Minutes- December 8, 2015 {p.27)' 



Ms. Lanshire said the committee had conducted a public outreach program above and beyond the 
normal open house system because the City wanted more public input. There was a project I
hotline, project email, and website (OremTMP .com) and these were advertised through social 
media, the City blog, the City newsletter, and a press release. The committee gathered input from 
citizens from March 19 through May 19th, 2015, and about 150 comments were gathered. All 
were analyzed and categorized and either passed on to Keith Larson, City Traffic Engineer, or 
incorporated into the plan. On September 1, 2015, a public open house was held to discuss the 
draft plan and about 50 people attended and commented. 
Ms. Lanshire explained the need for the various projects and how the conditions could worsen if 
they were not addressed. She said that 150 projects were identified, 52 of which were needed for 
capacity improvement in the next ten years. 
Mr. Dorny explained that the committee had modified the three-phase travel demand model that 
MAG had developed, looking closer at the needs of the city. They noted that 1600 North and 
800 East, and 1600 North and 1200 West were projects that were needed above and beyond what 
MAG showed. There was. also a project on Center Street that MAG had identified as needing to 
be done by 2034, but the committee had recognized that it would be needed sooner. He reiterated 
that adopting the plan did not mean the projects would be done or funded, but that those were 
projects that the City would further consider. 
Mr. Dorny pointed out the needs for new Hawk signals, roundabout improvements, bike paths, 
rails, routes, and intersections. All of the projects would come before the Council before I 
anything was done. 
Mayor Bruns! said a concern for him was prioritization of the use of the road. He felt on some 
roads the parking needed to be removed from the street and on others restriping could widen the 
road and up the capacity. He would like to see a strong study on current assets. 
Mr. Goodrich said the plan did not go into detail on the corridors, but it tried to prioritize which 
improvements on various roadways were needed first. Then microlevel prioritization would take 
place. He said a detailed analysis needed to be done with public involvement to determine which 
ones to focus on, and then there would be an environmental clearance process. 
Mayor Bruns! said he thought it would be interesting to see the cost of overlays versus having to 
purchase homes and properties. Mr. Goodrich said that would be the second step; the first step 
was gettinɅ the master plan in place. 
Mr. Dorny said they had driven every collector road in Orem, and they had checked speed limits, 
school zones, street parking, etc. The committee considered what could be done to maximize the 
pavement. He again said' all decisions would be up to the Council and all the details and tools 
were in the full document. 
Ms. Lanshire, said the cost of the projects identified as the most needed over the next ten years 
would be about $183 million, with inflation. 
Mayor Brunst said the City's current annual road budget was only about half of what would be 
needed. He said Proposition 1 would have helped with that. 
City Council Minutes - December 8, 2015 (p.28) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Ms. Lanshire said that what the City currently received from the gas tax would be used for 
maintenance only, not for new projects. She said the City did not get much funding at all from 
the county. MAG managed the federal and state funding, with the City receiving on average 
about $1.3 million. She said that, with an approved master plan, the City could request more 
funding. She said the CIP fund for next year was about $ I 26,000. With rounding, that left about 
a $ 1.6 million gap annually. Other funding could come from impact fees, bonding, and federal 
grants, but grants were cost! y and time consuming to pursue. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 
Keith Wyatt, resident, said he was on the Transportation Commission and supported this 
document. He felt it was important that planning be an ongoing process. It was a living document 
that the Council, Mayor, and staff would refer to frequently. He said it should become a part of 
Orem's DNA to constantly plan and assess the future. 
Scott Blackham, resident, said he liked the idea of bicycle paths. He said he hoped that as this 
moved forward the City would look at other cities and how they handled things. He had lived in 
Germany where they had excellent bike paths. 
Mayor Brunst closed public hearing. 
Mrs. Black moved, by resolution, to adopt the December 2015 Transportation Master Plan and 
amending the Orem City General Plan to include the Transportation Master Plan as Appendix B. 
Mayor Brunst 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. 
RESOLUTION-Accept Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Audit 
Mr. Manning introduced Mr. Ron Stewart with the firm of Gilbert and Stewart, which performed 
the audit, who presented the City Manager's recommendation that the City Council, by 
resolution, accept the Fiscal Year 2014-2015 audit as presented. 
In accordance with State law, the City was required to have a complete financial audit performed 
by an independent auditing firm on an annual basis. 
Over the past several months, the accounting firm of Gilbert & Stewart CPA, PC had been 
reviewing the City's financial records and had now completed their audit. All of the audit 
information was included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 
Representatives from Gilbert & Stewart reviewed the CAFR in their presentation to the City 
Council during the meeting. The City ended the fiscal year at June 30, 2015, in relatively sound 
financial condition and had received an auditor's opinion with no qualifications (a "clean" 
opinion). 
Mr. Stewart explained that the auditors were required to come to an opinion regarding the CAFR 
and whether it fairly represented what happened in the City. They confirmed various transactions 
with outside parties to make sure what was being reported was correct. The reported opinion of 
City Council Minutes- December 8. 2015 (p.29) 



the auditors was that the CAFR fairly represented the financial position of the City, m 
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 
Mr. Stewart explained that the second report looked at controls in place and their effectiveness. 
As the auditors pulled samples, they made sure the process was working. In this report they did 
not give an opinion, but looked for material weaknesses and for significant deficiencies. The 
audit found neither of those problems. 
Mr. Stewart said that, if the City spent more than $500 in federal funds, they were required to go 
through an A-133 audit. The audit tested for compliance with federal programs. He said they 
tested a Department of Transportation grant and found that the City complied in all material 
respects. 
Mr. Stewart said they also did compliance tests, in accordance with Utah law, within certain 
areas of the city, including budgetary compliance, justice courts, state retirement systems, open 
and public meetings, nepotism, cash management, and some others. They also looked at fund 
balance because there was a State requirement that the general fund could not be more than 
25 percent of the general revenues, and the City exceeded that. He said that City management 
was aware, and it would be fixed in the upcoming budget amendment. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if it was a timing issue. Mr. Stewart said there were ins and outs through the 
year, and it was tough to budget to spend those monies, not knowing when things would happen. 
I 
He said it was the only finding, and it would was not a bad thing in the grand scheme of things. I 
City staffs had been great to work with, were very responsive, and knew what they were doing. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if this was the first year that this firm had done the audit. Mr. Stewart said it 
was. Mr. Seastrand said it was good sign that new eyes saw the same good things, and he was 
pleased that the firm had given the City an unqualified recommendation. He asked if there were 
there any recommendations for the future. 
Mr. Stewart said in a large city like Orem, with so many departments, communication was very 
important. He said the accounting needed to know exactly how funding was going in and out. 
Mr. Andersen asked when the State required that the audit be given to the Council. Mr. Stewart 
said it had to be reported 180 days after the fiscal year ended. Mr. Andersen asked when pending 
minutes for public meetings were supposed to be made available to the public. He answered his 
own question by saying it was 30 days after the holding of a public meeting. He said the Council 
had just approved four sets of minutes that were more than 30 days. 
Mr. Stephens explained that pending minutes needed to be available after thirty days, but the 
final minutes did not have to be approved within thirty days. 
Mr. Andersen said it was his understanding that most meetings this year had not been available 
to the public. He asserted that the City was breaking the law more times than they were keeping 
the law when it came to transparency with the minutes of meetings. 
Mayor Brunst said the question was what "available" meant. He said that if someone wanted to 
come in to read or listen, the minutes were available. 
City Council Minutes- December 8, 2015 (p.30) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Andersen moved that the City Council, by resolution, accept the Fiscal Year 2014-2015 
audit. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, 
Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The 
motion passed unanimously. 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Amendment 
RESOLUTION - Amending the General Plan land use map of the City of Orem by 
changing the land use designation on property located generally at 660 South Geneva Road 
from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial; and 
ORDINANCE -Amending Article 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by 
rezoning 5.83 acres of property located generally at 660 South Geneva Road from the R20 
zone to the Cl zone 
The applicant withdrew her application on November 25, 2015, and requested the item not be 
considered. 
COMMUNICATION ITEMS 
There were no communication items. 
CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS 
There were no City Manager information items. 
ADJOURN TO A MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY 
OF OREM 
Mayor Brunst moved to adjourn to a meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of 
Orem. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, 
Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The 
motion passed unanimously. 
The meeting adjourned at 
 12  
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder 
Approved: February 9, 2016 
Cily Council Minules - December 8, 2015 (p.31) 
-