City Council · 2016-03-08

CITYOFOREM
CITYCOUNCILMEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
March 8, 2016
3:00P.M.WORKSESSION-PUBLICSAFETY TRAININGROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF 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; Steven
Downs, Assistant' to ·the City Manager; and Jackie
Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
BUDGET DISCUSSION/PREVIEW-Revenue and Compensation*
Mr. Manning presented the first of several budget discussions: about the. City's revenues and
compensation. He said the local economy was strong, and: Utah County.led the nation in job
creation. Unemployment was low, and wages were growing both locally-and nationally. He said
as employment and wages grew, household spending would flow.. Inflation was growing toward
the Federal Reserve's 2 percent goal, currently at 1.7 percent. He said the downside was China's
economy was slowing down, and Europe continued to be stagnant. Depressed oil prices were a
drain on the national economy, which continued to fluctuate. He said he had been talking with
Mr. Spencer and asked him to share his perspective.
Mr. Spencer said his business was imports/exports with brokers around the world. He had been
watching the shipping patterns and was concerned that the patterns were very closely matching
the patterns in 2007-2008 before the economic downturn. There could be a false sense of hope in
where the economy was, because his experience and the information he had pointed to trouble in
the near future.
Mr. Manning said historically they were overdue for a dip in the economy. Human nature would
assume circumstances would remain the same even those the only constant was change.
He said then explained how the City's finances were run through a series of funds. The General
Fund encompassed the core City services such as police, fire, ambulance, parks, streets, etc.
Finances for the utilities were run through enterprise funds, so they stood on their own and were
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.1)

self-supporting. There were several internal service funds to account for things such as self-
insurance, warehouse, IT, etc.
  s  h p     n    
moving back and forth, Mr. Manning said some of those transfers were the City reimbursing
itself. An example would be water used in City parks. Mr. Davidson added that said transfers
typically were only for water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting funds, where the City was
paying its bill and transferring the funds back.
Mr. Manning reviewed individual revenue sources that contributed to the General Fund,
categorized into taxes, fees, fines, licenses, and grants. He said they had been conservative in
their estimates of increase for the General Fund, projecting an increase of approximately $1.25
million. A reason for the conservative projection was that police tickets and court fees were
trendingdown,whichwasan issuenationwide.
Mr. Davidson noted that calls for police service had increased over the last ten years, but they
currently had fewer officers to respond than ten years ago. Officers were more likely to go from
call to call and had less time to monitor traffic. He said they were requesting additional officers
to addressthattrend.
Mr. Manning reviewed City General Obligation (GO) bond amounts available to convert to
regular property tax through to FY '25. He said the length of the longest bond was UTOPIA,
which went out to 2040, with Siemens as the second longest, going out to 2031. He went over
information about sales tax, saying building-related sales tax was showing strong growth while
retail and clothing sales were shrinking. That was because of other available options like online
shopping. He said building and home furnishing sales went hand in hand, and automobile sales
were increasing in importance to the City. General sources like grocery and supermarket stores
typically made up the rest.
Mrs. Lauret asked if the retail would see a bump as the mall continued to expand and improve.
Mr. Manning thought there would be a bump, but they had not projected localized growth there.
Mr. Sumner asked if the new RC Willey location would show a bump at the mall. Mr. Manning
said RC Willey's move to the mall had been mutually beneficial to them and the City. Mr.
Davidson commented that Woodbury representatives had collected data showing that RC
Willey's busiest entrance was the mall corridor.
Mrs. Lauret asked if there was a dollar amount a police officer could bring in to essentially cover
the costs for their salary.
Chief Giles said they did not see things that way, that tickets were a penalty for behavior and not
a revenue stream. Officers were not assigned dollar amounts or given quotas to meet. He said a
traffic officer could potentially average between 100-150 tickets a month, whereas a patrol
officercouldaveragebetween25-30tickets amonth.
Mr. Davidson added that fees and fines for various charges were set by the State, and a portion of
those revenues were returned to the State. Another portion was used to pay the high operational
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.2)

costs of having a city justice court. They had never discussed revenues brought in by police or
court services with the police or with the Judge.
Mr. Manning showed revenues in the water, sewer, and storm water utilities, as well as those
from the Orem Fitness Center and the Scera Pool. He said employee compensation and
development had been a Council objective from last year. He reviewed the plan, noting that they
would use a market-driven plan to attract and retain good quality employees, and increase of pay
would be based on merit and not longevity. Many cities had moved away from considering Cost
of Living Adjustments (COLAs). He said the salary to benefits was split 65-35. He shared
information about employee salary increases from other Utah cities.
             
everyonewasunderdefined benefit.
Mr. Lentz asked what percentage of employees earned merit increases. Mr. Davidson said last
year was the first year they had implemented the system, and Mr. Manning added that over
50 percent of employees had received a 3 percent increase or more, and some of those that had
not were new hires. He said they followed a market pool to make sure the salaries were in line.
Mr. Davidson said it had become a source of discussion and frustration for many jurisdictions.
Recruiting employees had been difficult, particularly public safety employees because retirement
plans had changed from twenty years of service to twenty-five years. Some were suggesting that
the retirement plan was a disincentive to go into those fields.
Mr. Manning reviewed information about the employee insurance health plans, which were both
high deductible plans. They had switched from Select Health to United Health Care. They had
small Christmas bonus.
Mr. Davidson reminded the Council that they would continue to have budget discussions during
work sessions moving forward. He encouraged them to reach out to Mr. Manning and his staff if
they had questions they wanted addressed.
DISCUSSION-Provo/OremTRIP Update
Mr. Goodrich introduced Lori Labrum, Kevin Farley, and Greg Graham with AECOM, and
Janelle Robertson with UTA. He said they had been calling this project the BRT or Bus Rapid
Transit project, but it encompassed much more than that. The project involved Provo, Orem,
Utah County, UTA, UDOT, and MAG, and covered much more than extra lanes for bus travel.
The project would now be known as the Provo/Orem TRIP (Transportation Improvement
Project). He said the City Council approved a resolution in 2008 that included specifications for
a BRT project, which staff had used as a guideline. Mr. Goodrich said landscaping was an
amenity, and as much as possible they were going to move the sidewalk back and buffer it from
the street. UDOT was involved for intersection improvements, adequate shoulder widths, etc. He
said the idea for landscape replacement had initially been a 1:1 ratio, but that would result in a
loss of approximately 800 parking stalls along University Parkway. There needed to be a balance
in the landscaping while still maintaining parking stalls.
City Council Minutes -March 8,2016(p.3)

Mr. Davidson said retailers in the area had specific parking requirements in their lease
agreements, so there were many parties involved in shaping this project. Some landowners were
frustrated at the possibility of losing parking stalls. Mr. Goodrich said losing parking stalls
approximately 141 parking stalls.
Bill Knowles, Business Community Liaison with UTA, said he had spoken with the larger
businesses along the University Parkway corridor. He said there was some frustration from those
businesses as they had their own parking standards they hoped to maintain, but most had been
supportive of the project. He said the number of eliminated stalls would never be zero, but they
would try to work with retailers to achieve a reasonable balance.
Mr. Goodrich added that while landowners had been opposed, actual tenants had been much
more supporting of the improvement project.
Ms. Labrum thanks staff for the hours they had given to the project. She recognized that this may
potentially be a painful process, but they were trying to make it as easy as possible. They hoped
to incorporate the following into the landscaping plan:
Consistent tree coverage through the corridor
·
Variety of planting materials
Decorative retaining walls
Sidewalk with stamped concrete
Landscape lighting
·Decorative hand rails
Mr. Graham said the inclusion of hand rails would meet ADA requirements in specific areas. He
said there were many factors to consider when it came to trees and planting materials, like soil
volumes and the width of the park strip for healthy growth. He said a typical urban tree planting
was for thirteen years, but thought they could plant trees with closer to fifty-year lifespans.
Ms. Labrum said this was a critical time for the project. The specific details still needed to be
worked out, and there were requirements laid out by the City Council in the 2008 Resolution
they wanted to meet.
Slides were presented, showing various lighting, hand rail, decorative wall, and planting material
possibilities. A 3D simulation of the proposed landscaping plan was shown. Consultants
reviewed the details of a given portion of University Parkway with graphics and overhead maps.
Mr. Davidson said this was a report to the Council on the project so far, and deciding specific
planting materials and design preferences would be forthcoming. He said there were many
aspects to consider in the way of maintenance as well. For example, it would not be practicable
to have grass that would need mowing in strips down the middle of the parkway.
Subsequent Council discussionincluded the following issues:
·Landscaping maintenance
Number and possible location of future stations
· Planting materials and xeriscaping
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.4)

· Loss of parking for auto dealerships
Visibility with tree coverage
Safety issues
Bus lanes
Irrigation issues and environmental impact
Ingress and egress along theparkway
Mr. Goodrich said it was not uncommon to require landowners to maintain the landscaping, and
used the example of Sandy City in which approximately 90 percent of landowners maintained
their landscaping. He said xeriscaping had not been particularly popular at open houses, and that
people preferred landscaping generally.
Ms. Labrum said the plantings created a buffer between the traffic and the pedestrians, and made
the parkway feel safer and more walkable for pedestrians. She said a typical cross section would
have a ten-foot park strip, and may likely include a low decorative wall separating the retailers
from the sidewalk. The goal was to get the 10-foot park strip in as many places as possible, and
use flexible design elements to create a similar feel in the areas where a ten-foot park strip would
not be possible. She said shoulders near auto dealerships would remain, allowing potential
customers to park there.
Mr. Farley said they had looked at views with tree plantings and were careful not to create
         s    s s  
one reason they were considering decorative up-lighting. Mr. Farley said they were also looking
at the irrigation system, but did not have details at this time.
Mr. Goodrich said they were planning on three stations along the corridor, with a fourth by
UVU's campus. He said the station at the campus would go through the roundabout at
1200 West. He said there would be a dedicated bus lane with stations in the road median, and
would have designated traffic signals allowing for left turns and such.
Ms. Labrum said existing bus routes would be considered as well. She said they were planning to
impact ingress and egress as little as possible, with some obvious impact on median left turn
opportunities.
Mr. Goodrich said the removal of parking spaces was not being done lightly, but the hope was as
ridership increased that fewer cars would be on the road and therefore fewer parking stalls would
be needed. There were zoning setback requirements in the PD zones that would also need to be
considered, as well as modifications for bicycle trails.
Mr. Knowles said some businesses had concerns about their frontage or signs being hidden by
the tree canopy. He said the placement of trees would help with that, and that the main comment
he heard was about balancing the traffic of the parkway with a welcoming landscaping.
Landowners had signed off on landscaping when they entered their leases, and the hope was that
changes would not be dramatically different than what existed currently but was improved.
Mr. Davidson said decisions of planting materials would be critical considerations for visibility.
There had also been some concern about the decorative walls, but they would not be a height to
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.5)

block any view. They were a buffer instrument to allow for better walkability. The tallest
proposed walls were areas around University Place mall.
hand rails and decorative walls, and other amenities. He said 400 South in Salt Lake City was a
prime example.
Mr. Goodrich provided scroll landscaping plots to the Council, and encouraged them to send any
questions and feedback they had to him or the project consultants.
DISCUSSION-City Council Outreach
Mr. Downs asked the Council for clarification regarding their discussions on City Council/public
outreach, particularly the suggested town hall meetings. He said they ran into open meeting
issues when all seven Council members were at a given meeting which required additional staff
and support. He also said that having a full quorum might take away from the informal, open
question-and-answer feel they were hoping the meeting to have. He suggested having two or
three members of the Council at a meeting, but no more than three, and that they rotate in
Mayor Brunst said he thought that was a good suggestion, and said he would like to present at all
the meetings. He thought the town hall meetings should be held quarterly at elementary schools
 ao n i o sis n  no do  aa pm n du  o no
Council.
Mr. Lentz said having only two or three councilmembers at a meeting was good because then
    s          
member of Orem executive staff attend as well, so the public got to know department heads and
staff they may otherwise have never interacted with.
Mrs. Lauret suggested that newer members of the Council be paired with longer-serving
members.
Mr. Seastrand said it might be worthwhile to reach out to neighborhood chairs for the town hall
meetings.
Mr. Downs said his second clarification request was for the “ask me anything” opportunities they
had suggested. He inquired if their intent was to have that done through social media. He also
asked if they wanted those to be limited to the Council or include staff on rotation, so people
could ask technical questions and receive specific answers.
Mr. Lentz thought social media would be a good way to conduct the “ask me anything” outreach.
Mayor Brunst said it would be good to have robo-calls go out to tell people about the town hall
meetings, and they could rotate who was leaving the message.
Mr. Davidson said there were many ways to inform people about town hall meetings, above and
beyond robo-calling.
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.6)

5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION - PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
Preview Upcoming Agenda Items 
Mayor Richard F. Brunst 
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark 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; 
Neal 
Winterton, Water Division Manager; Reed Price, 
Maintenance Division Manager; Steven Downs, 
Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, 
Deputy City Recorder 
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 5:56 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting. 
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
Mayor Richard F. Brunst 
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark 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 
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p. 7) 
,..... 



Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager;
Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; Pete
Wolfley, Communications  Specialist; and Jackie
Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT Kat Bleyl
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Kaden Bleyl
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Spencer moved to approve the February 5-6, 2016, City Council Retreat minutes. Mr.
Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,
Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Spencer moved to approve the February 9, 2016, City Council meeting minutes. Mr.
Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,
Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Spencer moved to approve the February 23, 2016, City Council meeting minutes. Mr.
Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,
Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
MAYOR'SREPORT/ITEMSREFERREDBYCOUNCIL
UpcomingEvents
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mrs. Lauret moved to appoint Sally Taylor to the Beautification Advisory Commission. Mr.
Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,
Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mrs. Lauret moved to appoint Chitralekha Duttagupta to the Library Advisory Commission. Mr.
Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,
Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
CITYMANAGER'SAPPOINTMENTS
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
There were no appointments to boards and commissions.
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.8)

PERSONAL APPEARANCES 
Mayor Brunst expressed condolences to the Longhurst family, who recently lost their 11-year­
old son, Eric, who was hit by a car while crossing a street. 
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. 
Bob Wright, resident, wanted to speak about the Sewer Master Plan, which he felt should be a 
public hearing since it pertained to monthly increases to the citizens. He remarked that many 
Orem citizens were having difficulties making ends meet financially, and that the proposed 
increases were exorbitant. Mr. Wright argued that the citizens were already paying for this 
service, and felt that projects such as sewer and pipe replacements could be accomplished on a 
pay-as-you-go basis. He stated that the City received millions of dollars in income from sales, 
property, and franchise taxes. Mr. Wright asked the City Council to reconsider the proposed rate 
increases that had been outlined in the Sewer Master Plan. 
Sam Taylor, resident, stated that he moved to the area from Boston and could have moved 
anywhere in Utah, but he and his family chose to move to the Sunset Heights neighborhood 
because it was such an attractive neighborhood. A few weeks after they purchased their home, 
they learned about the possibility of a rezone that would allow for the development of a high-
density student housing apartment complex. After considering the implications that this type of 
r--" 
development would have on his family, he had determined that the apartment complex would 
have a negative impact on the neighborhood for a number of reasons. As such, he and his wife 
wanted to add their voices to those who were in opposition of the proposed rezone and possible 
development that might occur as a result of that decision. 
CONSENT ITEMS 
MOTION -Reschedule the March 22, 2016 City Council Meeting to March 29, 2016 
Mr. Macdonald moved to reschedule the March 22, 2016, City Council meeting to March 29, 
2016. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, 
Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed 
unanimously. 
SCHEDULED ITEMS 
6:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -Rezone PD-22 and R8 to HS zone -1045 North 1200 
West 
ORDINANCE - Amending the General Plan by changing the land use designation on 
approximately 0.47 acres from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Regional Commercial 
(RC) and amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by rezoning 
approximately 1.83 acres of property located at 1045 North 1200 West from the PD-22 and 
RS zones to the Highway Services (HS) zone 
City Council Minutes-March 8, 2016 (p.9) 
..... 
I, 



the land use designation on approximately 0.47 acres from Low Density Residential (LDR) to
Regional Commercial (RC) and amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of
PD-22 and R8 zones to the HS zone.
The applicant proposed to construct a new office building with 21,500 square feet on property at
1045 North 1200 West. The property on which the development was proposed consisted of two
separate parcels. The first parcel was located on 1200 West directly north of BJ's Plumbing at
1045 North and was currently zoned PD-22 (Northgate). The second parcel was located directly
north of and adjacent to the first parcel. The second parcel was currently zoned R8 and had
access from a residential cul-de-sac (1160West).
There were a number of elements related to the current zoning that the applicant wanted to
zone required five stalls per thousand square feet which was a higher standard than the City's
other commercial zones which typically required four stalls per thousand square feet. The lower
parking standard of the HS zone (which would require 22 fewer stalls for a building of this size)
would enable the applicants to add an additional 5,000 square feet of space in a basement level
which they would otherwise be unable to do.
Rezoning the property to HS would also grant the applicant greater flexibility with regards to
with a Tuscan architectural style and exterior finish materials. The HS zone would simply
require that the building be finished with brick, fluted block, colored textured block, glass,
synthetic stucco and/or wood.
The applicant also desired to rezone the second parcel from R8 to HS so that it could be used as
parking area for the office building. The grade of this second parcel would be lowered
substantially so that its use as parking would have a reduced impact on the adjoining residential
lots. The access to this lot from the cul-de-sac would be eliminated and it was anticipated that the
area of the access would be conveyed to the adjoining residential lots.
The applicant's proposed development would require considerable grading on the property due
to the existing slope. Formal approval of the grading plan would be required prior to site plan
approval.
A neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed rezone was held on December 10, 2015, at the
City Center with three people in attendance. At the meeting the proposed site plan was shown
and the need for the residential lot for parking was discussed. The two neighbors adjacent to the
residential parcel were concerned with the existing access from the cul-de-sac that they used to
access their backyards and whether the project would be accessed from the cul-de-sac. They
were informed that the project will not be accessible from the cul-de-sac and the stem of the flag
lot would be deeded to the adjacent property owners to maintain their backyard access.
No issues from residents were expressed during the Planning Commission public hearing on
February 17, 2016.
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.10)

The traffic study for the project showed that rezoning the residential property to a commercial
use would allow for a larger building and the increase in trip generation would be minimal (extra
44 trips.)
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend the General Plan by changing
Regional Commercial (RC) and amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of
PD-22 and R8 zones to the HS zone. City staff supported the Planning Commission
recommendation.
Mr. Bench presented the staff report, as well as an aerial map of the property in question, which
he noted was located near Winco and BJ's plumbing. He explained that the residential portion of
the property was a deep lot, and was not part of the request. Rather, this portion would be deeded
to the two existing residential properties that were located to the east and west.
The applicant was requesting the Highway Services Zone (HS), because it would allow for up to
almost 27,000 square feet of usable space. There was a significant slope between the upper level
of the residential area and the lower area where the office building would be located. Therefore,
a retaining wall would be put in as part of the project in order to match the existing 1200 West
elevation. This would prohibit access into the residential zone and would create a separation
between the two areas. Mr. Bench reviewed the proposed elevations. The rezone application was
posted on www.mysidewalk.com, and as of yesterday nine people had responded; seven
individuals were in favor the proposal, whereas two people were opposed. Another suggestion
was made to bring the building out and create a more walkable area.
Mr. Macdonald asked if the applicant was present. The applicant identified himself and came
forward to the podium. Mr. Macdonald asked what kind of tenants they were anticipating would
occupy the building. He did not want to see parking in the neighborhood if the structure could
not support it.
Boyd Brown explained that the proposed building would be primarily owner occupied. The
nature of the business was a residential real estate firm and they had been operating for nine
years in the Northgate Village. Mr. Brown stated that he was very familiar with the area and the
parking requirements. There were a few times when all nine of the real estate agents would be in
the office at the same time. There were a few times per week when the building was used for
meetings and training purposes. They would prefer to have five parking stalls per 1000 square
feet, so as to create separation from Northgate. They planned on finishing half the basement for
training activities, a break room, and a place for functions. Since this would be usable space, then
they needed to have sufficient parking in order to obtain the building permit. Mr. Boyd explained
that they would occupy the upper two floors; in other words, 21,000 square feet and 70 percent
of the building. Other title and mortgage tenants would rent the remaining portion of the building
on the main floor. Currently the proposal was for four stalls per 1000 square feet, for a total of
108 parking stalls.
Mr. Macdonald asked Mr. Brown if he was comfortable with having four stalls per thousand
square feet, to which Mr. Brown answered affirmatively. Almost every other zone in the City
required four stalls per thousand square feet, with the exception of retail which was five stalls per
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.11)

thousand square feet. Mr. Bench added that the majority of the City's office zones had a parking
Mr. Lentz had questions related to the use of the basement, and asked if the spike in activity
would cause parking issues. Mr. Brown replied that the few times per month in which parking
would be used to full capacity would be during training activities. However, he did not believe
that this would create problems with over-parking. They would be well in excess of the parking
requirement, and would be closer to having five stalls per thousand square feet. Mr. Lentz asked
if the training activities would only be for the people who already worked in the office space, or
if people would be brought in from outside. Mr. Brown answered that activities would involve
all of the agents who worked for the company, including those who worked in the office building
as well as those who were based out of a home office. They hoped and anticipated that the
training activities would be well attended so that all of the company's agents could have a chance
to connect on a regular basis. Tickets would not be sold to public for any of the activities that
would take place in the facility.
Mr. Lentz asked Mr. Bench if they would run into any issues if the basement was eventually
converted into additional office space with desks and cubicles. Mr. Bench explained that the
parking was calculated based on square footage; therefore, they would have the option of
converting that basement space if they so choose.
Mr. Seastrand commented that the purpose of PD zones was to maintain a consistent look and
    s s  se n  s      
the neighborhood.
Mr. Brown said he was not a huge fan of the Tuscan style. He preferred the HS zone, and the
barrier created between the PD Zone at Northgate Village. He said he wanted to design a
building that was more unique and stood out. He used photos of the Jordan Heights office
building to show that the proposed building would be very similar in style and esthetic. Mr.
a consistent look throughout developments in the area.
Mrs. Lauret asked if by adding another commercial building on 1200 West traffic would be of
great concern. Mr. Bench replied that the applicant was required to have a traffic study
conducted, and it was included in the application packet. According to the traffic study, the new
building would be create about 64 extra trips, which was insignificant in comparison to the
overall capacity of the road.
Mr. Brown stated that originally they only had the property on 1200 West under contract.
However, when they walked the site, they discovered that the north border of their property,
where the retaining wall would be located, lined up with the Northgate Village. Once the grade
was brought down and the retaining wall was built, the proposed development would fit more
congruently with the Northgate Village project.
Mayor Brunst asked Mr. Brown if he anticipated a lot of growth within his company. Mr. Brown
replied that they were hopeful, and that their goal was to grow in Utah County. They were
pushing for the 26,000 square feet because it would help facilitate a ten-year growth cycle. They
were hoping to attract flexible tenants to occupy the vacant space.
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.12)

Mayor Brunst commented that the building would be a great addition to the neighborhood, and
would tie in well with the other buildings in the area. He liked the look and esthetic of the
building.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, so Mayor Brunst
closed the public hearing.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend the General Plan by changing the land use
designation on approximately 0.47 acres from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Regional
Commercial (RC) and amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by
rezoning approximately 1.83 acres of property located at 1045 North 1200 West from the PD-22
and R8 zones to the Highway Services (HS) zone. Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting
aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David
Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - 2"d Quarter Budget Amendments
ORDINANCE - Amending the Current Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget
The Fiscal Year 2015-2016 City of Orem budget had many adjustments that occurred throughout
the fiscal year. These adjustments included grants received from Federal, State, and other
governmental or private entities/organizations; receipt of rental fees for use of the City's athletic
fields; additional funds received for the adult flag football program due to increased
participation; the debt disbursement related to the sale of a piece of property in the Northgate
SID that occurred in the prior fiscal year; increased revenue and available capital project funds
due to the previously approved increase to the City's storm sewer fee; and various other smaller
technical corrections or minor budget adjustments that needed to be made.
The City Manager recommended the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss amending the
current Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget and, by ordinance, amend Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget.
  s n  sd s    a  
City Council, which kept the City in good standing with regard to State auditing requirements.
He then turned the time over to Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Nelson stated that he would primarily focus on revenues, so that the Council could see that
there was a reason behind each one of the elements. He would also receive questions pertaining
to expenditures. A large portion of the amendments made to the General Fund had to do with
grants that were awarded for various projects. Small adjustments were also made for items, and
in particular flag football. More teams signed up, and so more t-shirts and supplies were needed.
Additional revenues were also generated from rental fees from the athletic fields. The largest
amendment was in the debt service fund. In January 2015, there was a large portion of property
that sold in the Northgate area; however, the bond payment was not due until November. The
City collected assessments as the property was sold, or as appropriate entities were billed.
Additional monies were received over and above the minimum, and those funds were then paid
in November of the current fiscal year.
Mayor Brunst asked for clarification regarding the forfeitures and revenues from the Federal
Treasury. Mr. Nelson explained that the Utah County Drug Task Force received funds from drug
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.13)

stings, which were then sent to the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Group. Afterwards, some of the
money was granted back to the City. Those funds were not used until the Utah County Drug
TaskForce identified a specific need.
Mr. Nelson explained that the last amendment item was the approval of the increased storm
sewer fee, which would have impact on the capital projects for the current year.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, so Mayor Brunst
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to amend the current Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget. Mrs.
Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,
Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
RESOLUTION-Adopt the2016Sewer Master Plan and accept theSewer User RateStudy
The Public Works Director recommended that the Orem City Council, by resolution, adopt the
2016 Sewer Master Plan prepared by Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. (BCA) and accept the
Sewer User Rate Study prepared by Lewis Young Robertson &Burningham, Inc (LYRB).
The Orem Water Reclamation Facility (OWRF) was constructed in 1958. Major upgrades were
S  s   n       
blowers, digesters, clarifiers, back-up generators, and a recently added ultra-violet disinfection
system. Following a very strict and specific permit issued by the State of Utah Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), which was regulated by the USEPA Region 8, the OWRF discharges treated
water to Powell Slough. The collection system consists of over 287 miles of pipe, 6,000
manholes, six lift stations, and six miles of pressurized force main.
In February 2014, the City hired BCA to perform a Sewer Master Plan. The request for
engineering services was organized into 12 tasks. Some of the highlights included: develop a
hydraulic model, identify existing and future needs, develop a Capital Facilities Plan,
recommend a solution to the struvite problem at the OWRF, evaluate maintenance and
manpower, and develop sewer rates to support the operations and capital needs of the sewer
utility. Together with City staff, the Public Works Advisory Commission, the general public, and
the City Council, BCA created a sewer master plan for consideration.
Recommended improvements identified by BCA included improvements to both the OWRF and
the collection system totaling $48 million (present value). Some projects were identified by
specific address and others, in future years, were yet to be determined and would be constructed
as the need was identified with a full condition assessment. The City sewer maintenance efforts
included CCTV and inspection - about 20,000' per month. More than half of the City's sewer
collection system consisted of concrete pipe that was susceptible to hydrogen sulfide gas. Lining
concrete pipe prior to losing its integrity or completely failing was a measure similar to
overlaying a road versus total reconstruction. The rehabilitation would extend the life of the
pipeline, was about 30-40% of the cost and, in the case of sewer, would prevent a potentially
disastrousevent.
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.14)

LYRB was subcontracted by BCA to review the existing sewer rates and provide a
recommended rate schedule based on changes in forecasted expenses and capital improvements
and on a pay-as-you-go basis. The primary objectives of the rate analysis were to ensure
sufficient revenues to cover all operation and maintenance expenses while maintaining bond
covenants, ensuring the appropriate debt service coverage ratio, and providing sufficient revenue
to fund the proposed projects identified in the master plan.
A review of projected revenues under the existing rate structure relative to proposed expenses
illustrated that the City would not have sufficient revenues to fund the needed capital
improvements without a rate increase. The results of this master plan were the basis for a rate
study that was used to establish supporting sewer rates for the City. Originally, a five-year rate
increase was proposed by City staff in conjunction with BCA and LYRB. After receiving public
feedback and upon the recommendation of the City Council, a pay-as-you-go funding plan over
5-, 7-, and 10-year periods, and a bonding plan, were developed.
In January 2016, the City Council adopted a plan to change the billing procedure for the sewer
base rate for multi-unit residential accounts and non-residential accounts with a water meter
larger than 3/4 inch. Due to the change, in the first year of all plans a rate increase was not
deemednecessary.
The rate scenarios specified were structured to produce a 2026 final base rate of $16.03 and a
final volume rate of $3.66/1,000 gallons. Scenarios 2 and 3 would fund a reduced CIP in order to
allow for a more moderate annual increase in the rates. Scenarios 2 and 3 would result in an
overall revenue reduction of $2,527,838 and $5,885,836, respectively, over the same 10-year
o   s            
liability for increased sewer line maintenance and potential failures. Scenario 4 included some
bonding and allowed for projects to be completed within the 5-year CIP plan but would keep
rates to more moderate increases.
Mr. Tschirki reported that staff had been working on the Sewer Master Plan for the past twenty
to twenty-four months. Two open houses took place in August, and a large amount of
information had been distributed through newsletters and social media. The Public Works
Advisory Commission (PWAC) had also been involved with this process. Mr. Macdonald was
previously the Council Member representative to the PWAC, and Mr. Spencer now represented
the Council in this capacity.
Mayor Brunst asked if the PWAC meetings were public, to which Mr. Tschirki answered
affirmatively. The meetings were held every 3"d Tuesday at 7:00 a.m. at the Public Works
building. The meetings were a great opportunity for the public to become familiarized with the
Mr. Winterton stated that they wanted the Sewer Master Plan to be approved, and have the
Council recommend a financial plan moving forward. Last month, the storm water utility was
discussed as an invisible utility. He noted that Lawrence Burton was the Department's Water
Reclamation Section Manager, and had worked for the City of Orem for thirty-two years and
eight months. The Department's Field Supervisors had each worked for thirty-six years and
thirty-one years of experience, respectively. Collectively, the team had a vast knowledge of
water reclamation. Mr. Winterton stated that beneath the streets, buried close to twenty feet
City Council Minutes - March 8,2016 (p.15)

underground, were the City's sewer pipes that carried and conveyed sewer to the treatment plant.
When it came to basic water needs, citizens expected a reliable service, clean water, and a
resource that was both available and endless. Mr. Winterton commented that the sewer was often
takenforgranted.
Mr. Winterton presented a picture of the City's reclamation facility, which was taken from a
drone. The photo displayed four primary clarifiers, the four secondary clarifiers, and the race
tracks. He then showed a simplified graphic of how the sewer system worked. The Orem Water
Reclamation Facility (OWRF) was built in 1958, which was previously operated on a septic
system that discharged at a central location near 800 South, west of Utah Valley University. The
facility processed 2.8 billion gallons per year, which was just less than eight million gallons per
day. Mr. Winterton emphasized that the flow never stopped. Ultimately, discharge took place at
Powell Slough, which was conveyed through a collection system that was made up of 287 miles
of pipe and over 6,000 manholes. The majority of sewerage was conveyed through an eight-inch
pipe, though there were many pipes of different sizes as well. The purpose of the Master Plan
was to look at potentially existing deficiencies and take preventive measures for future
deficiencies as well. It was a working document, because Orem was a City that changed every
day.
Mr. Winterton stated that peak flow at build out was about thirteen million gallons per day,
which did not include infiltration. The plant was designed for about 13.5 million gallons per day.
They were actively promoting conservation efforts within the City of Orem, which would
improve the process. Mr. Winterton noted that, ideally, they liked the pipes to be about half full
flow conditions at build out, they would determine whether or not improvements were needed.
Maintenance areas included settling pipes, tilting manholes, or too little flow in a pipe. Proposed
maintenance projects were prioritized on a weekly, biweekly, monthly, or quarterly schedule.
Further prioritization took place depending on funding availability.
Mayor Brunst asked what would happen to maintenance areas if project funding was unavailable.
Mr. Winterton replied that maintenance areas would continue to increase and require cleaning
and servicing more often. JetVac trucks, which were large trucks, used high pressure (similar to a
carwash) on a reverse mushroom nozzle that went up the line. Whatever was scoured and
cleaned out was sucked up through the manhole and hauled off, so that it did not flow
downstream and cause more problems. The nozzle stretched as far as 1000 feet. Manholes were
spaced between 400 to 600 feet, and sometimes up to 1000 feet apart. Manholes were less
effective the farther away that they were spaced.
Mr. Winterton explained that when the sewer did not travel as fast, or had intermittent flow from
a lift station, hydrogen sulfide gas could be generated. Over 50 percent of the City's system was
concrete pipe, which was a bad combination with hydrogen sulfide gas. Staff was proposing a
plan to line those pipes with an inert pipe lining that had no reaction to hydrogen sulfide gas. If
they could get ahead of complete failure on the pipes, then they could rehabilitate the
conveyance systems for about thirty or forty percent of what it would cost the City if they waited
and had to do an open cut down through the roadway. If they lined the pipes now, it would be
hardly noticeable to the residents.
City Council Minutes -March 8, 2016 (p.16)

Mr. Seastrand asked how long the lining would last. Mr. Winterton said between 75 to 100 years.
The technology was not to the point where the first liners had worn out. He noted that concrete
pipe in a sewer environment lasted about 50 years.
Mr. Sumner asked if by installing new lining they would not have to replace any pipes. Mr.
Winterton explained that they hoped to catch the degradation of concrete pipe while they still
had a host carrier pipe. The liner was fiberglass and resin that was moldable and flexible. Once
the lining was heated, it was molded into a new pipe inside the existing pipe. If the existing pipe
was already badly degraded, then it needed to be dug out and replaced. In a worst case scenario,
sewer lines might even collapse. In response to a question from Mr. Sumner, Mr. Winterton
explained that this was not new technology, but when the patent ran out in 2005 the product
became more competitively priced.
Mr. Winterton explained that they had identified future system improvements. He presented a
map of the planning and development of the collection system, and pointed out that only the first
seven had been identified through 2026. Continued monitoring would take place to determine the
exact time that those projects would be needed. The SS1, otherwise known as the Carterville
Forced Main Relocation Project, needed to happen because of its location. The SS1 would be in
conjunction with a Bus Rapid Transit project. The SS2, which was the Spring Water lift station,
had also served its useful life and a new lift station was needed. The project would cost around
$1.5 million. The most recent lift station was the Geneva Road station, which was built about
five or six years ago and cost around $1.2 million.
Mr. Winterton stated that a plan was created in order to fund the Sewer Master Plan, which was
available to review online. He presented a bar graph, which showed their desired funding level in
comparison to their present funding. The graph also showed what would happen if nothing was
done. They had presented rates that reflected the desired CIP funding, and based on the
also took into account fleet replacement. Mr. Tschirki noted that the JetVac trucks cost $400,000
apiece and Orem City owned three of them, as well as other vehicles that were used to maintain
the system.
Mr. Tschirki stated that two years ago Steve Weber worked on a fleet maintenance project,
where he identified every single licensed vehicle that was owned by the City of Orem. On an
owned several pieces of equipment which each cost a few hundred thousand dollars. In looking
ahead, they had developed a pay-as-you-go plan in order to maintain and/or replace the City's
vehicles.
Mr. Winterton presented a graphic of how monthly increases would affect sewer bills. Staff
recognized that this would be an increased bill to the residents of Orem, and staff and elected
officials were sympathetic to this reality. As such, they were directed to develop alternatives. Mr.
Winterton stated that the proposed plan did not put them above average in comparison to other
cities in the County and throughout the State. Nevertheless, they had presented the projects and
the need for this CIP funding. The benchmark was the 5-year implementation, and if this was
stretched to seven years, the City would lose $2.5 million of available project money. If stretched
to a 10-year implementation plan, the City would lose S5.9 million of available funding. The
bond would be forced to be revenue neutral. Tonight, staff was seeking the Council's
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.17)

recommendation for upcoming years. In 2018, staff would present a recommendation based on
the City's needs at that time. In 2019, staff would report back to the Council and seek approval,
and projects would be reported each subsequent year thereafter.
Mr. Winterton then presented a summary of all of the projects over the next ten years, totaling
$49 million. He explained that the City had two fees to fund these projects; the base rate fee and
consumption fee. The billing method for the sewer base rate fee changed in January 2016 to
include all units. Staff was not recommending a change in the coming budget years of 2017 and
2018. The sewer volume charge was based on per thousand gallons, and no changes were being
recommendedfor2017.
Mr. Tschirki mentioned that this was a self-funded enterprise fund. Similar to all other enterprise
funds, it was funded through fees and charges that were assessed. Taxes were not charged for
these funds. Other services such as attorney fees, accounting, utility/billing, engineering, etc.
were also paid internally by way of fees that had been collected.
Mayor Brunst asked how the bonding rate scenario would work. Mr. Winterton presented a slide
which summarized the monthly bill increase for each scenario. A 2018 sewer bond would have a
principal balance of $4.5 million, and an interest payment of $2.3 million. The annual payment
would be approximately $340,000 for a twenty year note. In 2021, the proposed bond amount
would have a $7.5 million principal, with a $3.8 million interest payment and an annual payment
Mr. Seastrand asked how the annual payment broke down on a monthly basis per home. Mr.
Winterton answered that he did not have that figure readily available. The Council made some
rough calculations and determined that it would cost each home around $1.00 to $2.50 each
month.
Mr. Lentz asked if they would be able to tie the rates to inflation without any additional
increases, so that the net effect to the homeowner would be insignificant. Mr. Seastrand added
that once the rate was met, no additional capital improvement bonding would be needed. Mr.
Winterton affirmed that Mr. Lentz and Mr. Seastrand correctly summarized the implications of
the bonding proposal.
Mrs. Lauret inquired on the lifespan of the projects, should they decide to proceed with bonding.
five year lifespan.
Mr. Sumner stated that they recently passed the door rate, and made additional calculations based
on the information that had been presented. Mr. Winterton clarified that the information
presented was a straight volume charge for a single family home.
Mr. Spencer inquired as to what the best option would be in the event of an economic downturn.
Mr. Tschirki answered that the least impact to the individual single-family home owner would be
to bond over a ten year period, as it would have the least monthly impact. There was further
review of the graph that was previously shown.
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.18)

Mr. Lentz commended the Public Works Department, BCA, the PWAC, and members of staff,
for all the time and effort that they had invested into this effort. He was appreciative of their
mindfulness in being responsible and accountable to the citizens of Orem, so that these projects
could be done in a cost-effective and proactive way. He quoted Henry Ford, who stated: "If you
need a machine and you don't buy it, you'll soon find that you paid for it, but don't have it." Mr.
Lentz stated that he did not want this to happen in Orem because they did not devote the proper
funds to make the necessary improvements. This was not the first time that the City had had this
discussion; however, unfortunately, the last time a decision was made in 1998, they did not stick
to the original plan. Not only did the Council want to make the resolution whether or not to
accept the Sewer Master Plan, but to also indicate to the Public Works Department which path
they would like to go down. Mr. Lentz asked the audience what approach they would take to try
and meet these needs proactively. He opined that the bonding scenario was a hybrid approach
that not only maintained a low impact on single-family households, but also provided the
funding mechanism that was needed for the projects. His recommendation was to pursue the
bonding approach.
Mr. Macdonald clarified that the discussion was not a public hearing. He stated that there did not
seem to be a compelling reason to bond because the estimated cost of increase would be so much
greater than the current interest costs. However, it seemed that the anticipated inflation rate was
not any higher than the anticipated interest rate. Mr. Larson replied that there were some costs
associatedwithbonding.
Mr. Macdonald stated that the fact that Orem was the lowest rate in the area was not good news.
Rather, it meant that they had delayed necessary improvements for too long. He had heard this
presentation for the past two years, and as a Council they had heard multiple reports as well. He
believed that they needed to increase the price of sewer and other critical services so that
problems did not occur in the future. He was of the opinion that they could opt for a pay-as-you-
go scenario, rather than a bonding situation, and was favorable to a 7-year plan. Mr. Macdonald
stated that this plan had been well prepared and he had great confidence in those who had put it
together.
Mayor Brunst commended Mr. Macdonald for his work on the PWAC.
Mr. Seastrand stated that Orem City benefited greatly by being prepared and having plans in
place. When the opportunity arose, the City was able to get a O% interest loan and capitalize on
that advantage.He commended the effort and energy of those who had been involved to solve
problems in the City. Mr. Seastrand recognized that plans could have variable changes; therefore,
flexibility was required when executing a plan. He was in favor of holding off on bonding, and
felt that a 7-year plan would be the best option. There were multiple factors when deciding
whether or not bonding was the appropriate option.
Mr. Sumner also thanked those who were involved with all of the diligent study and work that
went into developing the Sewer Master Plan. He inquired as to what the general public response
was at community open houses, and whether or not there had been any pushback while
information had been available on the City's website.
sending out multiple mailings and holding several meetings. Some residents supported a more
aggressive plan, while others preferred less aggressive approaches. Overall, there had been
City Council Minutes - March 8, 2016 (p.19)

       n     a    
and engineered plan. The primary concerns that had been expressed through online feedback
pertained to how quickly the process would move forward. While there had been some pushback
from a small portion of the community regarding sewer base rate changes, he had not personally
received any calls pertaining to the Sewer Master Plan. Mr. Winterton added that he had received
an equal amount of both positive and negative feedback.
Mr. Spencer explained that his opinion had varied throughout the discussions that had taken
place on this issue. While he was not opposed to bonding, he did not believe that this was the
appropriate time and place to pursue bonding. His opinion reflected what Mr. Macdonald and
Mr. Seastrand had expressed, in that he was also in favor of a 7-year plan.
Mayor Brunst remarked that he appreciated the comments that had been made from each of the
Council Members. He then proceeded to again review the calculations that had been presented
and deliberated upon throughout the discussion. Mayor Brunst stated that he personally believed
Mr. Lentz stated that he wanted to provide context for his support for the hybrid bonding model.
The pay-as-you-go option was his first choice, for many of the same reasons that were outlined
by Mr. Macdonald. However, while campaigning this year, several senior citizens suggested to
him that bonding would be a more fair way of assessing the costs. He viewed the hybrid
approach as a compromise that would limit the amount of interest that was paid, but would still
help ensure that those benefitting from the infrastructure and facilities would be the ones paying
for it. He was not saying he could never support the 5- or 7-year model; but, he felt that the
Mayor Brunst asked the Council to consider the best way for funding the necessary
infrastructure, while helping to reduce the financial burden to the citizens. They needed to
consider the implications of all options.
Mr. Seastrand stated that there was flexibility in terms of when some of the repairs could be
made. The proposal of a 10-year plan provided some indication that they could accomplish what
was needed over that time period. He asked if this was a fair assumption, to which Mr. Winterton
answered that this was more so the case with the sewer utility than the water utility. Mr.
Seastrand explained that taking an additional $5 million out of the pockets of the residents was
hard to justify. He stressed that they were using the citizens’ money to pay for this infrastructure,
and so they needed to spend effectively and efficiently, so that the job got done appropriately.
Mr. Macdonald explained that as per his calculations, they would be looking at approximately
$55 million in the 5-year plan over the ten years. Mr. Larson explained that it would be $49
million in today's dollars. Mr. Macdonald stated that it was more important to look at the
accumulative bill rather than the monthly increase. He opined that the 7-year plan would be more
palatable for the people, and he was more supportive of a pay-as-you-go, rather than bonding
approach.
Mr. Lentz inquired about the $2.5 million difference in CIP funds that were available. He made
reference to a slide that was presented earlier, which showed routine maintenance. He wondered
if the additional maintenance operations could cost more than $2.5 million, by not having
upgraded infrastructure. Mr. Tschirki responded that this could be a possibility, depending on the
City Council Minutes -March 8,2016 (p.20)

integrity of the pipes. If the pipes were not structurally stable, then they would have to openly
excavate them. Mr. Lentz stated that he was concerned about not investing in infrastructure and
taking those risks.
Mr. Winterton explained that the City conducted CCTV inspections on 20,000 feet of sewer line
       s        
conditional assessment and use upgraded technology to do a blitz on the system. Funding was
not currently available for this project, but it would take place first in order to better define a
hydrogen sulfide replacement program. This would shift around projects in order of importance
within a 7-year plan.
Mr. Lentz stated that upgrading the infrastructure could last for several more decades. He was
concerned that if they stretched operational costs out too long, they would end up costing the
City more in the long run.
Mr. Spencer stated that he was anticipating an economic downturn, and in a recent conversation
with Mr. Manning, they discussed that the best time to bond was in an economic downturn. With
that in mind, Mr. Spencer felt that they needed to move at a slower pace and that the 7-year plan
stay the course and be conservative.
Mrs. Lauret commented that she had been studying this item for a few months and was also
leaning toward the 7-year plan, with the option to bond in a year or two if the market was right.
Bonding was always appealing because the costs were spread out, and it was usually the cheapest
Mr. Sumner added that he was also in favor of the 7-year plan, which would cause the City to
better prioritize projects. Mr. Winterton responded that any of the plans would cause the City to
prioritize needs based on funding availability. For a lot of senior citizens, a few dollars made a
huge difference in their monthly bill.
Mr. Seastrand expressed appreciation for Mr. Wright's comments earlier in the meeting. He
clarified they were not increasing or approving any rates tonight. Tonight they had the
           s      
doing the plan. By accepting the plan, it now became a significant part of the public record.
Furthermore, the Council was giving a recommendation on the planning that they would like the
group to anticipate and plan for in the future.
Mr. Wright expressed appreciation for the comments from the Council, and indicated that he did
not approve of a bonding option. He wondered if the increased rates would remain the same after
the infrastructure was fully built out, or if they would be reduced again. He emphasized that he
was concerned for the citizens'point of view.
Mr. Tschirki stated that the goal was to reach a sustainable line, as the City had not been keeping
up with repairs and maintenance as had been needed. Mr. Macdonald remarked that the same
discussions had taken place in 1998. There was further deliberation upon the matter.
City Council Minutes -March 8,2016 (p.21)

MayorBrunstmoved,byresolution,toadopt the2016SewerMasterPlan andaccept theSewer
User Rate Study and recommended the 7-year plan while keeping the door open for a bonding
option.Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret,
Sam Lentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark Seastrand,David Spencer,Brent Sumner.The motion passed
unanimously.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
TherewerenoCommunicationItems.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
There were no City Manager Information Items.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr.Seastrandmoved toadjourn to themeeting.Mrs.Lauret seconded themotion.Thosevoting
aye:Richard F.Brunst,DebbyLauret,Sam Lentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark Seastrand,David
Spencer,BrentSumner.Themotionpassedunanimously.
Themeetingadjourned at7:52p.m.
CORPORATE
SEAL
ComaR.liavn
DonnaR.Weaver,CityRecorder
Approved: March 29, 2016
City Council Minutes-March8,2016（p.22)