City Council · 2016-10-11

CITY OF OREM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
October 11, 2016
3:00 P.M. WORK SESSION -PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
Mayor Richard F. Brunst
CONDUCTING
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer and Brent
Sumner
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
APPOINTEDSTAFF
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard
Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell,
Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department 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;
and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
DISCUSSION - City Council Priorities FY 2016-2017
Mayor Brunst led the discussion on City Council priorities for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. He said
the two topics they would generally discuss would be (1) the City Center District and City Center
facility; and (2) UTOPIA.
Mr. Davidson said the City had hired a company to work on the City Center District Plan in
addition to hiring architects for the design elements. Their preliminary information showed that
the intersection was not yet ready for significant commercial development, at least not as high as
they were hoping for. He said the State Street Master Plan had been optimistic in estimates for
        s  
develop the area commercially to a degree, and would continue to consult with those planning
for the area.
In response to Mayor Brunst's question, Mr. Bybee said they were working on other district
plans as well, but had been sidetracked doing a needs assessment on the City Center building.
That would play into the Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP). He added that it had been difficult to
get all the parties involved scheduled for meetings thus far, but they would continue to work on
that.
In response to Mr. Sumner's question, Mr. Bybee said they hoped.to work with many developers
in finding the best fit but so far had only heard from the Woodbury Corporation.
City Council Minutes - October 11,2016 (p.1)


UTOPIA
The Mayor then moved the discussion on to UTOPIA. At Mayor Brunst's invitation for
discussion, Mr. Seastrand said he had spoken to other organizations about the possibility of third-
party vendors using UTOPIA's fiber infrastructure to allow more people to connect.
Mayor Brunst said he had spoken with a representative from Mile High Construction who
thought that might be a feasible option, and he suggested that a layered bonding plan similar to
the one done for street lighting may be the best way to fund the build out. Mayor Brunst said the
City had miles of roadway where connection to the fiber infrastructure was not yet possible and
 s      d  a     n 
Woodland Hills and Vineyard were looking at these models.
Mr. Manning explained the financing mechanisms involved in layered bonding options. He said
that, with the street lighting bond, they had not had everyone pay at the start but layered the
payments so that everyone did eventually pay the same length of time over the seventeen years
ofthebond.
Mayor Brunst said the concern was that half of the city had fiber in the ground and access to it,
and the other half had the conduit that could have fiber but did not have it yet. Mr. Macdonald
homes but only 45 percent actually had access to it.
Mr. Davidson said some of the concern was to the efficiency of what was already in the ground.
He said simply having conduit did not mean they could automatically link to fiber.
Mr. Seastrand said it was a question of accessibility. It was also a question of preference and
finding consensus enough to deploy the infrastructure in an effective way to address different
wants and needs. He was concerned about companies coming in and digging up roadways
multiple times to lay their conduit or fiber, and he felt the City should avoid that. Mayor Brunst
suggested that Mr. Seastrand contact both the provider companies and the contractors that laid
fiber to see if they had any consensus on user's needs.
Mr. Davidson said conduit could be partitioned; the contractors just needed to know that from
the start. He said his experience thus far had been that providers were hesitant to work with each
other as it was a competitive market for this service. CenturyLink, in particular, had said its
preference was to build and control their own conduit and fiber network. In response to Mr.
Seastrand's question, Mr. Davidson said the conversation would begin with UTOPIA. It would
be the city's system and then they could have conversations with other broadband providers. He
was not sure how those conversations would go.
Mr. Lentz said he had spoken to Roger Timmerman, UTOPIA Executive Director, about
partitioned conduit. He said they could put the conduit in and hope that providers would lease the
infrastructure to pay it off, but there was no way of guaranteeing that the providers would want
to do that.
Mr. Spencer suggested having providers sign letters of intent that they would use the City's
conduit, which would prove that they were serious about doing business with Orem's residents.
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.2)


Mr. Davidson said he was not sure they could “force" providers into using the City's conduit, but
they could perhaps be compelled.
Mr. Lentz asked if the goal was to build out the conduit throughout the City, or only in places
where UTOPIA was not already in place. Mayor Brunst said it was the latter. Mr. Lentz said one
of his concerns was for long-time UTOPIA customers to realize the same deals and benefits that
newer customers may qualify for. He said he had worked with Orem IT to look at connections
and come up with a possible solution. Mr. Lentz said if they were willing to entertain the idea of
a utility fee, they could make connection available to anyone who wanted it for $3.25 (the same
amount as the street lighting fee). If a utility fee was in place, they could do away with the $30
connection fee and remove the barrier to entry when it came to the take rate.
Mr. Macdonald said this discussion felt like the City Council trying to do the “pick and shovel"
work on this topic, but he was under the impression that that was the exact reason they had
expanded the Public Works Advisory Commission (PWAC) to add members who had the
experience and expertise to help advise the Council on these issues. He said he felt having a
discussion on this level before having the recommendation of the PWAC would be fruitless.
Mr. Tschirki said he hoped to bring a list of goals or a general vision from the Council to the
PWAC as a framework for their discussions and ultimate recommendations.
Mr. Davidson said it was important that the Council consider the financing mechanism of how to
achieve their goals as well.
The Council discussed some of the following ideas and topics, including:
· Layered bonding similar to street lighting bonds
·A $3.25 utility fee
 Take rates, both current and potential, in Orem neighborhoods and other UTOPIA cities
?
Special assessment areas
Having conduit available even if residents never connected
Revenues as more accurate indicators of success over take rates
Future economic factors including economic downturn
Votes and a voice for the City at UTOPIA Board Meetings
UIA Debt
Opt-out clauseforUIA bonds
Pay-as-you-go options
Future technologies that may perform better than fiber
Mrs. Lauret said her goal was to have conduit in place to allow every resident connection to the
fiber network if they wanted. She said Mr. Timmerman had said he would provide the City with
information about take rates in Orem neighborhoods and the possibilities of connection in
harder-to-reach areas. She said she thought they could prioritize build-out for areas that would
generate the most revenue and help pay to bring other areas online.
s,  go a s s no u nou nno p sm a is s 
UTOPIA cities. He also had concerns about UIA debt, and thought this would be a good topic
for the PWAC to discuss and bring recommendations on. Mr. Sumner said that some residents
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.3)


were content with their slower internet connections, and he thought there could be some
education to residents about the benefit of connecting to a fiber system.
Mr. Macdonald said he thought it would be most valuable to have the PWAC consider the issues
and bring forth recommendations. While he agreed that the City Council needed to be aware of
the concerns of UTOPIA, he felt some details were better left to the experts to review. That was
the entire point of having technology experts appointed to that committee. He said he hoped that
the Council would turn these discussions over to the PWAC and wait for their recommendations.
Mayor Brunst said if a fee of $3.25 was collected over 17 years that would collect approximately
$15 million, which would help pay into finishing the costs of build-out. He said he thought it was
a reasonable approach to basically replace the street lighting fee as that bond closed out with a
layered bond for conduit. It might be worth looking into special assessment areas, but the make-
up of Orem would be a factor in that. Google Fiber, for example, had certain thresholds that had
to be met before assessment areas were connected. He expressed concern about trying to use one
bond to pay off two debts. Mayor Brunst said he wanted to see third-party providers work
together to give residents the best options. He wanted the system to be self-sustaining.
Mr. Spencer said he did not want any new debt at all for the build-out and wanted to keep things
pay-as-you-go. He was concerned about indicators he saw that may lead to economic downturn,
and he wanted to ensure that the City was in a good position if that were to happen. He also
worried about changing technology and did not want to spend all the time and money of building
out a system if it would become obsolete soon after. Mr. Spencer said the UIA Board could vote
to bond, and Orem would have no say, which concerned him. He wanted an opt-out clause in that
case. He thought it would be valuable to look at possibilities of partitioning conduit for third-
party providers, and have the PWAC vet the details of Mr. Lentz's proposal.
Mr. Lentz said the old adage of needing to spend money to make money applied to this system.
He said much of the backbone of UTOPIA was built, and as a City they should invest and
capitalize on that. A $3.25 fee would certainly cut into existing debt, but would not pay it off
entirely. He said he felt they could delve into the idea of a utility fee that would more
comprehensively cover costs without overburdening residents; the goal was to solve the problem,
not make it as drawn-out and frictionless as possible. Mr. Lentz said he worried that more
affluent neighborhoods and businesses would get access and others would not, even though they
had paid the same share of the debt load. He did not want anyone to have paid into the system
and not benefit from it. Mr. Lentz stated that this was his line of work, and he had expertise in
this field; fiber was not going anywhere. Other tech in the field could only mimic the speed and
get close to the baseline of what fiber could do. He said not only was there speed, there was
consistency and reliability as well, which was hugely important for people using their internet
connectionsforwork.
Mr. Seastrand said he wanted to ensure that the debt load was decreased. He spoke of three
Eventually the debt would be paid off and UTOPIA could hopefully stay in business during that
time. The next would be (2) to operate within UTOPIA and UIA and as an organization find
different revenue sources. Eventually everyone would be built out, but Orem would assume
some of the ongoing debt and not be in full control of the system. Finally, (3) that Orem find an
Orem solution separate from UTOPIA and UIA and build-out conduit in the most cost-efficient
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.4)


way, which could include sharing revenue streams, and all the benefits would go directly to the
city. Mr. Seastrand said he wanted UTOPIA to be viable and successful into the future. He asked
Mr. Davidson for his input.
Mr. Davidson said anything Orem did moving forward to expand the reach of the network would
require additional capital and debt. He wanted the City Council to understand that they would
still be tied to UTOPIA, regardless. Anything they did would need to be negotiated and should
benefit customers. He said all UIA debt to this point had been met by increase in subscriber
revenue. It was fair to say that future subscribers could pay that down, but cities would be the
ultimate backstop there. As to Mayor Brunst's concern about one bond covering multiple issues,
Mr. Davidson said the City did that regularly as many cities did. He was encouraged that they
were considering a financing mechanism like the layered bond. For the sake of summary, Mr.
Davidson said the goals of the Council, that Mr. Tschirki should take to the PWAC, were as
follows:
· Allow all residents the opportunity to connect to the fiber system
Identify the best financing mechanism to build-out
Build-out in most efficient way in terms of time and cost
Stay within the parameters of pay-as-you-go if possible
·Address issues of UIA bond debt
Mr. Tschirki said he would take those guiding principles to the PWAC for discussion and
recommendation in the future.
City Center Facilities
Mr. Spencer said he would like to return to the discussion of the City Center. He characterized
the building as “a lawsuit waiting to happen", and asked what the plans were moving forward for
the City Center district.
In response to Mr. Macdonald's question about the buildings, Mr. Davidson said that the police
station and the library were both seismically sound; it was the City Center that was not. It would
be more expensive to retrofit the building than to build a new one that met seismic and safety
codes. He said the Alpine School District was rebuilding schools for the same concerns, and
most if not all of those schools were “newer” than the City Center building. The City's brains
(some City staff and the City's computer servers) were housed here and in the case of a seismic
event, the City would be seriously incapacitated. Another issue to consider was that City
operations would still need to be carried on if and when a new building was built, and there
needed to be a way to do that.
Mr. Bybee said safety and technology were other issues to be considered, as well as seismic
concerns. They were looking at the feasibility of a public/private partnership for the building.
That was one reason they were concerned that commercial was not the suggestion for the City
Center District at this time.
Mr. Sumner asked if this was something that would be put to a vote, and how a new building
would be paid for. Mr. Davidson said they did not have any details at this time, but those were
issues to be considered.
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.5)


Mr. Macdonald asked about the Court building that was part of the City Center campus. Mr.
Davidson said the State's District Juvenile Court would be moving to a new court complex in
2018. The City was on a 5-year lease with the State for the Orem Justice Court, which lease
would end in 2020. At that point, they would need to consider what they would like to do with
the Justice Court and the building itself.
Mr. Lentz asked if they were doing side-by-side comparisons of costs to retrofit vs. new
construction. Mr. Bybee said the needs assessment had already shown that building new would
be a more efficient use of funds. The City Center had no insulation in the ceilings, had many
issues from a public safety standpoint, was not built for collaborative efforts, etc. It was
functional at best, and was a product of its time.
Mr. Bybee said they would have open houses and would gather public input, but he hoped they
would have some guiding principles and constraints to work within from the Council.
Mr. Lentz asked about other cities having done public/private partnerships. Mr. Bybee said none
to his knowledge were done at the scale they were considering. South Jordan had done this to
some extent. He said the goal in doing that would be to help alleviate taxpayers of some of the
financial burden.
Mrs. Lauret asked about the possibility of retail or housing to help fill on those gaps. Mr.
Davidson said that was something they had considered as well.
Mr. Bybee added that Provo had looked at a way to completely finance a new city hall through
commercial, retail, or residential means, but their study said it could not entirely be financed that
way.
5:00P.M.STUDYSESSION-PUBLICSAFETYTRAININGROOM
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
Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason
Bench, Planning Division Manager; and Jackie Lambert,
Deputy City Recorder
City Council Minutes -October11,2016(p.6)


Preview Upcoming Agenda Items
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Mr. Davidson wanted to remind the Council that there were two open positions for the PWAC,
and they had several applicants. Some had applied for those positions before the PWAC was
expanded to include members with knowledge and background in telecommunications, but they
could still be considered at the Council's discretion. He reminded the Council that the issues
were not just about technology, but the financial and legal implications as well.
After discussion about the potential candidates for appointment, the Council decided to consider
David B. McGinn and Drew Clark for appointment to the PWAC. The general consensus was to
make those appointments at the regular meeting.
Agenda Review
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.
City Council New Business
There was no new City Council business.
The Council adjourned 5:53 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
APPOINTED STAFF
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard
Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell,
Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott
Gurmey, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police
Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Ryan Clark,
Economic Development Division Manager; Pete Wolfley,
Communications Specialist; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy
City Recorder
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT Scott Wheelhouse
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Grace Baker
APPROVALOFMINUTES
City Council Minutes - October 11,2016 (p.7)


Meeting minutes. Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby
Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The
motion passed unanimously.
MAYOR'S REPORT/ITEMS REFERREDBY COUNCIL
UpcomingEvents
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
AppointmentstoBoardsandCommissions
Mr. Sumner moved to appoint Linda Van Orman to the Arts Council. Mr. Seastrand seconded
the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald,
Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Sumner moved to reappoint Annette Harkness, Jeff Lambson, and LaNae Millett to the
CARE Advisory Commission. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F.
Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Seastrand moved to reappoint Ginny Ball and Thomas Walsh to the CDBG Advisory
Commission. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby
Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The
motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Macdonald moved to appoint David McGinn and Drew Clark to the Public Works Advisory
Commission. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby
Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The
motion passed unanimously.
Recognitionof NewNeighborhoodsInAction Officers
There were no new NIA officers to recognize.
REPORT - Recreation Advisory Commission
Phil Patten, Chair of the Recreation Advisory Commission (RAC), presented a report on the
Commission's updates. Construction was recently completed on the Orem Fitness Center's pool
lining, and Mr. Patten explained they wanted to continue to give a “face lift" to the rest of the
Fitness Center as well. The RAC recommended the next four years of CARE tax money be used
for various remodeling projects. The RAC was given permission from the Mayor and Council to
put together a master plan, and as part of the process they would be working with a third party
Patten asked the Council if there were City funds that could be used for upfront project costs,
which would be reimbursed later by CARE tax revenues.
The RAC members felt the Fitness Center needed remodeling updates sooner rather than later in
order to remain competitive with surrounding cities. Mr. Patten said it was impossible to predict
where construction costs would be in four years. Waiting for CARE tax revenues may have
delayed any updates from being made at the time they were needed. When discussing priorities,
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.8)


the RAC considered fresh paint and carpet throughout the Fitness Center, updates to the track in
the basement, family changing rooms, a climbing wall and an indoor playground, etc. They also
wanted to explore the possibility of converting one or two racquetball courts into dance studios,
and converting the space above those courts on second level into a modern spin room. The RAC
discussed ways in which the Fitness Center could have generated additional revenue. Ideas
included building a juice bar and/or including digital billboards to list upcoming events and
activities. The billboard could have also been rented out as advertisement space for outside
businesses.
Mayor Brunst said he wanted to see a current report of recommendations from the RAC, as well
as after the study was done.
Mr. Sumner thanked RAC for their hard work and said they had a tough job as a commission.
Mr. Lentz asked about the possibility of bonding against the CARE funds, rather than pulling
money away for another project. He asked if it was possible to bond specifically for projects that
would have been gradually paid back by CARE funds. Mr. Hirst said the Council was going to
at that time. Mr. Lentz asked if the cost would have needed to be at the expense of other
programs or departments, and Mr. Hirst said that wasn't necessary.
Mr. Davidson said there were other options to front the costs of project improvements and agreed
with the proposal and suggestions made by Mr. Patten.
Mr. Seastrand thanked the commission for its work. He said over time sports would come and
go, and asked about significant shifts in uses that were over utilized or underutilized. Mr. Patten
explained that the study would determine whether or not that was the case with certain uses
and/or programs.
Mrs. Lauret asked if any parks or other needs were addressed in the study beyond the updates to
the Fitness Center. Mr. Bybee answered affirmatively, and said other areas were addressed in
impact fee studies. Furthermore, they were creating a steering committee comprised of
representation from various City Committees and staff as part of the master planning process.
Workshops and open houses would also be held in order to gain public feedback on the master
plan.
OATH OF OFFICE-OremYouth Council
Mr. Stephens explained that the Orem Youth City Council (OYCC) was a City sponsored group
comprised of high school students. They learned about City operations and representative
govermment and performed service in the community. This year OYCC had over thirty students
serving on the Orem Youth Council. Traditionally, OYCC Members were some of the best and
brightest students in the City, especially when considering all of their other school activities. Mr.
Stephens invited OYCC Members to introduce themselves. Ms. Lambert, Deputy City Recorder,
then completed the oath of office.
The Members of OYCC were as follows: Josee Keetch, Anna Glover, Lydia Day, Isabelle
Ashcraft, Bridgette Reno, Ashley Orton, Jonas Warner, Anna Parker, Josie Jensen, Michaela
Staker, Tori Thomas, Ansley Funes, Emily Billings, Mia Barlow, Jennifer Pelagio, Zac
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.9)


Napierski, Ashley Gil, Jessica Lynn Schmidt, Glory Thomas, Calli Schmidt, Alison Bench, Josie
Mattingly, Rachel Louisiana, Grace Baker, Jonathan Shipp, Kiannalie Sarmiento, Spencer
Yeates, Jessica Higa, Ben Berlin, Heather Erickson, Montana Pulver, Emma Patterson, Joshua
Wilson, Becca Donakey, Nathan Baker, Lorena Day, Samuel Roberton. Advisors: Greg
Stephens, Steve Earl, Jake Summers and Suzette Clark. City Council: Sam Lentz and Debby
Lauret.
City Manager Appointment
There were no City Manager Appointments.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on
the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior to the meeting, and comments
were limited to three minutes or less.
Anabelle Baskin, resident, said she wished to speak on behalf of the seniors, and acknowledged
that Orem was senior friendly. She had felt strongly that Orem would be her last home and
mentioned she lived in the Treeo Retirement Community. In speaking to the needs of the senior
community, Ms. Baskin said Orem street blocks were long, and requested the City install
benches in the middle of walkways so residents had a place to sit down while out walking.
Melodee Andersen, resident, expressed disappointment in the Council's votes for government
subsidies for the rich, and said their favorable vote for a $58 million government subsidy for the
Woodburys was a mistake. Ms. Andersen said the action was crony capitalism, which she
described as an economy in which success in business depended on close relationships between
business people and government officials. She quoted several Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Days (LDS) leaders and encouraged the Mayor and Council to reflect on the proper role of
government.
Elaine Andelin, resident, said that choosing to financially support one business the Council
impacted private businesses trying to compete in an unfair playing field. She said if there was a
forceful transfer of property committed outside the framework of government it was regarded as
criminal, regardless of whether or not the action was legal. She asked the Council to consider
whether their actions increased or decreased the freedom of the citizens, as they all had a moral
impact on the citizens.
Hans Andersen, resident, echoed previous remarks regarding socialism. He said UTOPIA and
the bus system cost taxpayers $200 million and $190 million, respectively; he said he felt both
programs were socialistic in nature. He shared quotes by LDS leaders and voiced his opposition
to some of the decisions made by Orem City leadership. He said he hoped the Mayor and
Councilwould changetheirways.
LeAnn Swanson, resident, expressed concerns with the number of homeless people who loitered
on 1430 South. She said she had contacted Neighborhood Preservation officers regarding the
issue, but it still remained an ongoing problem. Furthermore, there was a lot of trash, tires and
other debris along the road. Ms. Swanson questioned if there was sufficient parking for
multifamily housing developments. She specifically mentioned that tenants of Pinnacle
City Council Minutes - October 11,2016 (p.10)


apartments were parking on the streets, and were also leaving a lot of trash in the area. While she
was appreciative of the actions the Police Department had taken up to that point, the issue had
not beenfully resolved.
CONSENTITEMS
There were no Consent Items.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
CONTINUED ITEM - PD-47 - Flying Horse Condominiums
ORDINANCE - Amending Article 22-11 of the City Code by enacting Section 22-11-60.
PD-47 zone, amending the appendix of the City Code by enacting Appendix ^QQ', and
amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone
at approximately 1700 South Sandhill Road from PRD to PD-47
Mr. Bench presented Bruce Dickerson's request that the City Council amend Article 22-11 of the
City Code by enacting Section 22-11-60, PD-47 zone, amend the appendix of the City Code by
enacting Appendix ^QQ', and amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem
by changing the zone at approximately 1700 South Sandhill Road from PRD to PD-47.
This item was continued by the City Council allowing the applicant the opportunity to potentially
modify the concept plan. The applicant proposed modifications to the proposed concept plan.
These changes included reducing the two buildings located along the frontage of Sandhill Road
from four stories to three stories, and reducing the overall number of units from 136 to 134 total
units which increased the parking ratio from 2.25 parking spaces/unit to 2.30 spaces/unit. The
applicant also met with neighborhood representatives concerning the proposed project.
The applicant requested the City Council create and apply the PD-47 zone to a parcel of property
located at 1700 South Sandhill Road. The subject property consisted of 5.48 acres and was zoned
PRD. Because the property was located west of Sandhill Road, it was subject to the requirements
of the high-density PRD zone which allowed a density of up to sixteen units per acre.
The applicant wanted to apply a new PD zone (PD-47) to the property. The applicant submitted a
proposed concept plan that would be adopted as Appendix QQ and would be made a part of the
PD-47 zone. The applicant's proposed development would contain 134 units which represented
an overall density of 24.45 units per acre. Under the current PRD zoning, a total of eighty-seven
units could be constructed based on the sixteen units per acre maximum density. The PD-47 zone
also increased the allowable building height to forty-five feet from the forty foot height
limitation that is currently allowed in the PRD zone.
Parking was proposed at 2.30 stalls per unit which was an increase from the 2.15 stalls per unit
that was initially proposed and presented to the Planning Commission. The PRD requirement
was 2.5 stalls per unit. At least one covered parking stall was required to be provided for each
residential unit. Paul Goodrich, Orem City Transportation Engineer, was satisfied with the
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.11)


Staff supported the proposed development as the subject property was ideally suited for high-
density development as the current zone permitted.
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 6, 2016. Support of the project was expressed by
those in attendance. Traffic was an item of concern that was discussed with the residents and the
applicant's traffic engineer.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend Article 22-11 of the City Code
by enacting Section 22-11-60, PD-47 zone, amend the appendix of the City Code by enacting
Appendix ‘QQ', and amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by
changing the zone at approximately 1700 South Sandhill Road from PRD to PD-47. Staff
supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bench said setbacks were a major issue with this project. They had more than a twenty-five
foot setback, but moving south the setback widened to at least thirty feet from Sandhill Road. If
           n 
without coming back to the Council. Those types of units had up to three single rooms, and the
City required 2.5 parking stalls per unit for the PRD zone. Furthermore, apartments were rented
and not purchased. However, instead the applicant proposed 134 units, and the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) would set requirements for the number of adults allowed
to live in each unit. The applicant proposed 2.3 parking stalls per condominium unit. The
Administration's (FHA) fifty percent requirement. There would be a maximum of two vehicles
per unit. Mr. Bench displayed the proposed landscaping. The units had three-story elevations.
The time was turned over to Corey Anderson.
Mr. Anderson said he appreciated meeting with the Council again. Since the last meeting, they
reviewed the differences between apartments and condominiums, and decided to move forward
with condominiums. The proposed project was similar to the Villa project on 80o North. Mr.
Anderson said there was a need for affordable housing in Orem; they were sold out at the Villa
and already had a waiting list for this project. After obtaining further feedback from the public,
made by neighboringresidents.
Mr. Macdonald asked how the maximum number of adults living in a unit, as well as the number
of cars per unit would be governed. Mr. Anderson explained these matters were governed by the
homeowners association (HOA). As owner-occupied units, they were each assigned one covered
and one uncovered parking stall. For tenants renting from landlords, the investors of those units
were required to notify the HOA about the tenant. They were also required to notify their tenants
of all rules and requirements outlined in the CC&Rs. The Villa had an onsite manager and a
property manager to oversee such matters, and they planned to also have onsite management at
the proposed development.
Mr. Seastrand asked how to ensure the changes to the site plan were implemented, and if the City
had any oversight on the HOA. Mr. Earl said the items on the concept plan were enforced, such
as landscaping, parking, number of units, etc. However, there was no way for the City to oversee
that the homeownership rate was maintained because it infringed on property rights; they had to
rely on the HOA to oversee that aspect.
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.12)


Mr. Anderson said they were going to set things up correctly from the beginning and show the
HOA how to govern the CC&Rs. While the project was under construction, the developers
would have control over the HOA until it was seventy-five percent sold. At that time they would
then turn things over to the development investors, as represented by the HOA. Mr. Anderson
explained that the vital part of the project was the FHA funding. FHA was a tool for first time
homebuyers to purchase a home with little to zero down payments. As a developer they went
through a rigorous process to receive FHA funding for this site. In order to make the units
sellable in the future, they needed to maintain this funding by way of submission of an annual
report. Therefore, it was in the best interest of the investors to ensure these requirements were
met.
Mr. Seastrand asked if a higher homeownership rate of seventy-five to eighty percent was
considered. Mr. Anderson said they were comfortable with sixty percent, and anticipated the rate
would end up remaining at about seventy percent. Mr. Seastrand referenced prior discussion on
the allowance of a single investor only being able to own up to ten percent of the units, and asked
if that was still the case. Mr. Anderson answered affirmatively, and noted it was an FHA
requirement. Mr. Earl said the City could not enforce those restrictions, and noted the matters
would be governed by the investors themselves through the HOA.
Mr. Seastrand mentioned the height of the buildings was thirty-six feet and three inches and
asked how that height compared with the units to the south. Mr. Bench said the other units to the
south were slightly higher than the proposed units. Mr. Seastrand asked if the units would fit
within the zone, and Mr. Bench answered affirmatively. The site plan was part of the ordinance,
and adjustments could be made on the offsets to be tied in with the overall height as part of the
concept plan.
Mr. Sumner asked if there was demographic information on the waiting list. Mr. Anderson
deferred the question over to the sales agent.
Kevin Warner, realtor and resident, said ninety percent of the people who purchased in those
developments were singles, newlywed couples, and young families. He also noted seventy
percent of the sales were represented by other realtors. The units, along with the Villa
development, were the only affordable housing in Orem. He said that type of housing brought in
young couples, working professionals, etc.
Mr. Sumner asked for clarification on the process for declaring whether or not a unit would be
rented by an investor or owner occupied. Mr. Warner said one indication would be the type of
loan used to purchase the unit. An FHA loan required the united to be owner occupied. It was
assumed cash buyers were landlord investors. The HOA would maintain records of how each
unit was purchased and which units were owner occupied. Mr. Sumner asked if a purchase by a
cash buyer would be denied if the development was already at the sixty percent minimum owner
occupancy rate. Mr. Anderson said they would have every right to deny a purchase under such
Bruce Dickerson, developer, reiterated Mr. Anderson's comments, and added that the return on
investment for the developer and investors depended on keeping FHA funding intact. When he
started thirty-nine years ago with the North Abbey Condominiums, they also depended upon that
City Council Minutes -- October 11, 2016 (p.13)


funding. Once the HOA was set up those requirements would be enforced by the investors. The
Waterlefe, Tanglewood, and Black Horse Run developments all maintained FHA requirements.
Obtaining that funding was not easy, as there were hoops to jump through in obtaining approval.
He echoed previous remarks about the developments providing an opportunity for young adults
to purchase starter homes.
Mrs. Lauret said she appreciated that these were going to be condominiums and not apartments.
She agreed this product had a market for young couples and professionals.
Mayor Brunst reopened the public hearing.
Aubrey Bills, resident, said she lived across from this development. She had been impressed with
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Dickerson as they fielded the residents’ questions and concerns. She was
impressed with their other projects and professionalism. Her only question was why
S   s     sr    s
she asked if property rights weren't the same regardless.
Mr. Earl said any homeowner could rent their property in any residential zone, as long as zoning
requirements were met. According to City laws, they couldn't exceed three unrelated people in
one home. A functioning HOA was needed to enforce homeownership rates for this
development, specifically. Ms. Bills then asked when the City would be specifically reviewing
the parking, as this was also of concern to her. Mayor Brunst advised her to email the City so the
Traffic Engineer could better address those concerns.
Steven Adams, resident, expressed concern with pollution in the area, especially as more
multifamily housing developments were proposed. He said the townhome development across
from his property was promised dumpsters, but instead they were given garbage cans. The
garbage cans fell over often, strewing garbage across the street and causing odor in the
neighborhood. He didn't think this was a good area for condominiums, especially because they
were close to the university. That road in particular, he argued, was heavily crowded by traffic
which also added to the litter problem in the area. He said the addition of so many cars would
add to the pollution, which in the winter would be worse than Mexico City.
Teresa Pond, resident, said she lived three houses down from the proposed development. They
built their house in 1997, and she grew up in the area. She was concerned with enforcement of
parking standards. As per Mr. Adams's previous comments, Sandhill Road was narrow; college
kids parked across the street by her house and littered, and were noisy at all hours of the night.
Mayor Brunst said if the residents were parking there illegally, the police could be notified. The
Traffic Engineer could also look into red curbing the street. Ms. Pond said she had already
contacted the City regarding red curbing and nothing had been done yet. She felt residents on
Sandhill Road were being ignored, and was frustrated.
Marian Baxter, resident, said she lived east of Sandhill Road for thirty-five years. She had heard
ss ss o  e ss a    e s   s
pertaining to trash collection and parking, and asked if it was more difficult to enforce permitted
parking or red curbing. She said residents may not want red curbing because their visitors
City Council Minutes - October 11,2016 (p.14)


wouldn't have anywhere to park. She suggested permitting parking was the better solution. This
way, residents could maintain access to the public street in front of their own homes.
Kent Clinger, resident, asked how snow removal in the winter would be handled, noting that
parking spaces were lost throughout the winter because snow was pushed off to the sides of the
lot. He wanted to make sure this had been considered when planning for parking.
Douglas Viertel, resident, said it was his understanding the developers did not currently own the
property. He wanted to know if they would come up with different plans if the property rezone
was not approved. He said the HOA was not strong enough to protect the residents, and that
there weren't enough CC&Rs in place. The traffic and parking were huge issues, and if Sandhill
Road was red curbed the parking would move inward to other residential streets. He said in the
future the development would be nothing more than apartment rentals due to its proximity to
Utah Valley University. He made mention of the Pinnacle apartments, arguing there were
enough apartments in the area. If they developed single-family homes they would be one
hundred percent owner occupied. He asked why that could not be the case with condominiums as
well.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mayor Brunst said he had checked out the Villa, located next to WinCo. He also met with the
manager and a couple who wanted to rent there. Based on his observation, there were plenty of
parking spaces and garbage was not an issue. He said he felt affordable housing was needed in
Orem, and this was an appropriate location for the proposal.
Mr. Lentz asked to address the concern raised regarding the rezone. He wanted to know what
would happen if the density was increased and the developer in turn decided to do another
project. He asked if the developer would be required to follow through on the site plan if the
rezone was approved. Mr. Anderson said because it was PD zone, the developers were tied to a
specific concept plan; they had to build the units exactly as shown. If the developer wanted to
change their plans in any substantial way they'd have to come back for approval from the
Council. Mr. Lentz asked if they decided to build this same structure but rent them out as
apartments rather than sell them as condominiums, would a new proposal be required. Mr.
Anderson stated that under these circumstances the developer would not need to readdress the
City Council. The way the property was zoned, they could build apartments; they just couldn't
have the same number of doors.
In response to a question from Mr. Lentz, Mr. Anderson noted they would go through a private
contractor for garbage collection. The project was too large for residential cans, and they built
large pads for the garbage containers. Garbage collection could take place more than once a
week if it was needed. Mr. Lentz asked if there were recycling dumpsters, and Mr. Anderson said
there were not.
There was continued discussion on the issue of snow removal. Mr. Anderson said that over at the
Villa they hired a company that came in with equipment with fronting loaders rather than trucks.
Rather than pushing snow into parking stalls, they transferred it over to the green space. The
proposed development will have forty percent landscaping which will be sufficient for snow
removal. In the event of a heavy winter, they could truck it offsite altogether.
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.15)


With regards to permit parking, Mr. Anderson said they could do parking stickers or permits if so
needed. He noted a maximum of two cars were allowed per unit, which would enforced by the
HOA.
Mr. Macdonald said without any approval from the Council the developer could build
apartments, which was allowed in the zone. They could build eighty-seven units with three
bedrooms per unit and 218 parking stalls, with a potential of 261 occupants. The developer's
proposal was for 134 units and 2.3 parking stalls per unit. Furthermore, they were condominiums
for sale versus apartments for rent. Mr. Macdonald said some argued that in years to come this
development would all become rentals. However, even if that happened there would still be
fewer beds and more parking. This was not a discussion regarding high density housing, but
rather they were approving homeownership versus renting. Parking needs were also better
addressed in this proposal than any other proposal that could have come forward.
Mr. Seastrand asked if all concerns were addressed by the restrictions that were outlined. He
wanted to know if this was the better development option. The intent with neighborhood
meetings was to identify any improvement areas. Mr. Seastrand again asked if the developer
could make changes to the approval after a rezone was approved. Mr. Earl said the rezone was
tied to the concept plan. Any changes to the concept plan needed Council review, and the
In response to a question from Mr. Seastrand, Mr. Earl said the project to the south was
developed in the PRD zone, and so the parking standards differed from those of this zone. Mr.
Seastrand said red curbing for parking would apply to anyone who wanted to park in the
neighborhood, not just residents. He preferred permitted parking because it allowed the
neighborhood to weigh in on the specifics of parking restrictions, including hours during which
parking would be approved. He said the discussion of parking permits would best be served as a
separate Council discussion, if that was what the neighborhood decided to pursue.
Mr. Spencer thanked the developers for meeting with the residents. He said he felt it was the best
proposal for the area.
Mr. Macdonald asked if the current landowner had given their signoff on these changes. Mr.
Bench said current landowner did not have any objections to the proposal.
Mr. Seastrand said he wanted the HOA rules outlined in the ordinance, including:
·  Restrictions on the number of adults living in each unit
 Two cars per unit, sixty percent owner occupancy rate
·
Thirty-foot setback from street (with the exception of one area with a twenty-five foot
setback)
Forty percent landscaping
·An active HOA that oversaw FHA funding
· Forty-five foot maximum height, three stories on the front and four stories on the back.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend Article 22-11 of the City Code by enacting
Section 22-11-60, PD-47 zone, amending the appendix of the City Code by enacting Appendix
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.16)


QQ', and amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the
zone at approximately 1700 South Sandhill Road from PRD to PD-47, include 2.30 parking
spaces per unit, and 40 percent landscaping. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye:
Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer,
and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - 1" Quarter Budget Amendment
ORDINANCE - Amending the Current Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget
Mr. Manning said it was requested that this public hearing be continued to October 25, 2016 at
6:00p.m.
The Fiscal Year 2016-2017 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.
The amendment also included a change to the Fees & Charges document amending the hourly
cost of hiring an off-duty police officer for a private event. A select few Division Managers were
provided a City vehicle; primarily because the duties of their positions required travel in and
around the City on a frequent, if not, daily basis. They were also expected to quickly respond to
emergencies regardless of the day or hour. These Division Managers were provided a vehicle
allowance in lieu of a City provided vehicle.
The City Manager recommended the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss amending the
current Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget and, by ordinance, amend Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget.
This public hearing to amend the budget was postponed until October 25, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Brunst moved to continue the public hearing to October 25, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Mr.
Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam
Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
ORDINANCE - Amending Article 2-32 Heritage Commission of the Orem City Code by
adding the opportunity to be reappointed to the commission for a second consecutive term
Mr. Bybee presented a recommendation that the City Council, by ordinance, amending Article
2-32, Heritage Commission of the Orem City Code by adding the opportunity to be reappointed
to the commission for a second consecutive term.
The Heritage Commission had been charged with the responsibility to both oversee and directly
help implement the Memorial Day program and the Veterans Day program for the City of Orem.
Over time, commission members gave many “"hands-on” volunteer hours and developed many
relationships with non-City organizations and groups that had become very helpful in the
efficient and effective facilitation of these two events. Such efforts and relationships included
those with the local chapter of the American Legion, the recently created Orem Community
Band, and the BYU Air Force ROTC, among others. The recent success in improving attendance
and quality of these programs had become a new standard that would be difficult to maintain
without the ability to allow commission members an additional term to serve.
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.17)


The City believed that continuity in the quality of the Memorial Day program and Veterans Day
program would be achieved by allowing one additional consecutive term of service. As such, it
Mrs. Lauret said this proposal made a lot of sense.
Mrs. Lauret moved, by ordinance, to amend Article 2-32 Heritage Commission of the Orem City
Code by adding the opportunity to be reappointed to the commission for a second consecutive
term. Mayor Brunst seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret,
Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion
passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION - Authorizing the Mayor to Sign the Interlocal Agreement Between the
City of Orem and Alpine School District Regarding the Deployment of Police Officers in
Each of the Four Public High Schools in the City of Orem and the Attendance of Police
Officers at Extracurricular Events at the High Schools
Chief Giles presented a recommendation that the City enter into the Interlocal Agreement
between the City of Orem and Alpine School District for the Deployment of Police School
Resource Officers in the four senior high schools located within the City of Orem. A resolution
made to the original document.
A resolution was passed in the August 24th meeting, however, due to substantial changes to the
agreement made by one of the parties after the resolution was passed, this new agreement was
being presented to the Council. The City of Orem was responsible for protecting the health,
safety, and general welfare of the City. The Orem City Police Department and the Alpine School
District had been participating in the School Resource Officer Program. The program had been
successfully functioning in the four Orem City senior high schools for a number of years. The
program had helped to create and maintain a safe, secure, and orderly learning environment for
students, teachers and staffs at the participating senior high schools.
Alpine School District and the City of Orem had an interest in preventing juvenile crime and
school violence. Both the City of Orem and the Alpine School District wanted to continue to
Agreement outlined the duties and obligations of the City and Alpine School District as those
duties and obligations related to the program. The City provided the senior high schools with full
time police officers to help meet the goals of the program. In exchange, Alpine School District
of the agreement was for a period of five years with an automatic. annual reniewal thereafter.
Mayor Brunst moved, by resolution, to authorize the Mayor to. Sign the Interlocal Agreement
between the City of Orem and Alpine School District Regarding the Deployment of Police
Officers in Each of the Four Public High Schools in theCityof Orem' and the Attendance of
Police Officers at Extracurricular Events at the High Schools. Mr. Macdonald seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom: Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
City Council Minutes - October 11, 2016 (p.18)


COMMUNICATIONITEMS
TherewerenoCommunicationItems.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
TherewerenoCityManagerInformationitems.
ADJOURNTOAMEETINGOFTHEREDEVELOPMENTAGENCYOFTHECITY
OFOREM
Mr.Macdonaldmoved toadjourn to a meeting of theRedevelopmentAgency of the City of
Orem.Mr.Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Those voting aye:Richard F.
Brunst,DebbyLauret,SamLentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark Seastrand,David Spencer,and Brent
Sumner.Themotionpassed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m.
Themeetingresumed at7:55p.m.
ADJOURNTO CLOSED-DOORMEETING-Pursuant toSection52-4-205(1)(c),Pending
Litigation
Mr.Macdonaldmoved to adjourn to a closed-doormeeting to discuss pending litigation pursuant
to Utah Code Section 52-4-205(1)(c).Mr.Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye:
Richard F.Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark Seastrand,David Spencer,
and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was held in room #107.
The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
CLOSED-DOORSESSION
A closed-door session was held at 7:55p.m.in room #107 to discuss pending litigation pursuant
toUtah Code Section 52-4-205 (1)(c).Those in attendance were:Mayor Richard F.Brunst,
Councilmembers Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer,and Brent
Sumner; staff members Jamie Davidson, Brenn Bybee, Greg Stephens and Jackie Lambert; and
URMMArepresentativeLibbyLowther.
The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
CORPORATE
SEAL
m
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder
Approved: October 25, 2016
City Council Minutes-October 11,2016(p.19)