City Council · 2017-06-13

CITY OF OREM
CITY COUNCILMEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
June 13,2017
3:00P.M.WORKSESSION-PUBLICSAFETYTRAININGROOM
Mayor Richard F. Brunst
CONDUCTING
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Sam Lentz, Tom 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; Scott Gurney, Fire Department
Director; Matt Pedersen, Police Department; Charlene
Crozier, Library Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to
the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City
Recorder; Keith Larsen, Reed Price
EXCUSED Council member Debby Lauret
DISCUSSION-Zions Bank Public FinanceFee Study
Mr. Bybee said Zions Bank Public Finance had partnered with the City on the fee audit and
would share that information with the Council tonight. The fee study showed a comparison with
average cities in the area, as well as the actual costs that went into providing City services. He
turned the time over to Ms. Suzy Becker for the remainder of the presentation.
Ms. Becker presented the City-wide fee study analysis, which studied the following areas in the
City: Administration, Development Services, Fire, Library, Police, Public Works and Recreation.
She explained that the process included creating spreadsheets that had tabs for each department.
The categories analyzed within each department included labor, supplies and equipment. These
categories were then separated into direct and indirect costs. Direct costs were personnel and
supplies directly involved with each activity (i.e., tennis teacher and tennis balls), whereas
indirect costs included support services such as administrative, legislative, legal, etc.
Ms. Becker said fixed costs were services provided to each department regardless of size. The
total fixed costs equaled approximately eighteen percent of total indirect costs. Variable costs
were services provided to each department based on department size. The total variable costs
equaled approximately eighty-two percent of total indirect costs. Ms. Becker presented a
spreadsheet showing the City's direct and indirect costs, which were then broken down into the
percentage of fixed and variable costs of each of the departments listed above. The spreadsheet
also showed the City's current fees and actual costs as compared to other cities.
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.1)


Note: Mr. Seastrand arrived at 3:10 pm.
Ms. Becker said in some areas the current fees were below actual costs, whereas in other areas
they were overestimated. She asked the Council what their philosophy was in regards to full-cost
recovery.
Mr. Davidson said staff had discussed that there were certain fees that were specific to a
user/developer/contractor/benefactor, etc. and in those situations they should bear the full cost of
service. For example, a recipient should bear the full cost of a fee for obtaining a specific police
report tied to an accident. However, he said if someone were interested in a zoning amendment
that had a broader application to the public, it would be more appropriate if the fee was partially
paid by the City as a service. He said they needed to find the right balance between fees that
were paid by the City versus those that were paid by citizens and entities.
Mr. Macdonald said that borrowing books from the library or using a public City park was
different than building a home. Mr. Davidson agreed, saying it was one thing to use a public park
and another to have exclusive access to a pavilion in that park. Only then were they required to
pay a fee.
Mr. Manning provided another example by stating that when the City issued home occupation
permits, they didn't cover the cost of issuance. However, they covered renewal costs.
Mr. Davidson said there were some fees that were tied directly to cost, and some should have
had a punitive component built therein. One such example was the fee associated with road cuts.
The permit fee was $5,0o0 and was high by design because the City wanted to discourage people
from cutting into roads; especially those that were new.
In response to a comment from Mr. Seastrand, Mr. Davidson said that ambulance fees were
directly regulated by the State and the City had limited discretion on the matter. Chief Gurney
said BMS monitored those fees, and they mandated the charge for the type of service that was
provided. Mr. Seastrand asked if the fee was under the actual cost. Chief Gurney said the
ambulance fee was pretty close to the actual cost, but it did not cover it at 100 percent. Medicare
and Medicaid only paid $280, but it cost much more to respond to those calls. Mr. Davidson said
the City would not discriminate to which calls they would or would not respond.
Mr. Sumner asked if that was also the case in Payson. Chief Gurney said they were licensed as a
paramedic service in Orem, and several years ago they only charged for the level of service that
was actually provided. If it was just a basic life support call then they only charged at the basic
said other jurisdictions may go by what they were licensed for and not the service. He explained
that health care shifted on an annual basis.
Ms. Becker said that for services that provided a community-wide benefit, the City would
capture from zero to twenty percent.
At the request of Mayor Brunst, Ms. Becker then presented a spreadsheet detailing the City's
fees for development services. She identified which fees were currently under or over the actual
cost for those services, and noted categories could not be combined. Mayor Brunst asked if the
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.2)


departments had seen the spreadsheet she presented. Mr. Manning said the department heads had
seen the data pertinent to their respective departments, but this was the first time the entire
compilation had been presented all at once. He said they needed a guiding philosophy from the
Council to determine how the information should be used.
Mr. Lentz wondered if each fee had been identified in the categorization of the percentages, and
asked if there were reasonable justifications for each fee. Ms. Becker said criteria columns could
be used as part of the process of determining fees.
Mayor Brunst said he also wanted to know volume-wise how many applicants would be affected
by a given fee.
Mr. Lentz asked if each department could go through the fees and see where those exceptions
were and place them in the range, such as the road cut fee. Mr. Manning said they also needed to
determine which services were competitive.
Mr. Davidson said they had started down this path for three reasons. First, in recent years the
State Legislature had been increasingly sensitive to municipal fees, specifically for development.
The Legislature was trying to suggest that there needed to be a nexus between fees charged and
fees assessed. This study was a way for the City to quantify their fees, which were determined by
way of an objective process. Furthermore, this process showed how Orem compared to other
cities of a similar size. The costs associated with administering a service also needed to be taken
into consideration when determining a specific fee.
Mr. Sumner asked if there was an itemized receipt for each service. Mr. Davidson said they did
not charge a fee unless it was identified in the fee schedule adopted by the Council. An invoice
was presented to customers anytime they approached the City with an application. Mr. Manning
said the itemization wasn't always broken out item for item on the invoice. Ms. Becker said that
Mr. Manning had a detailed breakdown for each individual service fee.
Mayor Brunst said he had met with the Economic Development Corporation of Utah that same
day, where it was stated that up to forty percent of the cost of new homes in affordable housing
projects related to inspections and fees. He noted that this data reflected statewide numbers. Ms.
Becker said maintaining affordable housing was important. Mr. Davidson said Orem was often
compared to Hillsborough, Oregon. However, he pointed out that the tax structure between the
two cities was vastly different, in that Orem's property tax collection in one year was $6 million
as compared to Hillsborough's $87 million. They wanted to make sure that those who were
generating the impact were paying for the services, rather than relying on current residents to
subsidize services for which they had already paid. There was subsequent discussion regarding
what uses could be paid for using impact fees.
Mr. Manning explained that in regards to the road cut fee, the roads were a City-owned asset that
would be damaged irreparably. Mayor Brunst asked if other cities did not share this same
perspective. Mr. Bell said a few years ago the road cut fee was very minimal, which created
issues with developers cutting up City roads.
Mr. Bybee said there was also a qualitative factor as well, which couldn't be captured with the
quantitative data that was presented.
City Council Minutes - June 13,2017(p.3)


Mr. Lentz asked if the City had received any complaints from developers regarding the road cut
fee, and Mr. Bell answered affirmatively. He noted that there had been some recent requests to
cut Center Street. However, upon communicating that there would be a $5,0o0 road cut fee, the
developer backed off of theirrequest.
Mr. Manning said they wanted a discussion regarding general guiding principles. Mr. Davidson
said people often said, “Government should run like a business." In some respect, fees helped the
City make business decisions about what types of services they should or should not be involved
in.
Mayor Brunst asked if he could be sent the presentation. Mr. Lentz said it was good to have the
departments review this information.
PRESENTATION -C-PACE
Mr. Clark introduced Shawna Cuan with the Governor's Office of Energy Development,
Managing Director of Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE). C-PACE was a
private financing tool for commercial buildings to fund energy improvements. C-PACE was also
available for apartment buildings with five or more rental units, as well as industrial facilities.
   o   s  s n s s  
Ms. Cuan outlined the following steps for how C-PACE worked:
 Develop project
Obtain mortgage holder consent
Identify capital provider
Submit application to C-PACE District
Place voluntary assessment area on property to be improved through the C-PACE District
(similar to sewer assessment process)
Issue lien against property and assign to capital provider
Project closing
Mayor Brunst asked what the typical mortgage period was through the C-PACE program. Ms.
Cuan said mortgages could go up to thirty years. She then reviewed the following benefits of C-
PACE from each of the stakeholders'perspective:
·Cities
Improved air quality
o
Increased building values
o
Improved economic development
Not the obligation of the City
o
No cost to use the C-PACE District
·Property owners
 Zero dollars down, 100 percent financing, for up to thirty years (or expected life
。
of the improvement)
Improvements in O&M, tenant retention, and tenant satisfaction
 Net positive cash flows
 Capital providers
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.4)


 Lien was secured against real property
 First position
 Mortgage holders
0 Increased building value
 0 Improvement to borrowers ability to repay mortgage
Mr. Lentz asked if there was enough data to show that those with C-PACE loans were repaying
them faster. Ms. Cuan said there had been approximately $400 million in C-PACE projects
completed nationally, and as of that date there was no record of default against any of said
projects.
Mayor Brunst asked what majority of uses were going through the C-PACE program. Ms. Cuan
said it was about a fifty-fifty split between renewable energy and efficiency. She said the
legislation outlined a comprehensive list of efficiency measures that could be funded through C-
PACE. The C-PACE evaluation process was then reviewed as outlined:
· Continuous stakeholder meetings: bankers, lenders, local governments, contractors
Convened a stakeholder committee meeting to identify barriers to entry and challenges
with current program structure
Took these barriers to other states and conducted interviews with ten other C-PACE
program administrators to identify solutions and recommendations
Captured findings in roadmap
Brought findings back to stakeholders
Mayor Brunst asked about interest levels in the C-PACE program. Ms. Cuan explained that
demographics were a factor when determining interest levels. She also stated that C-PACE was
not the obligation of the City or the administrator. She then outlined the City's role in the C-
PACE program as follows:
Why the City was involved:
Energy improvements benefitted the wider public through affordable and reliable
energy costs and improved air quality
 d     sss a    
only governmental entities had this authority
Mr. Macdonald asked if solar power was included in the program, noting that it was not
explicitly outlined. Ms. Cuan explained that renewable energy was prohibited in rural electric co-
ops. Within Orem, the only caveat that applied to renewable energy projects was that if it served
a building already in operation, renewable energy systems would be capped at two megawatts.
However, there were no caps on brand new buildings. Furthermore, the utility needed to be
involved and briefed on the scope of the project.
Ms. Cuan said there had been an expansion of eligible projects, which now included seismic
upgrades, parking automation and hybrid elevators. Measures were put into place to make sure
that developers remained fiscally responsible and could continue to make payments.
Mr. Lentz asked if this only applied to retrofitting existing facilities, and he was informed that
that was not the case.
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017(p.5)


The City had three options in terms of what role it wanted to play in the C-PACE program.
· C-PACE District (using assignable lien - recommended option)
0  City Council passed resolution authorizing C-PACE District to administer
projects in their jurisdiction
0 C-PACE District managed project from start to close, at no cost to the City
·Administer Locally (using assignable lien)
Developed and vetted projects
Decided terms
o
The City's executive or administrator placed voluntary assessment area and
o
assignable lien
 Collected repayments or have capital provider collect repayments
o
·Administer Locally (using assessment bond)
Developed and vetted projects
Decided terms
City Council placed voluntary assessment area and issued assessment bond for
o
project costs
 Collected repayments or had capital provider collect repayments
In response to a question from Mr. Lentz, Mr. Clark stated his preference for Option 1 as
outlined above.
Ms. Cuan noted that several other cities around the State of Utah had also expressed interest in
the C-PACE program. She then described a similar program in Connecticut that had seen a lot of
success, where 100 projects had been completed.
Mayor Brunst asked how they would distribute this information to interested parties, if the City
were to adopt the program. Ms. Cuan said they had connections to major news outlets and would
therefore spread the word using press releases.
Mr. Macdonald asked staff if there were any reasons not to adopt the program within the City.
Mr. Stephens said there would be administration costs involved with the setup process. Mr.
Manning recommended that the City not administer the program.
ANNUAL REVIEW - Gang Loitering Free Area
Chief Gary Giles said this item was reviewed every year. Utah Code 76-9-902 defined what
              
were subject to the enforcement of said Code. He said that in August 2009, Orem designated
some of its parks and public schools as gang loitering free areas. Chief Giles said there was a
bigger gang problem in the late 1990s, but they had since gotten on top of the problem. He
reviewed some of the current gang activity occurring in the City.
Mr. Macdonald said he was under the impression that leaving a gang was hard. He asked if this
was easier to do in Orem. Chief Giles answered affirmatively, and said that fortunately they did
not have to deal with this issue as heavily in Orem. He said there were measures in place to
identify gang members in the City, such as Chapter 11 of City Code which dealt with nuisance.
One example in which they reverted to this section of City Code was at Summerfest.
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.6)


MayorBrunstsaid therewerecomplaints about theLaundromatatRidley's,aswell as at a home
nearCanyonViewJuniorHigh.ChiefGilessaidthatwhilehedidn'thavespecificdetails
available,theywere looking intoboth cases.
Mr.Macdonald asked aboutwarrantsfor nuisanceissues andwanted toknowhowseriouslythey
werepursued.Chief Giles said it depended on thewarrant and where it was originally issued.
Mr.Davidson said that when they identified neighborhood preservation issues,NPUofficers
would approach the home occupants to address the concerns, thereby giving them a chance to
addresstheconcernsthemselves.Chief Gilesexplained thatthetimelineinworkingdirectlywith
homeoccupantsvaried.HerevieweddifferenttypesofsituationsthatNPUofficersencountered
in addressingneighborhoodpreservationissues.
INTRODUCTION-OnlineCityCodeAccess
Mr.Bench stated that City Codewas now available onlinein its entirety atwww.orem.org/code.
Anyone could look up a specific sectionof Code using keywords.Webpagescould be converted
intoPDFfiles,andthesiteworkedonalldevices.
Mr. Bell said the City Recorder used to have to manually update the Code and print hard copies.
The new system auto-populated and it showed legislativehistory.
Mr.Manning asked howblindpersonswouldbe able to access the information.Mr.Bell said
AdobehadafeaturewhereaPDFcouldbereadaloud.
Mr. Bench stated that a person could also search by land use codes. Mr. Bell said there was a
parkingcalculator whichwould help developers.He said aspeople called in theywere directed
to the website. They would no longer have to call the City every time they wanted to access City
Code.
Mr. Davidson said the new software also helped with transparency in the City as well.
Mr.Lentz asked howmuch work itwas tomaintain the site.Mr.Bench said it was easier than
the manual system.He mentioned that they were still working on a tool for economic
development.
Mayor Brunst asked about the cost.Mr.Bench said it cost $35,000,and maintenance expenses
would be around $12,000 a year.
5:00P.M.STUDYSESSION-PUBLICSAFETYTRAININGROOM
CONDUCTING MayorRichardF.Brunst
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Sam Lentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark
Seastrand,DavidSpencer,andBrentSumner
CityCouncilMinutes-June13,2017（p.7)


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; Scott Gurney, Fire Department
Director; Ned Jackson, Police Department; Charlene
Crozier, Library Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to
the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City
Recorder
EXCUSED Councilmember Debby Lauret
PreviewUpcomingAgendaItems
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 new City Council business.
There was subsequent discussion regarding rate tiers based on meter size. It was noted that there
was a super majority of individuals that were on the three-quarter inch meter at about seventy-
five percent. Mr. Davidson said there was a method to the water rate increases, and that the
additional revenue was tied to particular projects. By increasing the rates, they could approach
capital projects on a pay-as-you-go basis rather than bonding. In response to a question from Mr.
Sumner, he noted that there had been some complaints about the rate changes, but nothing too
overbearing.
Mr. Downs said he was working on a shareholders report for residents that would include budget
information. Paperless bills and newsletters would be rewarded with a discount, because the
payments would be automatic. The majority of new users chose to go paperless.
The Council adjourned at 5:54 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 (*participated electronically)
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.8)


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; Keldon Brown, Police
Department; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Jason
Bench, Planning Division Manager; Ryan Clark, Economic
Development Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant
to the City Manager; Pete Wolfley, Communications
Specialist; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Glen Hunsaker
PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE Boy Scout Zachary Snow
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Lentz moved to approve the May 9, 2017 City Council meeting minutes and the May 10,
2017 Joint Orem/ASD meeting minutes. Mr. Sumner 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'SREPORT/ITEMSREFERREDBY COUNCIL
Upcoming Events
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mr. Macdonald moved to appoint Melvin Rodriguez to the Beautification Advisory
Commission. 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.
Report - Senior Advisory Commission
Mayor Brunst invited Kay Bradford to present the report. She said it felt like paradise in the
Senior Friendship Center and that this year was even better than last year. She delivered "kisses"
around the Chambers and said that at the Senior Center, they gave hugs and kisses. She then
shared a favorite joke, as well as newsletters with the Mayor and Council. She presented the
Flamingo Days t-shirt which had printed the words “putting the bling in the golden years".
Oath of Office - Orem Park Ranger Recruits, sworn in by Brandon Stocksdale with the
NationalParksService
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017(p.9)


Mr. Wolfley invited the recruits to come in and turned the time over to Emma Bowers, who was
the Management Intern. Ms. Bowers said this program encouraged children to participate in the
parks and to get more involved in outside activities. There were 950 enrolled and about sixty in
attendance at the meeting.
Mr. Stocksdale conducted the oath of office for the Orem Park Ranger Recruits.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerms, 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.
Ammon Pamone, resident, said he wanted to speak about financial education. He said he had
seen in his formative years that there was always a need for people to become more financially
aware. He spoke about the National Financial Literacy campaign, and said they were going to
local Councils and asking for support. They had developed a workbook to teach schools,
libraries and businesses about the basic concepts of finance. He said this would benefit to the
community because they were never free until they were financially free. He read several
statistics pertaining to finances within the United States.
Norma Farley, resident, said she was concerned about the water enterprise fund that was being
transferred to the General Fund. She said the rate changes would be $1.42 a month. The
increased cost of living expenses were difficult for people living on fixed incomes. She said she
realized that the City had to pay for its services, but she could not afford the increases.
John Gardner, resident, said that as neighbors in southwest Orem they appreciated the decision to
not put an entrance to the former soccer field on 4oo West. This demonstrated a good faith effort
to respect the limitations of traffic congestion on 40o West, and the areas surrounding Lakeridge
Junior High School. He said the PEG development would add greatly to the traffic congestion.
The solution was to go through UVU property; however, the UVU administration was not
interested in that proposal. UVU administration had indicated that this was "Orem's problem"
and he disagreed with that attitude. Since there were many UVU donors in the community, he
did not feel it was unreasonable to request assistance from the university on the matter. Mr.
Gardner opposed the PEG development.
   o             
development.  If they were student dorms in a residential area, then UVU should take
responsibility of the housing and preserve the City's zones. However, if the development would
house residents who weren't students, then they should go on the State Street Master Plan. She
said it didn't make sense for UVU to not get involved with expenses related to student dorms.
She said that if they put them on the south and east sides of campus, it would keep the high rises
to the highway and out of the neighborhoods. She asked if there could be a land swap, and said
that with some brainstorming they could come up with a reasonable solution. She said it was
great to live in an area where her children could walk to school. However, she said she was
afraid this would set a precedent for other developers. She said the Mayor and Council needed to
protect the City's residential communities.
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.10)


There were two Webelo Scouts who had questions for the Council. One scout asked what was
the biggest problem facing Utah. Another scout asked the Mayor and Council why they decided
to run for office. Mayor Brunst said they would be happy to meet with the scouts privately after
the meeting to answer their questions.
CONSENTITEMS
There were no Consent Items.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
CONTINUEDITEM -PD-11 Development Standards
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-11-23(B) and Appendix X of the Orem City Code
pertaining to development standards of the PD-11 zone at 1430 South Sandhill Road
Mr. Bench presented DR Horton's request that the City Council amend Section 22-11-23(B) and
 z aae  g ss sp  d    n  x x
1430SouthSandhill Road.
This item was continued from the May 23, 2017 meeting allowing the applicant time to revise
the elevations and bring them back for consideration. A revised concept plan had been submitted
showing a maximum of fourteen (14) units per acre, in addition to modifications to the proposed
elevationsthathadpreviouslybeensubmitted.
The PD-11 zone currently allowed a townhome development with 149 units. The current owner
of the property had a contract to sell the development to DR Horton. DR Horton wanted to
modify the concept plan which was approved as part of the PD-11 zone. In particular, DR
Horton wanted to change the design and size of the townhouse units that were approved as part
       n  s   d   
the approved building elevations and concept plan to conform to the type of units that DR Horton
wanted to build.
Most homebuilders had their own product which they had built in the past or designed
specifically for a certain project. The approved building elevations contained two products and
each had only one facade treatment. The applicant did not want to build units that conformed to
the approved concept plan and proposed a different style of units with a different design and
architecture. DR Horton proposed two different buildings (a two-story and a three-story) each
with two finish styles and different color schemes. The proposal provided a greater variety of
styles/colors than the current approved elevations.
DR Horton also proposed to modify the concept plan by removing a parcel adjacent to Sandhill
Road, straightening a common property line, and reducing the amount of asphalt on-site.
Overall, the concept plan did not have major changes and remained very similar to the approved
concept plan. With the loss of the Sandhill Road property, the applicant requested the maximum
density be increased from fourteen units per acre to 14.5 units per acre. The proposed density of
146 units on 10.15 acres was 14.38 units per acre. This compared with the currently approved
concept plan which contained 149 units on 14.65 acres or 13.99 units per acre. The Sandhill
Road property loss was approximately .50 acres and did not contain units on the approved
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.11)


conceptplan.
The proposed changes also included several minor text amendments. Changes were proposed to
the setbacks with the notable change being the setback on the south property line. The adjacent
property owner to the south had a barn that shifted the property line which was not shown on the
original concept plan. The applicant asked for a reduced setback of twenty feet as opposed to
Staff's only concern with the proposed amendments related to the proposed building elevations.
Staff wanted to see the materials upgraded, especially on the rear of the units that were
completely  stucco.  The  Planning  Commission recommended  approval  of  the  proposed
amendments on the condition that the applicant submit revised elevations for the residential units
that upgraded the design and materials in accordance with the recommendations that had been
madebystaff.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-11-
23(B) and Appendix X of the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards of the PD-11
zoneat1430SouthSandhillRoad.
Ms. Krisel Travis said she had met with the Mayor and made some changes. She said that there
had many developers who had come through and wanted to build on the subject property.
However, while they were successful in obtaining approval from the City, they were not
successful in financially executing their projects. She assured the Mayor and Council that DR
        n     g
company and return on investment was very important to Mr. Horton. They had the financial
means already available in the bank, and would be able to move quickly. They were proposing
only two phases, simply because the weather dictated the timeline; otherwise they would have
completed the project all at once. She said they hoped to be under construction by August, and
  a     s       
construction, and architecture.
Ms. Travis said they had changed some of the coloring and layout, and stucco was removed from
all of the two-story buildings. There was a full wrap with fiber board. White sections on the rear
elevation were double colored in the last proposal and the stucco was in the recesses. However,
that was changed to be lap siding. She noted that the architecture was planned for all the way
around the units. The townhomes were craftsman-style, and they had delineated the floors rather
than accenting the peaks so that there was some differentiation in the buildings.
Mayor Brunst asked what materials were at the bottom three feet of the buildings. Ms. Travis
said it was a layered rock material. She explained that when the homes were built there was also
a privacy screen. On the rear they created the separation with a six-foot vinyl fence. They
eliminated a large amount of the stucco on the three-story buildings, to where there was
approximately only twenty-five percent stucco. There was rock on the end units. She said these
units were shown in a four-plex, but there would also be five- and six-plexes added as well. She
noted that there wouldn't just be rock on the end units; they would be added on the larger
buildings as well. Ms. Travis said they also decreased the density of the project.
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.12)


Mayor Brunst asked to see colored pictures of the units, which Ms. Travis provided.
Mr. Lentz said the main two issues that were identified two weeks ago pertained to the elevations
and the density. He said these issues had been addressed to his satisfaction. He asked Mr.
Bench if the rest of the proposal was consistent with what was discussed two weeks ago. Mr.
Bench answered affirmatively.
Mr. Macdonald said this has been approved many times for this level of density. They would not
be changing the density; rather, they would just be approving this particular project on the
property in question. Mr. Bench confirmed that this was correct.
Mr. Sumner asked about the neighborhood meeting. He said that according to the minutes, Mr.
Larry Peterson had several questions that needed to be addressed. Mr. Sumner said he had since
talked with Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Peterson said his questions had not been addressed. Ms.
Travis said she spoke with Mr. Peterson late last week to address his concerns. She said that Mr.
Peterson received $18,000 for the water shares he held, and he also received a quick-claim deed
which had since been recorded. He now owned the land next to the detention basin for the
access road that was discussed, as well as the boundary adjustment around his barn. Mr.
Peterson asked Ms. Travis to coordinate with his nephew, Jeff Kunz, on the counteroffer he
made in response to DR Horton's offer. They were currently working through said offer. Ms.
Travis presented a map which showed the areas that were discussed.
Mrs. Lauret said she appreciated that the units were less boxy and had more stone. She said she
was comfortable with the improvements.
Mr. Sumner asked if, on the record, she could make things right with Larry Peterson. Ms. Travis
agreed to his request.
Mr. Lentz said if Mr. Peterson was ultimately unhappy, he would not sell the land. He asked if
the property was currently under contract, and Ms. Travis answered affirmatively.
Mr. Lentz moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-11-23(B) and Appendix X of the Orem
City Code pertaining to development standards of the PD-11 zone at 1430 South Sandhill Road.
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.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Approve Street Connection/General Plan Update
ORDINANCE - Amending the Orem City General Plan, Orem State Street Master Plan,
Orem Transportation Master Plan, and the Orem Street Connection Master Plan, pertaining
to future street connections near State Street, and amending sections 17-4-6 and 22-14-
20(D) of the City Code and enacting sections 17-4-8 and 22-14-20(S) of the City Code, to
facilitate corridor preservation for these streets
Mr. Bench presented a request from the Development Services Department that the City Council
amend portions of the Orem City General Plan, Orem State Street Master Plan, Orem
Transportation Master Plan, and the Orem Street Connection Master Plan, pertaining to future
City Council Minutes -June 13, 2017 (p.13)


street connections near State Street, and also amend sections of the Orem City Code to address
how these streets were shown on plats and site plans in order to provide corridor preservation for
these streets.
The State Street Master Plan recommended adding several street connections on or near State
Street. According to the plan, adding more streets was for the following purposes:
· To create smaller, more walkable block patterns where possible throughout the corridor
and within growth areas.
To establish a grid between Orem Boulevard and State Street to improve vehicular and
pedestrian circulation.
To create building street frontage on streets that was more pedestrian friendly than on
State Street.
The Development Services Department followed the recommendations in the State Street Master
Plan and identified locations for future street connections that would be beneficial and likely
given future redevelopment. This process involved Development Services and Public Works. A
map was produced detailing these locations.
The Development Services Department was proposing that the following plans be amended to
include the new State Street future connections map and necessary text explaining the map:
·Orem City General Plan
·Orem State Street Master Plan
· Orem Transportation Master Plan
·Orem Street ConnectionMaster Plan
The Development Services Department was also proposing that the following changes be made
to the City Code in order to allow the City to preserve and plan for the right of way needed:
· Amend sections 17-4-6 and 22-14-20(D) of the City Code. These sections clarified the
requirement that preliminary plats and site plans adhere to the recommendations of the
Orem City General Plan, Orem State Street Master Plan, Orem Transportation Master
Plan, and the Orem Street Connection Master Plan.
Enact sections 17-4-8 and 22-14-20(S) of the City Code. These sections provided for
"corridor preservation" on preliminary plats and site plans subject to the requirements of
Utah Code Sections 72-5-401 through72-5-406 inclusive.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend the Orem City
General Plan, Orem State Street Master Plan, Orem Transportation Master Plan, and the Orem
Street Connection Master Plan, pertaining to future street connections near State Street, and
amend sections 17-4-6 and 22-14-20(D) of the City Code and enact sections 17-4-8 and 22-14-
20(S) of the City Code, to facilitate corridor preservation for these streets.
Mr. Lentz wanted to reiterate that the goal was not for the City to demolish any buildings, but
rather to provide a long-term plan as development occurred. He asked whether or not the
addition of solar panels would trigger the plan. He asked if the redevelopment would impact the
corridor. Mr. Bench said it was under site plan requirement. If a property chose to add onto
their building or to demolish their building and re-build, they would then have to abide by the
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.14)


new standards. Changes that would not add to the square footage of the existing building would
  g e as a p  s  pe  s  g
Mr. Earl added that the ten percent threshold was standard. If they wanted to add square footage
that was not in the corridor area, that would not be a problem. This gave property owners
options for the future. Mr. Earl said that theoretically adding a storage shed would not be an
issue, as long as it was not in the corridor area.
Mr. Lentz said his second question related to the roads connecting with State Street. He asked if
the majority of those roads would be right-turn only as they came into State Street. Mr. Bench
answered affirmatively, and said that going forward they would be working with UDOT for a
safety study.
Mr. Seastrand said the idea with the master plan was to put a stake in the ground to preserve
areas for the future. He stated that the Council would be in the position to modify the master
plan as development proposals came forward. Mr. Bench said that was correct. Mr. Seastrand
said this was the current plan as a tool for the next thirty to forty years. He also noted that traffic
studies for roadways would be conducted at the time a development proposal came forward.
Mr. Sumner asked if the roadways would be two lanes. Mr. Bench said it would depend;
however, most would be two lanes. The roads could potentially meander, but the connection
points were the key aspect.
Mr. Earl added that there could be some deviation, depending on what would be most helpful to
the developer and what would help minimize costs to the City. Mr. Sumner asked about the area
on 40o South, which went onto Orem Boulevard and then through a farm or orchard. He asked
what would happen if that owner wanted to develop. Mr. Earl said they would come to the City
and work with staff regarding what type of project they wanted to develop. Mr. Sumner asked if
this would be at the City's expense. Mr. Earl explained that in regards to undeveloped land, the
expenses would likely be split proportionately between the City and the developer. These types
of projects would be analyzed at the time on a case by case basis. Mr. Sumner said the ordinance
stated that “...the City may prohibit or limit or insulation of improvements in the corridor
 m a an  s g  aou  srn n p a a  s mo
the aforementioned language was “may". He said it was not required. If the developer insisted
on placing the roadway where they wanted, the City would pay the fair market value for the land
difference.
Mayor Brunst asked about streets that intersected onto University Parkway going without lights.
Mr. Bench said those streets would be right-in and right-out; they would likely line up, but there
would not be an abilityfor them to cross over.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. When no one came forward to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend the Orem City General Plan, Orem State Street
Master Plan, Orem Transportation Master Plan, and the Orem Street Connection Master Plan,
pertaining to future street connections near State Street, and amending sections 17-4-6 and 22-
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.15)


14-20(D)of the CityCode andenacting sections 17-4-8and 22-14-20(S)of the City Code,to
facilitate corridor preservation for these streets.Mr. Lentz seconded the motion.Those voting
aye:Richard F.Brunst,DebbyLauret,Sam Lentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark Seastrand,David
Spencer,andBrentSumner.Themotionpassedunanimously.
6:00P.M.PUBLICHEARING-DeepLotDevelopmentStandards
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 17-8-1(C)(7)of the Orem City Code pertaining to
residentialdeeplotdevelopmentstandards
Mr.Bench presented JeremyWilkey's request that the City Council amend Section 17-8-1(C)(7)
oftheOremCityCodepertainingtoresidentialdeeplotdevelopmentstandards.
The applicant owned a single-family house on a deeplot.The deep lot was created by plat in
1991 and the house was constructed in the same year. The house was a split-level design and the
applicantwouldliketoconstructanadditiononthetwo-storysideofthestructure.
Thedeeplotordinancewasamendedin2007tolimitahouseonadeeplottoonestory above
grade.This 2007 amendment prevented the applicant from constructing a desired two-story
addition totheexistinghouse.
TheapplicantproposedtoamendtheCityCodetoallowahomethatwasinexistencepriorto
the2007ordinanceamendmenttohaveatwo-storyaddition.Thiswouldallowanownerthat
wasconsistentwiththeoriginalconstruction.
The two-storyaddition optionwouldonly apply to an existingtwo-storyhomeona deeplot if
thehome was constructed orunderconstruction prior toMarch13,2007.A single-storyhome in
existencepriortothecutoffdatewouldnotbepermitteda two-storyaddition.Twosetbacksof
twenty-fivefeetandthesidesetbacksof thecurrentzoneneededtobesatisfiedwiththe
proposedaddition.Theproposedtextwasasfollows:
Subdivision Ordinance,17-8-1(C)
7. A house on a deep lot in the R5, R6, R6.5, R7.5, and R8 zones shall not exceed one
with a net area (excluding the area of any “flag stem") of at least 15,000 square feet
shall not be restricted to a single story provided all setbacks to adjacent property lines
are at least twenty five (25) feet.
a.A house on a deep lot with a net area (excluding the area of any "flag stem")
of at least 15.000 square feet shall not be restricted to a single-story provided all
setbacks adjacent to property lines are at least twenty-five (25) feet.
b. An existing house with two stories that was constructed on a deep lot prior to
March 13, 2007, may have an addition that is two stories provided the house with the
addition has two setbacks that are at least twenty-five (25) feet and the remaining two
setbacks meet the requirements for side yard setbacks (for side yards with an attached
garage) for the zone in which the lot is located.
CityCouncil Minutes-June13,2017(p.16)


The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 17-8-
1(C)(7) of the Orem City Code pertaining to residential deep lot development standards. Staff
supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. When no one came forward to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 17-8-1(C)(7) of the Orem City Code
pertaining to residential deep lot development standards. 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.
RESOLUTION - Authorizing the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Agreement between the
City of Orem and Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands regarding the
participation commitment to Wildland Prevention, Mitigation and Preparedness
Chief Scott Gurney presented information about an agreement between the Utah Division of
Forestry, Fire and State Lands. The Legislature and the Governor directed the Utah Division of
Forestry, Fire, and State Lands to coordinate the development of a Comprehensive Statewide
Wildland Fire Prevention, Preparedness, and Suppression Policy (SB56-2015). This policy
addressed Utah's Catastrophic Wildland Strategy.
The City of Orem's Participation Match (PM) commitment would fall into the following three
suggested actioncategories:
· Wildfire Prevention
·Wildfire Mitigation
·Wildfire Preparedness
As part of participation, the City of Orem would not pay for any aircraft even if the aircraft was
used in initial attack.
This agreement would become effective on July 1, 2017, and would be intended to continue for
five years.
The Fire Chief recommended that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the Mayor to sign
the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Orem and the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire
and State Lands as part of a Comprehensive Statewide Wildland Fire Prevention, Preparedness
and Suppression Policy.
               
mitigation, what would be staff's recommendation for the spending of said funds. Chief Gurney
said they would come up with a plan. For example, every year fireworks were a concern, and
they spent a lot of time educating the public on the matter. All of those personnel hours would
go towards the cooperative match, if approved by the State. Additionally, there were also things
they could do with the community such as xeriscaping and landscaping education. Mayor Brunst
asked if they would send someone up the eastern interface to walk the area and see where there
City Council Minutes -June 13,2017(p.17)


had been too much overgrowth. Chief Gurney said they would work with the State to assess
isolatedareaswherebrushremovalwasneeded.
Mr. Lentz commented that he wished health insurance worked this same way. He asked what
portion of the $3,000 would already be covered with the City's existing activities, versus how
much would be incrementally new. Chief Gurney said the mitigation portion would be new, and
the Fire Prevention Week would go towards this match. They would strategically identify efforts
that could be made, and look at what efforts were already taking place. They wanted to have
wildland training for the fire fighters who were all structurally trained. Mr. Lentz said he heard
the amount was low because of the efforts Orem was already taking. He commended the
Department for their current efforts. Chief Gurney said his fire fighters had done well in
trainings.
Mayor Brunst recalled an incident in which his neighborhood rallied together to build a fire line.
Their efforts saved several miles of houses.
Mr. Macdonald moved, by resolution, to authorize the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Agreement
between the City of Orem and Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands regarding the
participation commitment to Wildland Prevention, Mitigation and Preparedness. Mr. Sumner
             
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner.  The motion passed
unanimously.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Enterprise Fund Hearing to consider public input on the
proposed transfer of funds from the enterprise funds to cover general fund utility costs over
and above administrative and overhead costs
Mr. Manning presented information on the Enterprise Fund transfers. On May 9, 2017, the City
Council received a draft of the Tentative Budget for the Fiscal Year 2017-2018. This budget
contained a proposed transfer of funds from the utilities to cover non-administrative or overhead
costs to cover the City's own use of City-owned utilities.
The State Auditor required that cities pay the retail rate for their own usage of City-owned
utilities. The City of Orem used water, sewer, storm water and street lighting to supply its own
Police Station and fire Stations and other City properties.
The City had long built the cost of supplying these properties into the utility rates. The reasoning
behind this decision was that the tax payers and the utility rate payers were almost always the
same people. Therefore, the simplest way to cover these costs was to include them in the
respective utility rates.
Now that the City was required to pay the utilities for these services, the options available to the
City were:
·Increase property taxes to cover the cost of these utilities
·Cut services enough to free up the cash to pay for the utilities
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.18)


· Transfer the funds back to the General Fund
The first two options involved either paying more for the same services or paying the same for
lower service. By making the transfer the City could provide the same level of service for the
same fees.
The amount proposed to be transferred was:
Transfer From Amount %of Total Fund
Expenditures
Water Fund $900,000 4.9%
Sewer $16,000 0.2%
Storm Water $130,000 2.8%
0.9%
Street Lighting $15,000
Total $1,061,000
In the public hearing staff would review:
Specific administrative and overhead costs;
Specific fund information
The proposed transfers
The City Manager recommended the City Council hold a public hearing to consider input from
the residents regarding proposed transfers from enterprise funds to the general fund in the Fiscal
Year 2017-2018 budget.
Mayor Brunst said that was a sum-zero transfer that did not increase taxes or decrease services.
Mr. Manning said that was correct. He said $900,0o0 was being transferred to the General Fund
from the Enterprise Fund, which kept the overall costs lower.
Mr. Macdonald made reference to a comment made earlier in the meeting pertaining to this
matter. He said the City paid for their water from the water fund, and then the water fund was
paid back to the City. They used water to keep the City's parks green and beautiful; this also
occurred with the water and sewer funds. They were putting that amount back into the General
Fund for other critical services, which accounted for the $9o0,0o0 transfer which the resident had
identifiedinher comments.
Mr. Seastrand stated that the graph presented by staff was missing half of the equation. Mr.
Manning said the City paid for what was used, and the payment was reflected in the City's
revenues. This practice was required by State law. Essentially, the City was a customer of its
own services, and this transfer brought the funds back to the General Fund to allow for other
services.
Mr. Lentz asked if in regards to the water being provided to parks, did the City take the sum of
every meter connection and add to it according the tiered rate system. Mr. Tschirki answered
affirmatively. Mr. Lentz asked whether or not it would be a good idea to consider having a
separate tiered rate structure for City facilities, which could be labeled as a municipal tier
structure. Mr. Tschirki said they had to charge the retail rate as if the City was a resident.
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017(p.19)


Mr. Manning said the legislature demanded more detail regarding the finances of these funds.
The revenues were sales of service, and they included user fees and late fees. They tracked
personnel, operations and capital on the macro level, which was the case for all enterprise funds.
He said the administrative charge for each utility was for overhead that had a utilization rate that
could not be specifically defined. He noted that the General Fund provided a lot of services and
did not pay taxes.
Mayor Brunst added that the City had other customers outside of the City. For example,
Vineyard's water came from Orem as well as the water treatment, all of which came at a cost and
was billed like any other customer.
s n s    e  o       z 
funds were being set aside for capital projects on the master plan. Mr. Nelson said these
surpluses represented the use of prior surplus funds.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
Norma Farley, resident, said she understood that water was expensive, but she wondered if there
were any projects that could supply reclaimed water to be used in order to cut down on expenses.
Mayor Brunst said they were working on that option for the Sleepy Ridge Golf Course. Using
reclaimed water would not only save on costs, but up to one million gallons of water per day as
well. Ms. Farley said she thought that was a good idea.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing. He said that the State obligation had been met.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Adopt Final Budget FY 2017-2018
ORDINANCE - Approving and Adopting a Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, Adopting
Compensation Programs, Adopting Fees and Charges, Setting the Property Tax, Franchise
Tax, Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax, Telecommunications License Tax, Transient
Room Tax, and E-911 Fee Rates
Mr. Manning and Mr. Nelson presented information on the adoption of the Final City Budget for
Fiscal Year 2017-2018.
On May 9, 2017, the City Council received a draft of the Tentative Budget for the Fiscal Year
2017-2018. Budget work sessions were held on February 28, March 7, and March 28. In
addition, two public hearings were held to review CDBG budget requests.
The purpose of this hearing was to consider the budget for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, along with the
compensation program and the fees, charges, and tax rates of the City.
Property taxes would not be increased, the franchise tax and municipal energy sales and use tax
rates remain at six percent, and the transient room tax stayed at one percent.  The
telecommunications license tax remained at 3.5 percent and the E-911 fee stayed at $0.61 per
month. Various adjustments and/or additions to miscellaneous fees and charges were proposed
in many departments.
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017 (p.20)


Rate changes impacting all customers are discussed below. There was a $1.42 per month water
base rate increase for a three-quarter inch meter service. Base rates for all other meter sizes
would remain unchanged. The water tier rates would increase as follows:
Fee From To
Tier 1/1,000 gallons
$0.71 $0.79
Tier 2/1,000 gallons $0.89 $0.99
Tier 3/1,000 gallons $1.07 $1.18
Tier4/1,000gallons $1.42 $1.58
Solid waste rates:
Fee From To
First Can $10.65 $10.85
Second Can $9.65 $9.85
Recycle $3.20 $3.25
Green Waste $5.70 $5.85
The sewer volume rate increased from $1.42/1,000 gallons to $1.85. Storm Water equivalent
service units went from $6.25 to $6.75.
Exhibit “C" containing an overview of compensation policies for Elected Officials and
employees had been abbreviated in this budget. The information was provided but not in the
same amount of detail that was thought to be excessive.
The City Manager recommended the City Council, by ordinance, approve and adopt the Fiscal
Year 2017-2018 Budget, adopt the compensation programs, adopt the fees and charges schedule,
set the property tax, franchise tax, municipal energy sales and use tax, telecommunications
license tax, transient room tax, and E-911 fee rates.
Mr. Manning said this was a $112 million budget and was largest the City had ever had. He
continued reviewing the information notated above.
Mayor Brunst commented that the budget reflected $5.5 million of increased revenues over a
four year period. Mr. Manning said that was correct.
Mr. Manning said building fees were a source of income, but they were one-time monies so they
were not built into the budget. Sales tax accounted for S21 million, which was up by S1.5
million from over the last few years. The public safety contracts were a significant source of
revenue, as were the contracts with the Alpine School District. The County had determined that
the City would receive $5.1 million in general property tax money, which was exclusive of funds
going into debt late fees, etc. The property tax rate was 0.001346. He noted that in 2013 the
City most deeply felt the impact of the recession. Therefore, to maintain the same amount of
money the rates went up. Since the economy had improved, the rates had gone back down.
Furthermore, the City had paid off a General Obligation bond.
Mayor Brunst said the bond debt had gone down $22 million over the last four years which was
just under twenty-seven percent.
City Council Minutes -June 13,2017(p.21)


Mr. Manning showed a comparison of utility rates with other municipalities in the County. City-
wide expenditures by type included the cost of purchasing water. The biggest cost for most
departments was personnel, and in some departments it was their only significant cost.
Mayor Brunst mentioned that Tremonton's biggest issue was supplying enough water to the City.
He said Orem was lucky to have the Metropolitan Water Board; they made it possible for the
City to have a strong water supply.
Mr. Macdonald asked about the budget increase and how much was from transfers for capital
improvements. Mr. Nelson said he was not sure off the top of his head, but he could relay that
answer later. Mr. Davidson stated that they were appropriating surplus to these projects, which
they had been accumulating over time. Mr. Macdonald said it was important to note that the
    sa i  m sa sa  m    
capital improvement projects throughout the City. It was important to keep capital infrastructure
in good condition. Mr. Davidson added that this wasn't a representation of just incremental
growth over the years; it was timed according to when they anticipated the completion of
constructionprojects.
Mr. Manning said some departments had very large budgets, because their stewardship was
fairly significant from a dollar point-of-view. It was important for the public to understand this
process. He noted that the City was setting aside money each year for the Centennial coming up,
which would only happen once if their lifetime. Mr. Manning then provided a brief overview of
various departmental budgets.
Mr. Seastrand asked about the merit increases. Mr. Manning noted that there was an overall
increase of $1.3 million for salary increases, including new positions.
Mr. Manning stated that the value of the City's streets was significant, and staying on top of
those costs was a significant chore. He noted that they would be moving $200,000 into solid
waste due to added wear and tear on the City's streets. Mayor Brunst said there was an
additional amount that would be coming in from the gas tax as well. Mr. Manning confirmed
that to be the case, and said that the City was still not keeping up on road maintenance.
Mr. Seastrand asked staff to clarify the shortage amount. Mr. Price said it was about $1 million a
year. Right now, the gas tax monies were used to maintain the arterial and collector roads. They
did not do much on the local roads, and crack seals and slurry coats could only go so far. They
were currently concentrating on the overlays on a twenty-four-year rotating period. If they were
to go on a thirty-six-year rotating cycle for local roads they would need an additional $1 million.
Mayor Brunst said that if Proposition 1 had passed, the City would have been receiving that S1
million.
P    s n a    n  s  
improvements, and this year they would be spending $16.5 million.
City Council Minutes - June 13, 2017(p.22)


Mr. Manning said there were several water projects coming up including the four-inch water line
replacements, as well as the water reuse system, which was previously mentioned. He said that
storm water had to call an audible, for which they had been looking at West Union Canal.
However, the owners of the canal had indicated that they were leaving the business. Therefore,
the City would have to put a plan in place to get out of the deal as quickly as possible. As long
as they were putting water into the canal there would be some liability issues. In regards to IT,
the City did a lot of the software development in-house. The increases noted in the budget were
for subscriptions. Mr. Manning said there would be $3.1 million going towards the debt service
for UTOPIA.
Mr. Manning said the recreation fund was subsidized by revenues from the General Fund. As
had been discussed at prior retreats, this was an area where the Council needed to map out its
vision. The original intent was for the pool and fitness center to be self-maintaining; however,
they were at a point where this would not be the case. He said the CDBG.program was
previously discussed.
Mr. Manning said that solid waste was handled by Waste Managemenit, and the increases noted
in the budget were needed in order to operate the fund. The increases would go-into effect with
the July billing. Water would also reflect changed rates. In regards,to. the tiered 'rate structure,
the majority of users had a three-quarter of an inch meter. He explained that the tiered billing
charges were the same regardless of the size of the meter; however, the amount :allowed in each
tier changed with the size of the meter. He said that the City was informed that even with the
rate changes Orem was still listed as a favorable City.
Mr. Lentz asked about the graphic from the Provo budget and what utilities were represented.
Mr. Downs said water, garbage, sewer, and storm water fees were represented. The average
showed Orem as the lowest in the County.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. When no one came forward to speak, he closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Brunst said this budget had been worked on for six months, and the tentative budget had
been previously adopted.
Mr. Macdonald moved, by ordinance, to approve and adopt a Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-2018,
adopt Compensation Programs, adopt Fees and Charges, set the Property Tax, Franchise Tax,
Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax, Telecommunications License Tax, Transient Room Tax,
and E-911 Fee Rates. 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.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
There were no Communication Items.
CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS
There were no City Manager Information Items.
City Council Minutes --June 13, 2017 (p.23)


OFOREM
MayorBrunstmovedtoadjourntoameetingoftheRedevelopmentAgencyoftheCityof
Orem.Mr.Seastrand seconded the motion.Those voting aye:Richard F.Brunst,DebbyLauret,
Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner.The motion
passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at8:09p.m.
CORPORATE
SEAL
Clsma R. &ave
DonnaR.Weaver,CityRecorder
Approved: July 11, 2017
CityCouncilMinutes-June13,2017(p.24)