City Council · 2017-12-12

CITYOFOREM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
56 North State Street Orem,Utah
December 12, 2017
4:00 P.M. WORK SESSION - PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
ELECTEDOFFICIALS
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative
Services  Director; Bill  Bell, Development  Services
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance
Division Manager; Ryan Clark, Economic Development
Division Manager; Tim Dalsing, Public Works Crew
Leader; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
DISCUSSION -Large Animals in City Limits
Mr. Bench shared information about permitted animals within residential zones and the
minimum distance of barns, pens, or corrals from any dwelling or public street. He said animals
were allowed in residential zones only if the following conditions were met: (1) the area of the
lot on which the animals are kept was at least one acre, with the exceptions for rabbits, pigeons,
ducks, and household pets, and (2) the animals were included on the list of permitted animals and
the number of animals did not exceed the maximum number allowed per acre.
In response to a question, Mr. Bench said that pigs were not a permitted animal in residential
zones in Orem. The permitted animals were not to be free range, but had to be limited in the
space they could occupy. He further stated that a combination of permitted animals was allowed,
migratory animals like ducks and pigeons were not usually a problem because of their nature.
Chickens were limited to 20 animals per acre, and could not be raised for the purpose of
slaughter. Roosters were not allowed.
Mr. Lentz asked how other cities handled the issues of large animals in residential areas. Mr.
Bench said it varied from city to city; some handled it according the property size but others
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.1)


outright excluded these animals in residential zones. Mr. Lentz expressed concern about how
changes in the code might affect those who already had animals.
Mr. Bench said 67 residential properties had animals, and of those nine of them had horses. In
response to Mr. Sumner's question, Mr. Bench said that in his 15 years of working for the City
he had not heard any complaints about horses until now. It was possible that such complaints had
been made in the past and had not reached him, but this was his first time addressing this.
However, Mr. Bench stated that complaints were what started this conversation.
When asked about calls to animal control, Chief Giles said it was difficult to answer the question
because they did not separate the calls by what kind of animal was being called about. His
recollection was that most animal control calls involving large animals were when a horse or
cow or llama got out of its corral or pen and was roaming. Chief Giles said if anyone had ever
called and complained about smell that would likely have gone to NPU as a neighborhood
nuisance and not to animal control.
Mr. Macdonald said he had to give the Hoffmans credit because this would not change their
situation, but they wanted to prevent others from having the same issues they were facing.
However, he did wonder if theirs was such an isolated situation that it might be premature to
make any significant changes to the code overall. Mr. Bench said at this time they were not
proposing any changes but wanted a discussion to hear the Council's thoughts on the matter.
There was continued discussion regarding large animals in residential zones. Some items of
discussion were:
· Keeping animals for farming and self-sustainability purposes
Land acreage requirements and property taxes
 Issues of odor and/or unsightliness from animal waste
 Neighbors/visitors petting or feeding animals
Conflicting issues of property rights
Craig Jacobsen, resident, said he lived in northwest Orem and had horses on his property. He
said horses had been kept in that area for over 60 years, and the only complaint he had ever had
was when a group of mothers knocked on his door wondering where the horses were so their
kids could feed them carrots. He added that on the whole, horse manure had the least odor issues
than other large animals. His neighbors had not complained, and he felt that some liked having
the horses in their neighborhood.
Mr. Lentz said it seemed that there were two separate conversations: (1) the merit of having
horses or other animals in a residential neighborhood, and (2) the problems that might arise from
introducing large animals into neighborhoods that had never had them before.
Mr. Sumner said it seemed like they were discussing a non-problem, and felt that issues could be
discussed and handled as they arose. He felt there were too many what ifs to make any changes
to the ordinance.
Mr. Hoffman said he had lived next to a large lot for four years, and they were concerned about
their neighbor's plans to keep horses on that lot. He said it will affect the quality of the
City Council Minutes -December 12, 2017 (p.2)


neighborhood as well as their ability to sell if they wanted. In response to Mayor Brunst's
question, Mr. Hoffman guessed the neighboring large lot was a couple of acres.
Mr. Davidson reminded the Council that even if they were to consider a change now, it would
not keep the Hoffman's neighbors from bringing in more animals. They would be grandfathered
in and their use of the land would be designated as legal, non-conforming.
Mr. Lentz said it might be worth exploring overlay areas where large animals would be permitted
and it would keep them from going into other areas. Mr. Seastrand said they did have the
guidelines in the current ordinance, which specified things like acreage required and maximum
number of animals. Those standards should be the way to implement the zoning.
Mayor Brunst said it was a tough issue, because it was all about property rights. What one land
owner wanted might not be what another land owner wanted, and vice versa.
DISCUSSION - Summerfest Organization and Planning
Mr. Downs introduced Kena Mathews, Chair of the Summerfest Advisory Committee, and
turned the time over to Ms. Mathews to update the Council on some changes that were being
proposed.
Ms. Mathews said she was excited to serve as the Chair for the upcoming year's celebration. She
said last year they decided to create a subcommittee within the Summerfest Advisory Board, but
they never actually created the subcommittee or filled in those seats. They were going to move
forward with that this year, hoping to fill those seats with a sponsorship chair and other
community members at-large. Another proposal was to add two more members to the
Summerfest Advisory Committee to help with the workload. She said the addition of two more
members was especially critical if the Council wanted to continue to have Summerfest activities
held in two City parks.
Ms. Mathews said that historically the activities were held at the City Center Park, but the last
two Summerfest celebrations had expanded to host activities at the Scera Park as well. She
shared some of the pros and cons of having Summerfest at one park versus spreading into two
parks.
·ONE PARK
oPros:
Reduces overtime expenses
?
■ Allows police and fire to more easily patrol/respond
■ Still allows for all activities to continue
Put all activities in one place for families that don't want to drive or walk
% mile to enjoy activities
 Puts wear on only one park
Allows for family activities to be together on “Family Night"
oCons:
·  Parking is all concentrated around one park
·People have started getting used to the two-park model
City Council Minutes-December 12,2017(p.3)


Space is limited
May have to put caps on participation in activities such as car show,
business showcase, etc.
Eliminates non-paying food trucks
 TWO PARKS
o Pros:
Additionalroom/shade
■
City Center Park
Room for continued growth
Showcase more of the City
Parking scattered across two different areas
Allows for a “non-carnival" experience
■
oCons:
Difficult  to attend activities at both  parks  if they  are  going on
simultaneously
Additional overtime costs and safety concerns
Extreme wear to Scera Park a few weeks before Colonial Heritage Festival
There was discussion about the pros and cons for each scenario. One of the major issues had
always been parking, and having activities in two locations would certainly help reduce the
number of cars in one given area. In response to a question about the elimination of non-paying
food trucks, Mr. Downs explained that only a certain number of food vendors were able to pay to
be official vendors for Summerfest, and the fees they paid helped to offset other costs. Having
two locations, they could potentially double the number of fee-paying vendors, i.e. food trucks.
Ms. Mathews showed overhead aerial views of how the park(s) would be set up, either at one or
both locations. She showed how the individual components would fit into the City Center Park,
including an area that had not previously been used with two of the baseball diamonds. They
would need to reserve some space to keep a safe perimeter for the fireworks, but there was some
space to be found there.
There was continued discussion about the following:
Summerfest Car Show
0Military cars
0 Number of cars
 Proposed placement
Business showcase
0 Go from 35 open spaces to 55
Sponsorships
0If sponsors paid $1,500 they automatically got a booth
Kids activities and entertainment
Community Booths
OEnough space for public safety vehicles
Family Night - all day Thursday
O  Additional activities for kids and family that day
City Council Minutes -Dcccmber 12,2017 (p.4)


ODiscounts on carnival tickets
Some Council members expressed concern about the additional strain being in two parks would
put on the police and fire departments. Chief Giles said it would be an added expense to offer the
overtime, but he felt staff-wise it would be no problem. They would be able to cover the regular
patrol shifts and get volunteers for the Summerfest shifts. The cost was the real issue, not
coverage, but it was certainly doable.
Ms. Mathews was hoping to get direction from the Council on which scenario they preferred.
The general consensus was that spreading the activities into two parks was preferred, though
there was still some concern about the additional costs and spreading the police and fire too thin.
In response to a comment about funding, Mr. Price said that sponsorship money, as well as fees
and charges, were used to cover direct costs. Mr. Davidson said the City covered many of the
soft costs, like budgeting overtime for officers to work the event. These soft costs did not show
up in the Summerfest budget but they were there. For example, wiring the park so that they no
longer needed to rely on generators cost $60,0oo. He said that long-term they were always
striving to improve the Summerfest event, but not necessarily continue to grow the event. There
were only so many parks employees, police officers, etc. and they did not want to city services to
have to take aback seat to this one event.
Mr. Davidson said he was not opposed to allocating additional city resources, but they had to
budget for it. He said he would support having a base budget to buffer the costs, and the
Summerfest Committee could utilize sponsorship money to go above that. They would not
always have someone with a special skillset like Wally Harkness to help with fundraising, and he
thought that incrementally setting money aside would help hedge those costs. Mr. Downs
reiterated that it was not the goal to continue to grow the event, but to help make it manageable
and sustainable.
There was subsequent discussion about the previous year's entertainment including the Deseret
Book sponsored concert and the fireworks. Summerfest Committee members said that this year
would besimilarin terms of entertainment.
Mayor Brunst suggested setting aside $25,000 for Summerfest for the coming year.
Mr. Macdonald thought that was too high an amount, considering that they had been given
$15,0o0 the previous year and had only used about half of that. He also did not feel comfortable
using public funds to provide a concert that not everyone would attend; he felt would be more
appropriately funded by CARE tax money, not Summerfest funds.
In response to Mr. Macdonald's suggestion that the remaining funds from the $15,0o0 roll over
B            sa    
over. One compromise could be having the $25,000 in the City Council Contingency fund, and if
they ever needed to draw from that account it would require action from the City Council to
allocate that money toward the event.
Mayor Brunst said this was a community event where everyone in the city benefitted. He felt the
Council was in agreement to move forward.
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.5)


Mr. Sumner asked how the Centennial celebrations would tie in with Summerfest. Mr. Davidson
said Ryan Clark and his team were working on a plan that included events in and around
Summerfest. There would probably be some unique things in the 2019 Summerfest celebrations
because of that. They had set money aside from the General Fund and they would anticipate
setting more money aside leading up to that.
5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION -PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
Mayor Richard F. Brunst
CONDUCTING
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; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative
Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance
Division Manager; Ryan Clark, Economic Development
Division Manager; Tim Dalsing, Public Works; and Jackie
Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
Preview Upcoming Agenda Items
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Agenda Review
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.
City Council New Business
Mr. Davidson had a few updates he wanted to share with the Council before they adjourned to
the formal meeting. He first wanted to let the Council know that the Alpine School District
Board was also meeting this night, and the issue of elementary school consolidation was on their
agenda. He said he and Mayor Brunst had spoken with Superintendent Sam Jarman and his
business administrator, and they were reassured that it would not result in a change in the current
use of the property in the short term.
Note: At approximately 5:35 p.m. the laptop experienced technical difficulties, causing a break
in the audio recording. The audio began recording again at approximately 5:38 p.m.
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.6)


Mr. Davidson said there had been discussion of a possible trade for land around Scera Park for
property that was Hillcrest Park. The intent was to keep Scera Park open while building a new
school on the existing ground, but parking and student drop-off areas would be a concern. There
would be further discussion on the matter once they knew the direction the School Board was
going.
Mayor Brunst said the residents wanted the greenspace around Hillcrest Elementary to stay with
the City. He said there had been lots of discussion about a feasibility study in splitting Orem
from the Alpine School District, and he said they would have to include Vineyard and Pleasant
Grove to make that work. He was personally in favor of splitting from Alpine School District.
Mr. Davidson said that UTA was working hard to have the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system
open for the fall beginning of the 2018 school year. He said there had been an agreement reached
in which students and faculty from both BYU and UVU would be provided with an eco-pass to
use the system. This would provide an automatic ridership of approximately 12,000-15,000
people. This was a victory for the BRT program, particularly the inclusion of BYU in the eco-
pass deal. In the past, BYU had been resistant because they did not charge student fees, so
Mr. Davidson said the Council would soon hear recommendations from the Public Works
Advisory Commission (PWAC) on their evaluation of UTOPIA/UIA. He said it had been a
challenge for them, like all those who had tackled this problem before, but they did have
solutions to propose.
of asking cities for a pledge, and were basing any new request for capital off of the system's own
revenue that was generated. That was the plan the last time they met, and it was an improvement
from the old model.
Mr. Davidson said this was a unique situation, in that the rating agencies were finding it difficult
to determine if this was municipal utility debt, or corporate debt, or something else entirely. The
City's ability to pay was above and beyond, but they had not seen anything like this before. It
would be interesting to see what rating they would give, if they felt comfortable giving a rating at
all. He said more information would be forthcoming at the beginning of the next year.
The Council adjourned 5:57 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS
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; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager;
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.7)


Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative
Services Director; Bill  Bell, Development Services
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; Ryan Clark, Economic
Development Division   Manager;   Peter   Wolfley,
Communications Specialist; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy
City Recorder
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT James Brown
Boy Scout Troop 999
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Spencer moved to approve the following sets of meeting minutes:
City Council Meeting November 14, 2017
 Joint City Council Meeting with ASD November 15, 2017
Special City Council Meeting November 21, 2017
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.
MAYOR'SREPORT/ITEMSREFERREDBYCOUNCIL
Upcoming Events
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mayor Brunst moved to appoint George Van de Water to the Heritage Advisory Commission, to
Burns to the Library 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.
MAYOR PRO TEM -January 1 through June 30, 2018
Mayor Brunst moved to appoint Tom Macdonald as the Mayor Pro Tem from January 1 through
City Council Minules -December 12,2017 (p.8)


Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The
motion passed unanimously.
CITYMANAGER'SAPPOINTMENTS
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mr. Davidson presented a recommendation that Leslie Nelson and Wilford Whipple be
appointed to the Board of Adjustment and Board of Building and Fire Code Appeals
respectively, and asked for the Council's advice and consent.
          n    
Wilford Whipple to the Board of Building and Fire Code Appeals. Mrs. Lauret seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not
scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior
to the meeting, and comments were limited to three minutes or less.
Angel Busath, resident, wanted to discuss the increase of traffic along 800 South near UVU. She
said the increase of traffic this year was astronomical compared to previous years; it was difficult
for her to back out and leave her home. She said this was a direct result of UVU closing of
Campus Drive and rerouting students to 800 South and 400 West. Ms. Busath said she had
reached out to Orem and UVU's traffic engineers about her concerns. She had safety concerns
particularly for the students walking to and from Lakeridge Junior High. Students used to be able
to walk to school but with the increase in traffic more and more of them needed to be dropped
off. She said the PEGG development that was proposed would only make a bad problem worse,
and she asked that an unbiased traffic study be done. Ms. Busath reminded the Council that some
of them ran on a platform of maintaining Orem's neighborhoods and addressing traffic concerns,
and she hoped they would keep those promises in mind when considering any changes or new
developments.
Mary Rowley, resident, also wanted to discuss the proposed PEGG development. She said she
was touched by the prayer offered at the beginning of the meeting, and said it was a blessing to
live in a community where people could come together to figure out what would be best. She
tried to recall a quote about progress and growth, and added her concerns about increased traffic.
She regularly heard sirens and hoped it was just for fender-benders and not more serious
accidents. Ms. Rowley said she was not alone in these feelings, and she represented many of her
neighbors in these concerns. They loved UVU and knew it was good for the school to grow, but
she felt they were overreaching and overstepping the boundaries between the neighborhoods and
the school. The closure of Campus Drive, along with the proposal to cram 1,600 students into the
area, was going to drastically change the neighborhood. She hoped the developers would
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.9)


consider other possibilities, as well as the desires of the community. She wanted Orem to stay a
wonderfulplacetolive.
Brad Weston, resident, wanted to echo the concerns shared by his neighbors about the proposed
PEGG development. He said he was concerned with the quality of life for the long-time owners
of the neighborhood. The neighborhood had strong families, safety and a low crime rate, and
high quality of life. The traffic was already busy and would get worse, and the quality of life
would be diminished. He said there was a high possibility that eventually developers would
completely take over the neighborhood, but there was no precedent in absorbing this kind of
 n n   p  s sn io  s  s  s
university was going to expand they should do so in their satellite expansion areas. He hoped the
City Council could encourage smart growth to keep the neighborhoods strong.
Murray Lowe, resident, said it had been an honor to run for City Council and was grateful for the
chance to come and discuss UVU's growth. He said that support of the unfettered growth of
UVU was not strong at the county or state level, while it seemed to be at the City level. This
proposed PEGG project abutted the junior high school, and Alpine School District had said that
the only way this development would work would be to have the traffic empty on Campus Drive
- a drive currently closed. He said the developer had strong-armed a change in that. Mr. Lowe
said the traffic was untenable, and UVU grew at a rate double to the development of everything
around it. He suggested that a neighborhood plan be done by the neighbors themselves. Allowing
one-off zoning allowances was not a good fit for the neighborhood, and even though PEGG was
calling it student housing, there was no requirement that residents be students. He felt there were
other, better options that could be worked through with the neighborhood.
Mark Tippets, resident, wanted to comment that the lights at the City Center looked beautiful --
almost as good as Temple Square. He congratulated the re-elected city officials, and said that this
must be a difficult position. He likened it to being a judge, having to make tough calls. He was
also addressing the proposed PEGG/Woodbury development and their request for a PD zone to
build high density housing. He had spent months collecting data. He owned a construction
company that had built two-thirds of the homes in the neighborhood, and being so close to UVU
had been a selling point. He said it was important to preserve the limited residential areas there
were, where families and neighbors had put down deep roots. He imagined that students, while
being good folks, would not be putting down the same deep roots. Mr. Tippets said that a high
density development in the middle of a neighborhood was not right and made no sense. He
acknowledged the importance of UVU in the community, but asked where the line was drawn
between allowing the school to grow and preserving neighborhoods. He asked that the City
Council use their judgement and consider the neighbors’ concerns on this issue.
Elizabeth Kaufika had signed up to speak but was no longer present at the meeting.
Jayna Bauer, resident, said she was representing a group called Citizens for Safety. Their major
concern was that there were not enough police officers to keep the city safe. She shared some
information, that the population of Orem was approximately 98,0o0 and there were only 93
sworn police officers employed by the City. That meant that a minimum of six and a maximum
of eight officers, including the shift sergeant, were on duty at a time. For context, she pointed to
the eight people at the dais and designated them to different positions and calls. The Mayor stood
in for the sergeant, and he was saddled with mountains of paperwork. He would not be available
City Council Minutes -December 12,2017 (p.10)


to respond to a call. If two or three officers were needed to respond to a major traffic accident,
then two or three more need for a robbery, then only one lone officer was available to respond to
all other calls. She also noted that there were only three Neighborhood Preservation Unit (NPU)
officers to serve the whole city for code violations. These resources were just not enough for
such a large city. She provided a handout to the Council with suggestions on ways to address the
issue.
CONSENTITEMS
RECOMMENDATION: Motion for the City Council to accept the Consent Item(s) as noted.
MOTION:Adopt 2018 City Council MeetingSchedule
REQUEST: The City Recorder recommends the City Council, by motion, adopt the
2018 Annual City Council Meeting Schedule.
POTENTIALLYAFFECTEDAREA:Citywide
BACKGROUND: Section 52-4-6 of the Utah Code Annotated requires the City to ". . . give
public notice at least once each year of its annual meeting schedule . . ." and to ". . . specify
the date, time and place of such meetings . . ." in said notice. Posting the notice at the
principal office of the public body and publication of said notice in at least one newspaper of
general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction shall satisfy public notice.
Generally, the City Council will meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month,
The City Council has the ability to add, delete, or change any of the meetings on this
proposed schedule prior to approving it. The City Council may also add, delete, or change
the schedule--with proper public notice--once it has been approved.
Mr. Seastrand moved to adopt the 2018 City Council Meeting Schedule. Mr. Macdonald
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret,
Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion
passed unanimously.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SLU Codes in M1 and M2 zones
ORDINANCE - Amending Appendix ^A' of the Orem City Code by changing Standard
Land Use Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and waste materials) from
"Permitted" to "Not-Permitted" uses in M1 and M2 zones
Mr. Bench presented a request from the Development Services Department that the City Council
amend Appendix *A' of the Orem City Code by changing Standard Land Use Codes 4850 (solid
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.11)


wastedisposal)and5193(scrap andwastematerials)from“Permitted”toNot-Permitted”uses
inM1andM2zones.
Currently, solid-waste disposal (SLU 4850)is permitted in theM1 and M2zones and scrap and
waste materials (SLU 5193) is permitted in the M2 zone.Both these uses by their nature carry
withthemnegativeexternalitiesassociatedwiththedisposalandtransferofwaste.Such
externalities include offensive sights and smells,noise,pollution,dust,attractionoffowls and
rodents,and trafficgeneration of heavyvehicles.
Suchnegativeexternalitieshavepreviouslynotposed assignificantofanimpactonOremdueto
lackofnearby development,alowerintensityofuse,ormore effective effortsbyfacilityowners
tosuppressnegativeimpacts.
In recent years,the City of Orem and neighboringVineyard Cityhave both experienced a large
amountofcommercial,industrial,andresidentialredevelopmentaround GenevaRoad(adjacent
totheindustrial areas thatpermitwaste-relateduses).Furthermore,the Cityof Orem isin the
process of conducting a Geneva Road Area Master Planand Brownfield Study,which will
identifyareas around thecurrentM1,M2,and CMzonesthatshowpotentialforredevelopment.
Due to the changing nature of development in this area,and due to the nuisance that existing
solid-waste uses have presented for neighboring properties, Staff believes it is not in the best
interest of the City and thegeneral public to allow suchusestoremainpermitted in theM1 and
M2zones.
Wastedisposalandrecycling areservices thatareneededin thearea.However,suchfacilities
arebest located onland where there is a separation fromresidential,commercial and other
industrial uses sufficient to protect such uses from the noise,dust, smell and other negative
impacts thatwastedisposal andrecyclinguses arelikelytocreate.With thechangingnatureof
development inthe City's M1 andM2zones aswell as theproperties adjacent tothosezones,
and the ongoing development of land that has heretofore been vacant and might have previously
supplied an adequate buffer for waste disposal and recycling uses, it is no longer reasonable or in
thebestinterestoftheCitytoallowwastedisposalandrecyclingusesintheM1andM2zones.
StaffthereforerecommendsthattheCityCouncilamendAppendixA'oftheOremCityCode
by changing Standard Land Use Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and waste
materials) from“Permitted”to“Not-permitted”as shown below:
APPENDIXA.LANDUSESBYZONE
SLU R5 R6R6.5R7.5R8 R12 R20 OS5/ROS PO C1 HS CM BP
C2
Solid WasteDisposal&
4850 N N N
Incineration N N N N N N N N
5193 Scrap&wastematerials N N N N N N
N N N N N N PN N
ThePlanningCommissionrecommendstheCityCouncil,byordinance,amendAppendixA'of
waste materials)from“Permitted"to“Not-Permitted"uses in the M1 and M2zones.Staff
supportsthePlanningCommissionrecommendation.
City Council Minutes-December12,2017(p.12)


Mr. Bench said they were in the beginning stages of creating a Geneva Road Master Plan, and
the land uses along that corridor were going to be an important part of that master plan. With all
the growth in Vineyard the area was prime for redevelopment. He said there were two existing
businesses that would be affected by this change; they would be designated as legal non-
conforming if this change were to go through.
Mayor Brunst said that he thought this would be a beneficial change. The North Pointe Solid
Waste Special Service District was nearby and was a more appropriate location for transfer
stationpurposes.
Mr. Seastrand asked for clarification between solid waste disposal and incineration, and scrap
and waste materials. Mr. Bench said scrap would include recycled cans, old water heaters,
copper wiring, etc. and it was primarily metal. Solid waste could include residential waste, but
this location was approved for construction waste like lumber and sheet rock. SLU Code 5193
was concerning recycling, and SLU Code 4850 was concerning the transfer station.
Mr. Davidson added that the facility in question that provided service under Code 4850 focused
on construction and demolition materials and not residential solid waste.
Mr. Lentz asked about the master plan Vineyard was working on. He commented that until
vibrant residential and commercial growth in the areas with more to come. He asked if Mr.
Bench knew of the timeline for Vineyard's Master Plan process. Mr. Bench said he was not
exactly sure on Vineyard's timeline. He knew that a few years ago Vineyard had said they were
planning for growth of 30,000 people. At the time it had seemed almost unbelievable but they
were well on their way to achieving that goal. As they grew and developed, it seemed like Orem
should capitalize on that and work with them for redevelopment of the area as well. It would be
mutually beneficial.
Mr. Lentz asked if any other facilities provided the same services as the two businesses they
were currently discussing. Mr. Bench said there was a large scrap material and metal waste
recycling location on South State Street in Provo.
Mayor Brunst asked to clarify about incineration services in the City. Mr. Bench said he was not
aware of any businesses that currently used incineration. He also specified that a crematorium
would be found under an entirely different land use category entirely.
With no further questions from the Council, Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
Bruce Baird, legal counsel for Dunn Construction, said these businesses had beneficial use in the
city. They provided high paying jobs as well as offering a necessary service. He felt that
narrowing their ability to do business and removing the SLU code would “ghetto-ize" the use. If
a business could not improve their facilities they would be stuck with the negative externalities.
He said his client was looking to enclose their facility to mitigate the concerns with the facility,
but they would not be able to do so if their business became legal non-conforming. It was
difficult to obtain financing. He said blight was often a result of this kind of change and he
suggested that instead of removing the SLU code that allowed them to operate, the City should
City Council Minutes -December 12, 2017(p.13)


impose regulations and standards on those negative externalities. Mr. Baird said removing those
SLU codes would only damage ongoing businesses and keep them on the trajectory to having
thembeexactlywhat theCitydoesnotwant.
Dave Kallas, representative for Geneva Rock and Clyde Companies, said that this would be a
seemingly minor change that had major consequences for their operation. He asked that the
Council postpone this vote, or vote against it. He said he represented large property owners in
that neighborhood who provided not only good jobs but also provided a necessary service with
hoped to expand their development. This would be next to impossible if they were labeled as
legal non-conforming. In response to a Council member's question, Mr. Kallas said that when
roads were torn up, that waste product had to go somewhere. At their facility, they crushed the
pieces to become similar to an aggregate and they were one of very few facilities along the
Wasatch Front where this recycling could be done. He said by changing the zoning it felt like the
City was asking this business to leave, and he thought that would be a big mistake. He pointed
out that this business was sandwiched between two sets of railroad tracks, and there were not
Mike Dunn, from Transfer and Recycling, said he had been in the business for 17 years and over
that time the recycling business had changed a lot. When he had first established his business, he
was encouraged to go along the Geneva corridor because of Geneva Steel and because it was a
good location for industrial uses. Now with all the growth and change in Vineyard and in the
area, his business was apparently an eyesore. He had submitted plans a number of times to make
corrections or improve his business and each time he was met with opposition from the City. Mr.
Dunn said that trash was never going to go away, and he was trying to recycle and keep things
from just being thrown away. He wanted to expand and modernize in the zone that was
established 17 years ago, and he asked that they give him the time to work through the issues so
that the facility could be improved and be more usable.
Gary Steele, with MCR Recycling, said he would be directly affected by this proposed change.
He said that offensive sights, smells, and rodents were not an issue at his facility. He had not
heard of any complaints against his business and he was wondering why they had been included
in this proposal. He said they would have a difficult time pursuing any growth in their business if
they were legal non-conforming. He felt that the SLC codes were two separate land uses and
should be considered separately.
Carlos Magdeleno, manager of MCR Recycling, echoed Mr. Steele comments, and said that it
boggled his mind that the City wanted to push recycling out. He said that as development
occurred and as Vineyard and this area of Orem continued to grow, recycling would be even
more important. The dense housing and construction created a need for a recycling center and
people would either have to drive their recycling all the way to Provo or, more likely, they would
let the materials sit on the roadside or be tossed into the regular curbside garbage. The regular
garbage was not equipped to handle recyclable materials like that. Mr. Magdeleno said recycling
was invaluable; it may be called unsightly but they were providing a much needed service.
Matt Harris, a UPS employee, said his work was right in the middle of these two affected
businesses. They had issues with air quality with his workers, and he felt this was a direct result
of these transfer and recycled waste facilities. If the City would allow these businesses to
City Council Minutes -December 12, 2017 (p.14)


enclose, or make the improvements they were proposing, he felt the air quality issues would be
resolved. If they were hampered by being legal non-conforming, they would not be able expand
and improve. He said that closing these facilities would affect not just Orem but the surrounding
areas as well; this would have a ripple effect they could not foresee.
Mila Johnson said she worked with Pick-A-Part, an organization that recycled and crushed cars.
She said in one month they might handle as much as 200 tons of metal, as well as 1,200 gallons
of assorted vehicular fluids like transmission fluid, oil, and gasoline. These had to be disposed of
properly and only so many facilities could provide these services. She said eliminating their land
use code would make it very difficult for them to conduct their business, and they were the only
one of its kinds in Utah County. She hoped the City would continue the item so companies like
hers could present their “case" against this proposal.
Jesse Stauffer, with Stauffer Towing, said he knew the industry well and towing companies
regularly were dragged into the recycling debate. They needed recycling facilities to tow cars to
that knew how to properly handle and dismantle the vehicle. If they were removing this land use,
what would stop them from removing towing as well? He said Orem had a unique requirement
that tow trucks needed to respond to auto accident within 15 minutes of receiving the call; that
was a tough mandate to meet. Mr. Stauffer said he was worried about his company's future if
they were lumped in with legal non-conforming businesses. He hoped to expand and grow his
business, and being limited by a code change would affect his entire life. He asked that the City
Council consider the ripple effect this proposed change could have.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mr. Seastrand asked for some clarifications from those who commented and from Mr. Bench. He
first asked Mr. Kallas to explain his position because Mr. Seastrand was not sure he saw the
connection between what Mr. Kallas did and the proposed code changes. Mr. Kallas said that
they were one of the largest recyclers in the state by volume and weight, but they often were
dealing with multiple materials. The EPA and other federal and state agencies classified these
materials differently from how the State might classify them. Mr. Kallas stressed again the
importance of having their kind of recycling facility available. Mr. Seastrand thought Mr. Kallas
might be misunderstanding what the proposed change would do; Mr. Bench said the business
that Mr. Kallas represented should not be affected by this proposal.
While Mr. Kallas was still at the podium, Mr. Lentz asked him if the businesses that would be
affected by the proposal offered complementary services that his companies need to use to do
their business. Mr. Kallas said they certainly worked with these kinds of recycling centers, and
their close proximity was helpful. He worried that little by little things would change and
important services would be squeezed out on Geneva Road.
Mr. Seastrand also wanted to clarify with Mr. Bench how Stauffer Towing and the Pick-A-Part
car recycling businesses would be affected. Mr. Bench said the proposed changes should not
affect them.
Mr. Macdonald said the hope was not to turn Orem into the recycling center for all of Utah
County. He commented that some of the services these businesses offered may seem a little
unorthodox, but upon hearing the comments tonight he wondered if there was a way to change
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.15)


the proposal. It seemed like giving these kinds of businesses their own PD zone in the area could
help those that were proving invaluable services while limiting or even negating the opportunity
for undesirable services to come into the area in the future. Mr. Bench said that could be
possible, and acreage was a factor. There was brief discussion about the acreage the two
businesses occupied.
Mayor Brunst said there had been discussions about limiting the number of green recycling or
scrap businesses in Orem. He recognized that the businesses already in place were substantial
fixtures in the community and said they certainly needed the recycling facilities. However, they
were not necessarily trying to grow the industrial base in the area; they were exploring many
options. He said he had his own concerns about businesses being marked as legal non-
conforming, particularly when it came to obtaining financing. Mayor Brunst thought Mr.
Macdonald's suggestion of creating a PD zone for these businesses could allow them to improve
and redevelop while keeping out undesirable uses.
Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Bench to clarify what Mr. Mike Dunn had said about meeting opposition
from the City, and if Mr. Dunn was ever given a permit. Mr. Bench said he was not given a
permit; since 2013 Mr. Dunn had been trying to do some things and the City made corrections
where needed, and from the City perspective Mr. Dunn had not done enough on his end to move
forward. Mr. Bench said it seemed that Mr. Dunn had been intending to expand and improve his
operations for some years without much movement.
Mr. Bench pointed out that if the Council were to continue the discussion on this item to a future
City Council meeting date, it would essentially freeze any changes in the area. This meant no
expansions, or new businesses, could take place there. As long as the legislation was pending,
the area would be "frozen" for change.
Mr. Lentz asked Mr. Harris to clarify his position, as he had seemed both against and in favor of
the proposal in his comments. Mr. Harris said it would help the air quality if Mr. Dunn's
proposal to enclose his building was able to move forward. He said it was the nature of the
business that dirt and other debris might end up in the air, and if they were able to contain that
problem and improve the way they did business, then Mr. Harris saw that as helping all parties.
He did not want the Council to vote in such a way that Mr. Dunn would not be able to improve
and enclose his building.
   ao  a  m sss n posn u s z 
there had been issues of compliance and code violations with these businesses in the past. He
wondered if continuing with the current ordinances would produce different results. Mr. Bench
said that was unclear, and reminded the Council that they were in the same predicament with Mr.
Dunn's business as they were in 2013. Mr. Lentz continued that the idea of these businesses
growing and expanding much more concerned him. He said the Geneva corridor had a future, but
was not sure green waste and metal recycling were it.
Mr. Seastrand said he saw the SLU codes as two different types, and felt differently with each
one. He felt that the metal recycling was an appropriate and needed service, but he did not feel
the same about the transfer station. He felt the smells, appearance, and general cleanliness was
much harder to control, and the North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District was there to
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.16)


fill that need. He said he was trying to think about the long-term consequences of these actions,
and reiterated that he was more concerned about the waste issue than the recycling issue.
Mr. Sumner asked about the noticing for this hearing. Mr. Bench said two weeks ago they had
searched through the database of business licenses, and according to their research only two
businesses met these SLU codes and those businesses had representatives present at the
discussion. Mr. Sumner felt there would be ripple effects he had not thought of, and expressed
his desire to continue the item to allow more time for consideration of all the information.
Mayor Brunst said these were excellent Orem businesses and the services they provided added to
the City. He said recycling was important, and he personally was not yet comfortable voting on
the change until he had the chance to do more research.
Mr. Lentz asked Mr. Bench what the recommendation of the Planning Commission had been.
Mr. Bench said it was a unanimous vote in favor of removing the SLU codes.
Mayor Brunst moved to continue the discussion on this item to the City Council meeting
scheduled for February 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. 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 to continue the item.
RESOLUTION - Adopting the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan
and amending the Orem City General Plan to include the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, &
SuncrestNeighborhoodPlanasAppendixM
The Development Services Department requested that the City Council adopt the Geneva
Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan and amend the Orem City General Plan by
adopting the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan as Appendix M.
Mr. Snideman said this is the fifth neighborhood plan to be completed in the City of Orem's
Neighborhood Plan Program. The major goals of the plan included promoting community
planning by working with residents to identify local concerns and needs, improving
communication with residents, and applying City-wide plans at the neighborhood level.
Three public open houses were held and a citizen-driven Advisory Committee was formed to
help identify concerns, shape the vision statement, and assist in drafting the plan. Community
outreach was also supported by an online survey which was completed by over one hundred
residentsinthethreeneighborhoods.
Each neighborhood plan serves as a guide for future planning decisions made by City Staff, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council based on the goals and vision established by the
residents. It is intended that each neighborhood plan will be updated approximately every five
years.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the Geneva Heights, Orem
Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan and amend the City of Orem General Plan to include the
City Council Minutes -December 12, 2017 (p.17)


Orem Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan as Appendix M. City Staff
supports the Planning Commission recommendation.
The members of the ad hoc committee for the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest
Neighborhood Plan (GHOPS plan) that were present were: Lise Christiansen, Cathy Abrose, Lisa
Anderson, and Jayna Bauer. Mr. Snideman thanked each of them and the expressed his gratitude
to the whole committee for all the time, thought, and effort they had put into this plan. He
reminded the Council that these neighborhood plans were a coordinated effort between City staff
and the neighbors themselves, and the purpose was to empower each neighborhood to come
together and identify goals and guidelines that would strengthen their community. Mr. Snideman
said that he enjoyed working with residents from the individual neighborhoods to get specific
information on their challenges and also their strengths. Sometimes the Council would only hear
from one or two individuals on a given issue, and these neighborhood plans allowed more people
the opportunity to add their voice. He said the plans would not instantly solve all neighborhood
problems, but it was to provide direction to the City on issues the residents in those
neighborhoods cared most about. The plans would be revisited and updated every five years.
The neighborhood vision statement for the GHOPS plan was: “We are neighborhoods that value
community and diversity, and we have a strong desire to promote safety, health, and education
for all of our neighbors." Ms. Abrose said these neighborhood areas were becoming increasingly
diverse, with many cultures being represented, and that served to make them stronger - not
divided.
Mr. Snideman said this was an interesting cross section of the City, and probably the most
diverse area he had worked with so far. He said they had gone on a short bus tour of the
neighborhood areas, which had been very informative for the committee in shaping their goals.
He shared some of the transportation, economic, neighborhood policing, and land use goals that
were identified. He pointed out one goal that he had been surprised by, that the residents
suggested a slight tax increase to ensure the level of service the City provided for services like
police, fire, parks, and public works.
Ms. Anderson commented that in their research on this plan they learned that the City had only
three officers specifically assigned to handle neighborhood concerns and enforce zoning issues.
If one considered the population of Orem, three officers were not nearly enough to give full
coverage. She said residents should consider the increase to be an investment in City services, so
that staff could be increased and the level of service could stay high.
Mayor Brunst asked about the kinds of code violations they saw in their neighborhoods. Ms.
Anderson said that the common problems were unkempt or junky yards, illegal home businesses,
and illegal accessory apartments that created traffic and parking issues. Ms. Abrose added that
specific areas had specific issues, like the issues affecting the neighbors by Wiggy Wash. The
sound and light pollution had caused one family to move already, which was concerning, and
they did not want to lose anymore. Ms. Bauer said the Neighborhood Preservation Unit (NPU)
officers were trying to do their part with their limited staff and resources.
Mr. Lentz asked about the survey they conducted. Mr. Snideman said over 5,0oo Orem
households in these neighborhoods were sent a link to the survey, and they received around 120
City Council Minutes -December 12,2017(p.18)


responses. He said these neighborhoods were some of the oldest in the city and that the sample
probably skewed toward older residents.
Ms. Abrose said this had been an educational and eye-opening process for her. They had the
chance to meet with City staff from the various departments, and heard some wonderful ideas on
how to make improvements in the city; the main issue was that there was no money to fund these
ideas. This was a special community, and she wanted to do her part to invest and build it up for
future generations.
Mr. Snideman said that another goal they had set which surprised him was about establishing
community gardens and farmers markets. Orem had no public community gardens currently -
the garden on the Orem Community Hospital land was privately owned but was open to the
public. Mayor Brunst said there were some property owners who had extra lots, and if the
owners were willing those lots could be used for neighborhood gardens. Mr. Seastrand said there
was one such garden on private property owned by Tim Stay; it had been such a success for their
neighborhood that the City had offered to pay the water on the garden property so that the land
owner would not have to cover those costs as well.
Mr. Snideman continued by sharing some of the neighborhood policing goals in the GHOPS
plan. Some of the ideas included a rental license program to help manage properties with
absentee landlords, increasing the number of staff for NPU for a greater police presence in the
community, and increasing public safety staff in general. For land use the committee had
outlined such goals as preserving the character of the existing neighborhoods and avoiding spot
zoning, placing higher density development in appropriate areas along major roads and future
transit lines, change certain requirements to create better buffering between commercial and
residential land uses, and to allow for private property owners to utilize more water efficient
xeriscaping techniques. In response to Mayor Brunst's question, Mr. Snideman said these goals
were all set through the committee's discussion; all staff did was take their ideas and word them
in "master plan-type language".
Ms. Bauers echoed what Ms. Abrose had said about this being an eye-opening experience. She
said she learned a lot about how a city was run, and it helped her understand better what could or
could not be done.
Ms. Abrose added that the process had endeared her more to the city and to staff as well. They
saw both the nitty-gritty reality of running a city, but also got to see the hopeful optimistic side
Ms. Anderson said she hoped this plan was not something that the Council accepted, and then
tucked away in a box and forgot about. She hoped they would respect the goals they had set, and
would keep the neighbors involved. They had put a lot of work into the plan, and wanted to help
makeitsuccessful.
Mr. Seastrand commented that these were the neighborhoods he grew up in. One of the
challenges they faced as members of the City Council was trying to get a good feel of how the
majority viewed an issue. He asked the committee members if they felt this plan really
represented their neighborhood's vision for the future, and if they could take ownership of the
plan. They said that they could. Ms. Anderson said they had worked well with Mr. Snideman and
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.19)


staff in crafting the plan, but the ideas and goals were their own. Ms. Abrose added that they had
not felt influenced or pressured on anything; they felt free to share their thoughts and opinions on
additional input.
In response to a follow up question, Ms. Anderson said the absentee landlord program was
something that was done in Salt Lake County with great results. It helped keep the properties
maintained without having to strong-arm anyone.
Mayor Brunst said Orem was one of the best communities in the nation, and appreciated the
efforts each neighborhood was putting into these plans.
Mr. Macdonald said he appreciated the efforts of the committee and city staff to dig a little
deeper with each of the neighborhoods and bring issues to the Council's attention that might not
otherwise have been. He hoped they would continue to stay involved and be active neighborhood
voices.
MayorBrunst opened the discussionfor publicinput.
Margaret Holmes, resident of the Orem Park neighborhood, said she had been involved with this
plan as well. She had enjoyed her experience, and she wanted to comment on the goal of a slight
tax increase. She quoted Benjamin Franklin, saying, “In this world nothing can be said to be
   s   o p e p   s  p ia o
important to plan for the future, and as far as taxes were concerned, you get what you pay for.
Taxes were generally how city services were paid for, and to improve services sometimes you
had to increase the budget.
There were no further public comments, so Mayor Brunst brought the discussion back to the
Council.
Mr. Seastrand then moved, by resolution, to adopt the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest
Neighborhood Plan and amending the Orem City General Plan to include the Geneva Heights,
Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan as Appendix M. 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.
RESOLUTION-AcceptFiscalYear2016-2017Audit
Mr. Manning and Mr. Nelson presented the City Manager's recommendation that the City
Council, by resolution, accept the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Audit as presented. They introduced
James Gilbert from the firm of Gilbert & Stewart CPA, PC.
In accordance with State Law, the City is required to have a complete financial audit performed
Over the past several months, the accounting firm of Gilbert & Stewart CPA, PC has been
reviewing the City's financial records and has now completed their audit. All of the audit
City Council Minutes - Deccmber 12, 2017 (p.20)


information  is  included  in  the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report  (CAFR).
Representatives from Gilbert & Stewart CPA, PC will review the CAFR in their presentation to
the City Council during the meeting. The City ended the fiscal year at June 30, 2017, in sound
financial condition and has received an auditor's opinion with no qualifications (a “clean"
opinion).
Mr. Gilbert affirmed that Orem was given a “clean opinion" on the audit report. He said the one
item they found was that the City's General Fund balance did exceed 25 percent of the total
revenue of the General Fund. He said this can be easily remedied during a budget amendment.
Mr. Nelson said they were planning on that budget amendment to be on the agenda of the first
City Council meeting in February 2018.
Mr. Macdonald said many board of directors had audit committees, and asked if it was common
practice in a city to have the audit committee made up of the elected officials. Mr. Gilbert said
some cities had audit committees that were separate, but that was not required by statute. He said
large school districts, meaning over 15,000 students, were required by statute to have audit
committees.
Mayor Brunst said that a small audit committee had been created with himself, Mrs. Lauret, Mr.
Manning, Mr. Nelson, and representatives from Gilbert & Stewart to go through the report
thoroughly and to give their recommendation. They were recommending that it be approved.
Mr. Gilbert reviewed the auditing processes for the Council. He said a booklet with three
separate reports had been distributed to the Council. The booklet contained reports on (1)
compliance with the laws and regulations for the federal government, (2) compliance with laws
and regulations for major federal programs, and (3) compliance with the laws and regulations for
theStateof Utah.
Note: Mr. Macdonald stepped out of the meeting at 8:04 p.m.
Mayor Brunst said the auditing firm had done an impressive job and he thanked Mr. Gilbert for
their work. Mr. Gilbert said that Orem staff had been very good to work with.
Mrs. Lauret echoed the Mayor's thanks and said she respected the open and honest way the audit
was conducted. She had appreciated that she could ask questions and they responded with a high
level of professionalism. Mr. Gilbert thanked her for her comments, and said they were available
to answer questions any time of the year.
Mr. Seastrand said he was always surprised and a little intrigued over the years to hear about
organizations that had funds that were embezzled. He asked Mr. Gilbert's opinion on the
safeguards in place with Orem and if they were sufficient. Mr. Gilbert said the internal control
systems in place would easily identify any material items that were being diverted or
   sn    s      
something -- however small - going out the door. That was common for any organization of this
size. He said that by and large, Orem was in good hands and the internal control systems in place
were adequate at this time. He had no recommendations.
Note:Mr.Macdonaldreturnedat8:09p.m.
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.21)


Mr. Nelson quickly ran gave a high level overview of the audit report. He said the increases
mentioned on the slides he was showing were in comparison to the prior year, not necessarily the
budget. He said they were very conservative in the revenues they budgeted, which he asked them
to keep in mind. In General Fund expenditures, there was an increase of about $1.8 million and
most of that was related to salary and benefit increases. Some of the other items listed on
expenditures were either increases or had been created during the prior year, so going from zero
to any amount of money looked like a significant increase.
Mr. Lentz said he wanted to clarify a point made in Mr. Nelson's presentation. With UTOPIA
payments that were made, it was not reflective of a trend where things were getting more
expensive for us but instead it was just paying an outstanding bill. Like Mr. Nelson had said,
going from zero to any amount looked like significant increase. Mr. Lentz just wanted to make
that clarification because to those who misunderstood it might look like UTOPIA was digging
the city in further and further, when the reality was that they were in a much better place now
than they had been previously.
Mr. Macdonald asked if the expense was accrued in previous years when it was due. Mr. Nelson
said it was not. For the operating expenses (op ex) assessment, there was no requirement on the
City's part to pay that. Mayor Brunst said the City had held off paying that. Mr. Macdonald said
he understood that, and the Macquarie amount should have been accrued years ago when
entering into that milestone. Mr. Nelson said they should have done an estimate of that amount.
Mr. Lentz said the issue was that Orem was not actually billed by the agency. Mr. Macdonald
said that should not have made a difference, the amount should have been accrued. Mr. Nelson
agreed and said it should have been in there, around $100,000.
Mr. Nelson said the total General Fund balance increased by $1.4 million, and the thing to keep
in mind was that that included a transfer of $3.7 million of excess funds from the prior year. To
meet the State legal fund balance maximum requirements the City would need to transfer $1.6
million and to meet the City's 15 percent fund balance goal an additional $2.4 million would
need to be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. Mr. Nelson said the Government Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) now required that pension liability information be included as part of
this report. This was a large number, and the City's share of the pension liability was $14.3
million. This number was volatile and could swing wildly one way or another, either very high or
unusually low. This year the Utah Retirement Systems (URS) changed the actuarial or earnings
assumptions, which had a huge impact on the bottom lines for enterprise funds.
Mr. Seastrand asked if that required a transfer of funding. Mr. Nelson said it did not, and that it
wasbalancesheetrelated.
Mr. Nelson concluded by sharing information regarding to the recreation fund and City debt. On
the recreation side, the contribution of $402,000 covered nearly the entire shortfall in revenue.
With that contribution, the Orem Fitness Center almost broke even. The contribution for the
current fiscal year was a slight increase of $404,000. Mr. Nelson said the bonded debt was down
$5.3, excluding the principal payoff related to the two bond refunding. Those were the 2008
Water and Storm Sewer Bonds, and the 2007 Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds. He said the
City began paying the Siemens Energy lease, and the total long-term liabilities decreased $3.3
million. That included debt, pension, workers compensation reserves, etc.
City Council Minutcs -Deccmber 12, 2017 (p.22)


Mrs. Lauret said she was slightly concerned about the pension increase, and asked if that was
expected. She also asked if that pattern might continue. Mr. Nelson said that was not something
that could be known for certain, because URS did not give out that information until May or
even June and it would change year to year. He said he did not anticipate another jump like they
had seen, but it was difficult to guarantee.
Mr. Macdonald said the pension increase was not unique to Orem; anyone with a defined benefit
plan has been understating liability for years by not including those numbers. These numbers
were now made available in an effort to be more transparent and some companies were forced to
make huge adjustments. The City's adjustment was only from 7.5 percent to. 7.2 percent; it could
have been much worse. He said this was not a new thing but it was now a requirement to report.
Mayor Brunst said Orem and the State of Utah were lucky to be in such good shape. He was
confident that the pension increase would not be as large next year.
Mayor Brunst then moved, by resolution, to accept Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Audit as presented.
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.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
 n  d n  pn        s
City Council.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
Mr. Davidson informed the Council that he had received a message from Alpine School District
Assistant Superintendent Rob Smith. The Alpine School District Board had been meeting
               
Hillcrest elementary schools. Mr. Davidson said his understanding was that students would be
shifted to accommodatetherebuildingofHillcrest.
Mr. Sumner said he had received communications from people, particularly those involved with
the Hillcrest “group", blaming the City Council for this action.
Mayor Brunst said that Alpine School District was a big part of the city, but they were a separate
makedecisionsonbehalfofAlpineSchoolDistrict.
Mr. Sumner said he had tried many times to explain that very point, but without much success.
ADJOURNMENT
City Council Minutes - December 12, 2017 (p.23)


Withnothingfurtherontheagenda,MayorBrunstsaidhewouldentertainamotiontoadjourn.
Mr.Macdonald moved to adjourn themeeting.Mr.Spencer seconded themotion.Thosevoting
aye:Richard F.Brunst,Debby Lauret,SamLentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark Seastrand,David
Spencer, and Brent Sumner.The motion passed unanimously.
Themeetingadjournedat8:24p.m.
OREM
CITYOF
CORPORATE
SEAL
loma R. aver
DonnaR.Weaver,CityRecorder
Approved:January9,2018
CityCouncilMinutes-December12,2017（p.24)