City Council · 2018-03-27

CITY OF OREM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
March 27, 2018
3:00 P.M. WORK SESSION -CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Councilmembers Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, and Brent Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Steve Earl, Deputy City
Attorney; Sam Kelly, City Engineer; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; Brandon Nelson, Finance
Division Manager; Donna Weaver, City Recorder
EXCUSED Councilmember Debby Lauret
ADJOURN TO CLOSED-DOOR MEETING - Discussion of Pending or Reasonably
Imminent Litigation Pursuant to Utah CodeSection 52-4-205(1)(c)
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.
Mr. Spencer moved to adjourn to a closed-door meeting in Room 107 for discussion of pending
or reasonably imminent litigation pursuant to Utah Code Section 52-4-205(1)(c). Mr. Macdonald
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
CLOSED-DOORSESSION
A closed-door session was held at 3:08 p.m. to in Room 107 for discussion of pending or
          
attendance were: Mayor Richard F. Brunst; Council members Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald,
Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner; City Manager Jamie Davidson, Assistant
City Manager Brenn Bybee, Deputy City Manager Steven Downs, City Attorney Greg Stephens,
Deputy City Attorney Steve Earl, Planning Division Manager Jason Bench, and City Recorder
Donna Weaver, URMMA representatives Jody Burnett of Snow Christensen & Martineau and
Libby Lowther of Lowther & Associates.
The meeting adjourned at 3:47 p.m.
3:45 P.M. WORK SESSION -CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.1)


CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
APPOINTEDSTAFF
City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department
Director; Keldon Brown, Police Department; Charlene
Crozier, Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki,
Public Works Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Brandon Nelson,
Accounting Division Manager; and Donna Weaver, City
Recorder
EXCUSED Councilmember Debby Lauret
Mayor Brunst called the work session to order at 3:52 p.m.
REPORT -Service Line Warranties of America (15 min)
Steven Downs introduced the topic and turned the time over to SLWA Representatives for the
presentation.
Service Line Warranties of America (SL WA—a subsidiary of Home Serve) Facts At A Glance:
Recognized as the nation's largest and most trusted source of utility line plans
Endorsed by the National League of Cities
Committed to customer service, ethical marketing practices and maintaining an A+
accredited rating with the Better Business Bureau
Provide Emergency Repair Service Plans to more than 3.5 million households
Offer services under more than 450 municipal, utility and association partner brands
Serving customers in North America for more than a decade
A BBB Accredited Business with an A+ rating
Winner of seventeen Stevie Awards for Sales and Customer Service in 2018
Receive 98.6 percent satisfaction rating from customers after providing services
USP currently had three partners in Utah:
· Orem
Clearfield City
·
Salt Lake City
Background:
The City of Orem entered into an agreement with Service Line Warranties of America
(SLWA) to educate customers on their responsibilities and provide optional, low-cost
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.2)


Contract Effective Date: September 11, 2015
First Mailing: October 1, 2015
There have been five mailing campaigns since the start of the program.
Products included:
Exterior Water Service Line
From the meter and/or curb box until line daylights inside home, which
includes the service line under the concrete floor
Unlimited coverage per service call
■
Unlimited annual coverage
■
■ Monthly cost - $4.08
Annual cost - $48.96
Exterior Sewer Service Line
From the city main tap until line daylights inside home, which includes the
service line under the concrete floor
Unlimited coverage per service call
N
Unlimited annual coverage
■
■ Monthly cost - $6.58
Annual cost - $78.96
■
Program Update 2017 versus 2018:
Customers in Orem, Utah:
External Sewer Line: 2,323
Increaseof 497ordersSince3/24/2017
External Water Line: 2,641
O
Increase of 1,079 since 3/24/2017
■
Total number of claims:
External Sewer Line: 129
Increase of seventy-five since 3/24/2017
External Water Line: fifty-five
 Increase of thirty-three since 3/24/2017
 Total customer savings:
External Sewer Line: $91,380.00
o
External Water Line: $80,626.00
Average amount spent on claims:
External Sewer Line: $708
Increase of $54,274 since 3/24/17
External Water Line: $1,465
O
Increase of $53,945 since 3/24/17
What do our customers think of us?
More than seventy-eight percent of customers have a higher opinion of City because of
the program
More than ninety-one percent of customers would recommend this program to others
Eight-six percent of customers rated the service as Excellent, Very Good, or Good
BUDGET DISCUSSION -CIP (45 min)
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.3)


Sam Kelly reviewed the current capital improvement project (CIP) requests from each
department within the City. Requests were broken down by department, item and cost estimate,
as follows:
City Manager's Office
Centennial trees (100). ..$40,000
$100,000
800 North mini park.
$300,000
Center Street centennial hillside landscape
Development Services/Public Works
.$8,000
Expansion of evidence room...
Fire Station #3 roof replacement. $10,000
Fire Station #3 interior paint. $15,000
Library customer service area remodel. ..$15,630
$20,000
Boiler replacement at the public safety building.
City Center way finding signs.. $22,535.16
Senior Center, generator installation. .$52,000
Door lock replacement. $25,000
Fire Station #3 carpet replacement. .$33,000
Children's Library A/C unit replacement.. $50,000
Senior Center, roof replacement. $50,000
Security cameras... .$50,000
City Center roof replacement $150,000
Center Street corridor study. .$30,000
Traffic data collection and management. $100,000
2000 North crosswalk improvements, joint project. .$16,000
Mity Lite crosswalk improvement, joint project... .$25,000
State Street medians, MAG project match. $102,000
1600 North ROW, MAG project match. .$170,000
Parks/Cemetery/Recreation
Bonneville tennis court rebuild. $175,000
Scera Park playground replacement.. $175,000
Lakeside Ballfield fence replacement.. .$10,000
Community Park outdoor exercise equipment... $30,000
Asphalt replacement at OremElementaryballfields. $35,000
Asphaltreplacement atWindsorElementaryballfields. $25,000
$45,000
Windsor Ballfield fence repair.
I-15 Interchange bark mulch. .$62,000
Windsor Park playground replacement. $140,000
Scera Park sprinkler system upgrade. $225,000
Upper cemetery roads. .$90,000
Lower section, restroom and storage facility. $100,000
Cremation niche construction... $125,000
Outdoor pool, slide pool re-plaster and cover. .$60,000
Outdoor pool, pap pool re-plaster.... $125,000
Fitness Center heat exchanger ($15,500)
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.4)


Public Safety/Streets
$825,000
Fire truck.
Parking lot maintenance.. $50,000
Low OCI street projects.. $300,000
Crack sealing... $300,000
$475,000
Slurry sealing.
Street overlay/reconstruction. $715,000
Street striping... .$105,000
Microsurfacing.... $300,000
Silica vacuum..... $4,000
..$8,000
Washout trailer...
.$17,000
Asphalt hot box..
Paver... $200,000
Storm Fund
$218,000
Routine maintenance elimination projects...
Connection to master plan projects... $250,000
Misc projects.... .$50,000
250 East project, MPP PN16B.. $354,000
West Union Canal abandonment project, MPP PS65C. $150,000
$242,000
424 East detention basin, phase 1, MPP DBS4.
750 East Tailwater project, MPP PS65B... $179,000
Well #1 Bypass Drain, MPP PS65A.. $257,000
Pole camera... .$17,000
Street Lighting
..$500,000
Misc lighting districts...
Water/Water Reclamation
..$320,000
Four-inch water main replacement, MPP FF1.
$4,300,000
Ten MG storage reservoir, MPP ST1.
Fleet replacement... .$233,000
Misc maintenance projects... $80,000
AMI installation, MPP AMI. $1,000,000
..$1,185,000
Struvite elimination project at treatment Plant, MPP WRF5.
Routine maintenance project, MPP M1. $523,848.29
Misc maintenance projects... $80,000
$1,172,000
System replacements, MPP.
$375,000
Fleet replacement..
$540,742
H2Srehabilitation,MPP.
Summary of Funds
General
o Reserves $4,000,000
Ongoing Revenues: $607,943
Fleet: $2,064,000
Total: $6,671,943
City Council Minutes-March27,2018(p.5)


Road
o Reserves: $224,000
Ongoing Revenues: $1,891,772
o
Fleet: $253,000
o
Total: $2,368,772
Water
Reserves: $1,000,000
Ongoing Revenues: $5,579,793
o
Fleet: $519,000
Total: $7,098,793
Water Reclamation
Reserves: $1,005,000
o Ongoing Revenues: $3,295,612
Fleet: $487,000
Total: $4,787,612
Storm Water
Reserves: $600,000
Ongoing Revenues: $1,619,735
Fleet: $162,000
o
Total: $2,381,735
Mr. Macdonald inquired upon the numbers reported above and questioned the vetting process.
Mr. Davidson said there was approximately $3.8 million in the General Fund that could go
towards CIPs. He then reviewed the breakdown of revenue sources and reminded the Council of
a policy they had adopted to maintain a fifteen percent fund balance. The S3.8 million were
funds that were not previously allocated to any other budget account. The funds for the fire truck
were above and beyond the ongoing, operating budget. Funds for other vehicles came from
enterprise funds. The above list of projects was recommended by staff for the next fiscal year,
and they included leftover money from the current year and anticipated funds for next year. Mr.
Kelly then continued with the presentation.
Mr. Spencer asked about the best way to handle slurry seals, and said the main purpose they
served was to extend the life of the current asphalt. Mr. Kelly explained that slurry could be laid
down on the same roadway two or three times, with each application extending the life of the
road by another seven years. Mr. Davidson added that slurry seals worked best on smaller,
neighborhood streets, whereas they were less effective on heavily trafficked roads.
Mr. Seastrand said he had heard a lot of positive comments from residents who said that the
slurry seal treatments felt like they had a new road.
Mr. Davidson said money was being set aside for a pay-as-you-go process on a number of
different projects.
DISCUSSION -UTOPIA (30 min)
Mayor Brunst said that UTOPIA was a topic that brought out strong emotions. He apologized
for anything he may have done regarding editorials.
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.6)


Mr. Lentz said members of the Council were providing residents wrong information to residents
to disseminate. In bringing the matters to public, Mr. Lentz said the Mayor had responded by
absolving himself of any blame publicly, and shifting it on to the whistleblower. In addition, Mr.
Lentz said he had been blocked from the Mayor's Facebook page and his comments were deleted
from online posts. Mr. Lentz said he was concerned that the main issue of money was a lie the
Mayor was claiming.
Mayor Brunst said he had asked Mr. Lentz to list his concerns and the reasons behind those
concerns; however, he refused to do so. Mr. Lentz said he posted the list on Mayor Brunst's
Facebook page, and Mayor Brunst deleted them. Mr. Lentz said he had screen captures of the
         sa    
this matter.
Mayor Brunst listed the different entities or individuals who submitted editorials: the Utah
Taxpayers Association, LaNae Millet, Mr. Lentz, and the Daily Herald. He said everyone had a
right to be heard and respected; when discussing issues, emotions should "be left at the door."
He asserted that the figures he listed included principle and interest.
Mr. Macdonald asked what was on the balance sheet. Mayor Brunst said it would be the bond by
itself. Mr. Macdonald said the Council discussed this issue and the Mayor was outvoted on the
matter. He said Mayor Brunst then went to the public to make his argument. Mr. Macdonald
said the Council had been through a retreat about being team players and he felt members had
broken that commitment. He claimed that both the Mayor and Mr. Lentz had gone rogue on the
issue. If they gave lip service to being team players and then broke that commitment, they were
neither being smart nor humble. Instead, they were being more concerned about egos, and that
was not the proper way to govern. He said the fact that the discussion was being held in a public
forum was still a problem.
Mayor Brunst said he had no desire to undermine the process but to address some assertions on
an editorial. He said he apologized again.  Mr. Macdonald referred to a previous
Councilmember who worked regularly to undermine the work of the Council. Mayor Brunst
said he would make any changes necessary. Mr. Macdonald said when someone qualified an
apology it was not an apology.
Mr. Lentz said if differing philosophies were the only issue, he would agree. However, when
there were possibly unethical or illegal actions that had taken place, individuals committing such
actions needed to be held accountable; the Council had a duty and responsibility to the public.
He said the proposal would not cost the Orem taxpayers $42 million. The assumption was that
Orem would pay for the entire cost, both principle and interest; they would then build out the rest
of the City, but not a single person in the rest of the City would sign up for the service. Mr.
Lentz said this would not happen; however, even if this hypothetical situation were to occur, the
cost would not be $42 million. He said he believed the Mayor needed to publicly disclaim this
statement to the public.
Mayor Brunst said he was speaking specifically to the pledge amount. In 2004, it was mentioned
o s d a     a  pno    d  
upon five and a half years ago, at which time they were looking at raising property taxes by three
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.7)


and a half million dollars to cover the pledge. In addition, the City paid nearly $1 million in
operating expenses against UIA. He said the City was committing itself, whether that money
was ever used or not, to cosign a bond; they would in fact have to pay from future tax revenues
against that pledge, and he said this was the point he was trying to make.
Mr. Lentz said the Mayor was ignoring that there would be revenues generated as well as costs.
Mayor Brunst said when assessing the interest rate against UTOPIA, the percentage was equal to
or greater than the entire amount due on principle. He said what he had always tried to
Mr.Seastrand said his concern was the discussion was held and the Council agreed to go through
the process of asking the public's perception. His concern was that they wanted honest and
unbiased input. He felt that the actions were designed to undermine that and spoil the results by
slanting them one way or another, and this could end up costing the taxpayers’ money. He said
he would be interested in the survey results but he didn't know if he could trust them now.
5:00P.M.STUDY SESSION-CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers 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; Scott Gurney, Fire Department
Director; Keldon Brown, Police Department; Charlene
Crozier, Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki,
Public Works Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Brandon Nelson,
Accounting Division Manager; and Donna Weaver, City
Recorder
EXCUSED Councilmember Debby Lauret
Mr. Bench provided images of proposed etchings for the BRT stations. The consensus of the
Council was to go ahead with them.
PREVIEWUPCOMINGAGENDAITEMS
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.
AGENDA REVIEW
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.
Mr. Lentz asked what was involved in updating impact fees, and Mr. Bybee said a lot of cities
regularly updated their impact fees by conducting studies. In addition, impact fees were
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.8)


regularly updated to comply with changes to the law. This would be an item that would come
forward to the Council in the future again.
Mr. Earl added that all the noticing would have to be done for any changes made.
In response to a question from Mr. Sumner, Mr. Bybee explained that the bond credits were
amortizing over the ten years.
Mayor Brunst asked what the response had been from the development community with regards
to impact fees. Mr. Bybee said it had been surprisingly supportive. They were not “"jumping for
joy" but they recognized the need. The Mayor noted there was a different impact fee for the
southwest annexation area.
CITY COUNCIL-NEWBUSINESS
Mayor Brunst provided a report on Geneva Nitrogen. He said the plant was sold and would be
removed next year. The City of Vineyard walked away from an agreement with the Union
Pacific Railroad; Union Pacific would be taking out the rail all along Geneva Road. They were
looking at putting in a bridge over Center Street going into Vineyard. There were many new
apartments going in, and the population had increased to about 17,000 residents. Sales tax
It was noted that Cooks Nursery had purchased more property.
Mr. Downs said the County had opted not to use vote by mail for the 2018 election, to the
dismay of municipalities and the school district. They reported to the newspaper that they did
not have resources this year. They claimed that anyone who wished to vote by mail could do so
by asking to be put on the permanent absentee list. They conducted a survey and two-thirds of
the respondents were in favor of vote by mail.
The Council adjourned at 5:53 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
Councilmembers Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
ELECTEDOFFICIALS
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Stephens, City Attormey; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Services Director; Scott Gurney, Fire
Department Director; Keldon Brown, Police Department;
Charlene Crozier, Library Department Director; Chris
Tschirki, Public Works Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City
Attorney; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Neal
Winterton,  Water Division Manager;  Reed Price,
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.9)


Maintenance Division Manager; Emma Bowers, City
Manager Intern, and Donna Weaver, City Recorder
EXCUSED Councilmember Debby Lauret
Mayor Brunst noted that Mrs. Lauret was on vacation and excused from the meeting.
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT Lloyd Evans
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Boy Scout Troop 456
Mr. Sumner presented the members of Boy Scout Troop 640 with Krispy Kreme donuts for their
participation in presenting the Colors and leading the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Seastrand moved to approve the February 9-10, 2018 Retreat, February 13, 2018, and
February 27, 2018, City Council meeting minutes. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those
voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and
Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
MAYOR'SREPORT/ITEMSREFERREDBYCOUNCIL
Upcoming Events
Mayor Brunst referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Resolution - City Recorder Donna Weaver
Mayor Brunst read a resolution recognizing Donna Weaver as the retiring City Recorder.
Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the resolution. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those
voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and
Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
The Mayor then invited Mrs. Weaver to come forward for a photo and to shake hands with the
Council.
Appointments toBoards and Commissions
There were not appointments to be made at this time.
REPORT - Sleepy Ridge Golf Course
Golden Holt said they had an interesting public/private relationship with the City. He said golf
revenues tended to be fairly level, so the construction of the clubhouse and offices provided
additional revenues. They also did a wedding and event business and set a record, doing 254
with golf alone. He said Sleepy Ridge was probably the most centrally located golf course in the
county. He said they had a new golf pro that was focusing on junior golf.
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.10)


At the request of Mr. Spencer, Mr. Holt reviewed the cost ranges for weddings.
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.
No one came forward to speak.
CONSENTITEMS
There were no Consent Items.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - First Public Hearing
Receive Public Comment on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Projected Use of Funds for Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Mr. Downs introduced Vicky Johnson, the chair of the CDBG Advisory Commission. He noted
that the Council was required to hold the first of two public hearings to receive public comment
on the projected uses of funds for the 2018-2019 Community Development Block Grant and
adopt the recommendation of the CDBG Citizen Advisory Commission.
Ms. Johnson reviewed the allocation recommendations.
Public Services - limited by HUD to 15% of new entitlement funding
.$11,000
Family Support & Treatment
.$5,000
Project Read
PERC .$2,000
Center for Women & Children in Crisis $10,000
$12,500
Community Action Services ...
.$4,500
Mountainland Community Health
.$1,000
Literacy Resources ...
RAH .$8,500
Friends of the Children's Justice Center $15,000
Friends of the Food and Care Coalition .$8,000
.$3,000
Ability 1st Utah
$4,000
Community Health Connect
Kids on the Move .... .$5,000
People HelpingPeople .$2,000
Rocky Mountain University of Health Professionals .$3,000
Other
*$86,000
Habitat for Humanity
House of Hope ... ..$3,500
Turn Community Services $15,000
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.11)


Code Enforcement .$155,000
Infrastructure..... .$285,000
Administration .$120,000
Section 108 Loan Repayment. $108,994
* Subject to change based on end of year balance in current housing rehabilitation funding
Mr. Lentz asked about the reporting, and Mr. Downs said they represented Orem residents and
had to track and report the numbers who met the criteria. Mr. Lentz wondered how the change in
City status could impact funding. Mr. Downs said the class of city would not, but they were
looking at Orem's growth.  He said that President Trump's original budget completely
eliminated the program. The newest budget added $300 million dollars to the existing funding
levels.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Dave Smith, Community Action Food Bank, said he had opportunities to hear expressions of
gratitude from the people they served. He expressed appreciation for Orem's support. If they
can help people move toward self-sufficiency it made a big difference.
Vic Morris, Rocky Mountain University, expressed appreciation for the recommendation for
support of physical therapy services. He said what the Council was doing made a difference to
the quality of life for many residents.
Mr. Downs said that following a second public hearing scheduled for May 10, 2018, at 6:00
p.m., the City Council would adopt a resolution approving the CDBG Final Statement of
Projected Uses of Funds for 2018-2019.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SLU Code 5591 in CM Zone
ORDINANCE - Amending a portion of Appendix A of the Orem City Code by changing
Standard Land Use (SLU) Code 5591 (Marine Craft and Accessories) from a “not
permitted" use to a “permitted" use in the CM Zone
Mr. Bench reviewed with the Council a request to amend Appendix A of the Orem City Code
pertaining to Standard Land Use (SLU) Code 5591 (Marine Craft and Accessories) in the CM
zone by changing the use from not permitted to permitted.
Bruce Fosdick from Century Marine introduced himself. At the request of the Mayor, he
provided some background on the business and the size of boats they sold, ranging from nineteen
to twenty-five feet. They sold new boats.
Mr. Bench said that currently Section 22-9-4 of the Orem City Code read:
The CM zone is established to provide areas where planned manufacturing parks may be developed.
The zone is designed to provide for such uses on well-landscaped sites such that they can be located
in proximity to residential uses.
Currently SLU Code 5111 “Automobiles, motor vehicles, & other automotive equipment" and
SLU Code 5183 “Transportation equipment, other machinery equipment, & supplies” are both
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.12)


permitted in the CM zone, but SLU Code 5591 “Marine Craft and Accessories" is not. The
applicant requests the City amend Appendix A to permit Marine Craft and Accessory sales in the
CM zone as a permitted use.
Staff supports the change. However, due to concern about outdoor display and storage, staff has
added the additional note that outside display is not permitted outside normal business hours.
The applicant has agreed to this request.
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council, by ordinance, amend a portion of
Appendix A of the Orem City Code by changing Standard Land Use Code 5591 (Marine Craft
and Accessories) from a not permitted use to a permitted use in the CM zone. Staff supported
the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing, but no one came forward to speak. He closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Seastrand asked if they also provided service and maintenance, in addition to sales. Mr.
Fosdick answered affirmatively.
Mr. Macdonald moved, by ordinance, to amend Appendix A of the Orem City Code pertaining
to Standard Land Use (SLU) Code 5591 (Marine Craft and Accessories) in the CM zone by
changing the use from not permitted to permitted. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those
voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer,
Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
CONTINUEDDISCUSSION-SLU Codes in M1 and M2zones
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 the M1 and M2 zones
Mayor Brunst noted it was a continued discussion and not a continued public hearing. The
applicants would be provided some time to speak.
Mr. Bench noted this request was again continued from the March 13, 2018, City Council
meeting to give the Council additional time to study and consider the item.
Currently, solid-waste disposal (SLU 4850) is permitted in the M1 and M2 zones and scrap and
waste materials (SLU 5193) is permitted in the M2 zone. Both these uses by their nature carry
with them negative externalities associated with the disposal and transfer of waste. Such
externalities included offensive sights and smells, noise, pollution, dust, attraction of fowls and
rodents, and traffic generation of heavy vehicles.
Such negative externalities had previously not posed as significant of an impact on Orem due to
lack of nearby development, a lower intensity of use, or more effective efforts by facility owners
to suppress negative impacts.
In recent years, the City of Orem and neighboring Vineyard City have both experienced a large
amount of commercial, industrial, and residential redevelopment around Geneva Road (adjacent
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.13)


to the industrial areas that permit waste-related uses). Furthermore, the City of Orem was in the
process of conducting a Geneva Road Area Master Plan and Brownfield Study, which identified
areas around the current M1, M2, and CM zones that showed potential for redevelopment. 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 believed it was not in the best interest
of the City and the general public to allow such uses to remain permitted in the M1 and M2
zones.
Waste disposal and recycling were services that were needed in the area. However, such
facilities were best located on land where there was a separation from residential, commercial
and other industrial uses sufficient to protect such uses from the noise, dust, smell and other
negative impacts that waste disposal and recycling uses were likely to create. With the changing
nature of development in the City's M1 and M2 zones as well as the properties adjacent to those
zones, and the ongoing development of land that had heretofore been vacant and might have
previously supplied an adequate buffer for waste disposal and recycling uses, it was no longer
reasonable or in the best interest of the City to allow waste disposal and recycling uses in the M1
and M2 zones.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend Appendix °A'
of the Orem City Code by changing SLU Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and
waste materials) from “Permitted" to “Not-Permitted" uses in the M1 and M2 zones. Staff
supported the Planning Commission recommendation.
Shelly Magdalena and Gary Steele introduced themselves as MCR Partners. The time was then
turned over to Liisa Hancock, MCR's legal counsel.
Ms. Hancock, attorney, said MCR planned to be in Orem for a long time. Metal recycling was
currently a “"hot commodity” because it was cheap, fast and environmentally responsible. She
said removing SLU Code 5193 as a permitted use without providing a way for businesses to
make improvements, would only increase the value of the Geneva Road area. A provision
should be made that allowed MCR to make improvements. She explained that MCR previously
had a two to five year improvement plan and with the increases in metal recycling, their
financials increased sufficiently to where this plan was changed to one year. She said presently
their building was in the concept stage. Ms. Hancock distributed copies of MCR's proposed
amendment, with corrections.
Ms. Magdalena said MCR had been in the same location for twenty-five years. She felt they had
been caught in the crossfire with the City and other businesses. They were awarded recycling
facility of the year again. She explained that they had provided services to a number of
organizations, and they looked forward to continuing to do so.
Mr. Steele said that in a previous meeting there was an apartment complex approved. He said a
mixed message was being sent to encourage growth but by taking this use away in this zone gave
the message that they City did not support recycling.
Marie Durrant, legal counsel representing DCD Transfer Station and Recycling, provided her
history as a resident of Orem.She said she would be speaking to the potential impacts of Orem
City's proposal to rescind SLU Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and waste
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.14)


materials) from “Permitted" to "Not-Permitted" uses in the M1 and M2 zones. The proposed
changes could hurt existing businesses, reduce options, contribute to anti-competitive behavior,
and invite litigation. Using the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, she then reviewed the
following information:
Under the Utah Solid Waste Management Act, solid waste was defined as discarded
materials: “A putrescible or nonputrescible material or substance discarded or rejected as
being spent, useless, worthless, or in excess of the owner's needs at the time of discard or
rejection, including...garbage; industrial and commercial waste; .. demolition and
construction debris.."
A “solid waste management facility” includes a “transfer station" and a “resource
recovery facility” (Utah Code 19-6-502 (12)(a)(i) and (v)(A))
DCD is approved to operate by the Utah Division of Waste Management
DCD is approved under the Solid and Hazardous Waste Act to transfer and recycle solid
wastes
Transfer stations handle solid waste
0 Transfer means collection of non-hazardous solid waste (Utah Code 19-6-102
(22)(a)
Under Utah law, nonhazardous solid waste includes construction and demolition
waste (Utah Code 19-6-102(4) and 502(10))
DCD's C&D waste is solid waste
O
 Recycling stations handle solid waste
"Recycling" means extracting valuable materials from the waste stream (Utah
Administrative Code R315-301-2(60)
0The State has approved DCD to accept certain types of solid waste
· “Waste will only be accepted conforming to the definition of MSW, C&D,
Inert Waste and Yard Waste." (DCD Permit from Utah Division of Waste
Management)
Key types of municipal solid waste
0 Household waste
Non-hazardous, commercial solid waste, and
。
 Non-hazardous sludge (Utah Administrative Code R315-301-2(46)
Orem City Code states in 15-1-1, under “Purposes", the intent to implement the Utah
Solid Waste Management Act
DCD was approved as a recycling facility for solid waste in 2004
Orem City had paid to send solid waste to DCD many times over the years
Orem City had the authority to designate how residential MSW within the City's
boundaries was handled (Orem City Code Chapter 15 - Solid Waste)
Utah law prohibited Orem City from requiring commercial MSW to go to a specific
transfer station (Utah Code 19-6-507)
DCD was permitted to receive solid waste - including MSW
Orem City's M2 zone had always allowed DCD's use of the land for solid waste
disposal
There were no Orem City ordinances that negated the Utah Solid Waste
Management Act definitions of C&D and recycling wastes as solid waste (Orem
City actually adopted these definitions)
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.15)


0 The State of Utah and Utah County had both issued permits to DCD to transfer
and recycle solid waste, including commercial Msw
Orem City Planning Commission referenced the DCD as a solid waste facility
zoned under the 4850 code in the past (Orem City Planning Commission meeting
minutes,October8,2013)
Orem City had produced no official document to substantiate claims that DCD
was not permitted/zoned to receive solid waste
       s   s
O
direct interest in the North Pointe transfer facility and eliminate competition in the
relevantmarket
 DCD met Orem City's recycling interests
 DCD was the only existing Utah County recycling service that separated cardboard and
metals from C&D waste and conducted LEEDS recycling for construction
DCD's request to built an enclosure for its existing operations would help, not harm,
property interests in the area
Attempts to prevent DCD from building a structure would work against Orem City's
interests in ensuring safe, clean and efficient operations for all businesses in the M2 zone
DCD's current operations would still be legal and valid but would be barred from
implementing needed improvements
Matt Stahlsberg, representing Ace Intermountain Recycling and Disposal, said they had been
cleaning up Orem for the past 20 years. He said he understood why a City would not want
garbage collected then dumped within its boundaries; however, this could be done responsibly
with a well-designed transfer station. Mr. Stahlsberg said they were not asking the City to
approve a manufacturing facility that would pollute the air; rather, this was a station that satisfied
an environmental need from which all communities benefitted. The Dunn facility (DCD) was
the only one of its kind in the area that recycled construction and demolition debris to meet the
needs of companies that were building the City's businesses and homes. He reviewed plans to
expand their facilities, and explained that they were set back when they discovered the plans to
do away with this use in the zone.
Bruce Baird said according to a statement from Mr. Bench, the goal was to stop new facilities
from coming into the City. The Council had the authority to make this legislative decision, but
he questioned whether or not it was wise to do so. He suggested the Council wait until the end
of the six month moratorium in order to try and resolve the building permit issue.
Reece DeMille, Republic Services, said his company hauled waste to Mr. Dunn's facility as well
as the North Pointe Transfer Station. He said the primary issue for waste and recycling
companies in the area was competition; anything that would prohibit Mr. Dunn from taking solid
waste would diminish or eliminate competition in the area.
Mr. Macdonald asked what would happen if they unknowingly picked up hazardous waste. Mr.
Dunn said anytime this happened they called the DEQ to determine how to handle the materials.
Ms. Durrant added that the DEQ had specific requirements listed in DCD's permit to which they
were required to adhere.
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.16)


Mr. Sumner asked if DCD was fined if they knowingly transported hazardous materials. Mr.
Dunn said they were required to report any and all hazardous materials to the DEQ if they were
found. Ms. Durrant said that was typical for any company that collected solid waste. Mr.
Sumner asked if they were picking up household waste, and he was informed DCD was only
picking up commercial waste.
Mr. Macdonald asked if the materials they collected met the terms of their permit, and Mr. Dunn
said they collected commercial nontoxic. Ms. Durrant responded in the affirmative to Mr.
Macdonald's question. She noted that a copy of DCD's permit was included in her PowerPoint
presentation.
Mr. Stahlberg said North Pointe collected residential waste, whereas DCD collected commercial
waste. Mr. Seastrand asked what percentage of waste was actually coming from Orem compared
to the rest of Utah County. Mr. Stahlberg said approximately a third of waste was produced in
Orem. Mr. Seastrand said he had heard they received residential waste, and he was informed by
Mr. Stahlberg that this was a false rumor that surfaced in 2013. Mr. Stahlberg said they
sometimes took mixed recyclables; however, currently they were not taking mixed recyclables
but they could if they had a larger facility. He noted that DCD was a transfer station.
Mr. Davidson said he had personally witnessed on several different occasions white bags of
residential trash coming to Mr. Dunn's facility. He said typically mixed use recycling was not in
white plastic bags. Mr. Davidson described the vehicles transporting the materials as side-load,
Ace Recycling trucks. He noted that he had photographic evidence to support his observation.
Mr. Stahlberg said they took Alpine's waste directly out to the landfill. Mr. Davidson said one
of the trucks had “South Jordan" painted on the front.
Mr. Stahlberg asked why Mr. Dunn could not take City waste in the first place. Ms. Durrant said
Orem City waste was not permitted; however, Mr. Dunn was allowed to take municipal solid
waste from other cities. There was subsequent deliberation on the matter, and Mr. Dunn said he
had never seen a side-load truck hauling waste to his facility. Mr. Stahlberg noted there were
commercial, side-load trucks.
Mr. Davidson asserted that this was a very fluid conversation. Ms. Durrant said there was a lot
of confusion in these definitions. Mr. Stahlberg said they were not trying to hide anything; he
stated “..it would be foolish [of him] to run Alpine's waste down through Dunn's facility, out to
the landfill."
Mr. Baird said a month ago he did not know he was breaking his recycling rule by putting his
mixed recycling in white plastic bags. Many people were probably also confused.
Ms. Durrant said from a legal standpoint DCD was permitted to take in municipal solid waste;
the permit did not distinguish between commercial and residential. However, because Orem
City had an ordinance governing residential solid waste, they were not allowed to take Orem
City's residential solid waste. There was nothing prohibiting DCD from taking residential solid
waste from other cities outside of Orem.
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.17)


Mr. Dunn said he had been clear with Ace Intermountain Recycling and Disposal that he would
not accept residential waste at his transfer station. If residential waste had been taken to his
station,thenhewasnot consulted on thematter.
Mr. Lentz asked the City's legal counsel to clarify the actions upon which the Council would be
voting tonight. Mr. Earl said the application tonight was a general legislative policy decision on
whether or not to eliminate the aforementioned uses from the M1 and M2 zones. He explained
that there was concern about how the Council's decision might affect area waste and recycling
businesses.
Mr. Spencer asked about the size of the proposed building, and he was informed by MCR
Representatives that this information was still yet to be determined. They had about five acres
with which to work on the project. Mr. Dunn added that he had about three and a half acres on
his property. Mr. Spencer expressed appreciation for the work they did for the community.
Mr. Seastrand said Orem had been transitioning since the closure of Geneva Steel. There were
many businesses appropriate for proximity to the steel plant. Professional offices were now
being developed, and there had been many uses that had been removed. For him, the question
was if he saw more businesses like this happening in the future, and he said he personally did not
see it. As a long-term plan, the City did not need to accept more of these businesses. The intent
was not to change what they were doing currently; rather, it was to not allow more in the future.
They would still be a legal, nonconforming business.
Mr. Dunn said he was told he could not expand and grow, and the primary issue for him was
expanding his existing facility.
Mr. Stahlberg commented from the audience that they would like to build fences.
Mr. Baird said by the law's definition, the proposed ordinance amendment would make Mr.
Dunn's business a nonconforming use. He said it was possible DCD's building could be used
for a couple of different reasons. He suggested that if approved, the ordinance could be made
Mr. Earl said generally if the two SLU codes were removed from the M1 and M2 zones, any
legally existing uses would become legal nonconforming. There could be some discussion about
what uses were permitted. In addition, there would also be the issue of expansion. The Council
could move forward and take action tonight, and the other issues could be worked out after the
moratorium window closed. Mr. Baird said this could potentially create a problem and again
stated his preference with regards to the six-month window.
Mr. Earl said there was no down side to the Council taking action tonight. He explained that this
was a policy issue, and staff would take the direction of the Council. Mr. Baird disagreed and
said someone could challenge the decision if action was taken tonight.
Mr. Macdonald said he heard Ms. Hancock asking for enough time to work out the issue with the
building. He said he understood all sides of the argument. Ms. Hancock commented from the
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.18)


Mr. Earl said if the Council acted tonight and it turned out the building was not possible, the
Council could direct staff to find a way to help them build their building.
Mr. Spencer said he liked Mr. Baird's idea of waiting until April 15, 2018. He said he would not
want to put anyone out of business. Mr. Sumner said he had dealt with both businesses for years;
he also said he was willing to wait until April 15"h. Mr. Earl said dealing with both businesses
within that timeframe was nearly impossible. Mayor Brunst agreed.
Mr. Sumner asked why these matters had not been discussed prior to this meeting. Mr. Davidson
said they had been in discussion since November 2017.
Mayor Brunst said both of the businesses were great and served a good purpose. No one on the
Council wanted to see them go out of business. They could continue to work as nonconforming
uses. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended the amendment.
Mayor Brunst then moved, by ordinance, to amend 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 the M1 and M2 zones effective tonight.
Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. The motion failed.
There was subsequent deliberation regarding the appropriate action to take on this item. Mr.
Lentz said his concern with establishing an artificial timeline was that he did not want to set a
poor expectation. Mr. Macdonald said this was an “olive leaf' in that the Council wanted to
encourage staff to work with the businesses on a solution.
Mr. Spencer asked if the date could be changed to April 13", and if the motion could state that
they would discuss the building. Mr. Lentz asked if this would make much of a difference. Mr.
Davidson noted that next week was spring break for many people in the city. Mayor Brunst said
Mr. Earl said the rule was a legal nonconforming use could not expand. He and Mr. Baird would
havetodeterminewhatthatmeant.
Mr. Lentz said one business might be able to move forward within the two-week timeframe, but
the other business was far from being able to do so. He questioned why this particular action
was being considered. Mr. Baird said the City could consider a solution in the next two weeks
and report back afterwards; there would be no legal expectation that something had to be done.
Mayor Brunst said he did not want to go right down to the final hour.
Gary Steel commented from the audience that it seemed obvious that the Council had issues with
DCD. He suggested they split the two land use codes and deal with DCD and leave MCR's the
same.
Mr. Davidson said it was staff's recommendation to move forward with this item tonight
Mr. Macdonald then moved, by ordinance, to amend 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 the M1 and M2 zones effective April 12,
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.19)


2018, with an understanding the City will work to find ways for the two existing businesses
DCD and MCR-—-to construct their facilities in a timely manner. Mr. Seastrand seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald and Mark Seastrand.
Those voting nay: Brent Sumner and David Spencer. The motion passed 4-to-2.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Citywide Impact Fees Plan and Analysis
ORDINANCE - Adopting Impact Fee Facilities Plans and Impact Fee Analyses.
establishing impact fee service areas and enacting impact fees for (1) water rights and
water supply, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities; (2) wastewater collection and
treatment facilities; (3) storm water, drainage and flood control facilities; (4) roadway
facilities: (5) parks, recreation facilities, open space, and trails; and (6) public safety
facilities; on development activity in the applicable impact fee service areas
Mr. Bybee reviewed a recommendation to adopt Impact Fee Facilities Plans and Impact Fee
Analyses, establish impact fee service areas and enact impact fees for (1) water rights and water
supply, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities; (2) wastewater collection and treatment
facilities; (3) storm water, drainage and flood control facilities; (4) roadway facilities; (5) parks,
recreation facilities, open space, and trails; and (6) public safety facilities; on development
activity in the applicable impact fee service areas.
Susie Becker said that, although the City of Orem was largely built-out, development of new
residential and commercial uses was expected to continue in coming years as remaining vacant
parcels were developed and redevelopment in the City took place. Growth, in the form of either
new development or redevelopment created additional demand on City services such as water,
sewer, storm water, roads, parks, and public safety (hereinafter referred to as the “Public
Facilities"). As growth occurred, new facilities were required to maintain the existing levels of
service for current residents of the City and to meet the increased demand for services created by
growth.
Historically, the City had relied on tax revenue and fees paid by existing residents to fund the
cost of growth-related improvements. However, that was inherently unfair as it required existing
residents to bear costs that were not related to their own needs, but to the needs of new
development.
Utah law allowed cities to require new development to pay for the cost of new infrastructure
needed by that new development through the payment of impact fees. Impact fees were defined
as “a payment of money imposed upon new development activity as a condition of development
approval to mitigate the impact of the new development on public infrastructure." Utah Code
Section 11-36a-102(8). Utah law allowed cities to establish impact fees for the Public Facilities
listed above.
Before assessing impact fees, the City was required to prepare an Impact Fee Facilities Plan
                
assessed. The City hired Zion Public Finance, Inc., (ZPF) to prepare, with the help of
specialized subcontractors such as Bowen & Collins and Horrocks Engineers, the required IFFP
and IFA for each public facility.
City Council Minutcs-March 27,2018(p.20)


Among other things, the IFFPs and the IFAs analyzed and established the following elements
with respect to each publicfacility:
1. How much growth was likely to occur in Orem over the next ten years and at buildout
(based on the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget).
2. How much demand that growth would create for the services provided by each public
facility.
3. How much excess capacity, if any, was available in each facility to meet the demands of
future growth.
4. What specific improvements would be required for each public facility to meet the
demand created by future growth and to maintain the current level of service for existing
residents.
5. The estimated cost of the improvements needed to meet the demand created by growth
and to maintain the current level of service for existing residents.
6. A calculation of the amount that each new residential unit or commercial building should
be required to pay as its fair share of the cost of the new improvements needed to meet
the demands of growth.
Impact fees could not be used to correct existing deficiencies in a public facility (for example to
upgrade an intersection that is currently failing) or to increase the level of service for existing
users (for example, to increase the amount of water storage available for existing residents).
Instead, impact fees could only be used to construct new facilities needed to meet the demand
created by new growth or to reimburse the City for a proportionate share of the City's actual cost
of constructing a facility that had excess capacity that could be used to serve new growth.
The City previously assessed impact fees for culinary water, sewer, storm water, parks and
public safety (fire) facilities in the Southwest Annexation Area ("SWAA") on August 25, 2015.
The City assessed those impact fees for the Southwest Annexation Area because at that time, the
area was largely undeveloped and had virtually no infrastructure related to these facilities. The
City Council expressed a desire that all new development in the Southwest Annexation Area
should pay its own way with respect to public facilities infrastructure so that those costs would
not be borne by existing residents.
Subsequent to the assessment of the Southwest Annexation Area impact fees, some
circumstances had changed in that area. Culinary water main lines had been installed by a
private developer and a sewer main line in the area was currently under construction. Costs for
those facilities had been higher than were originally estimated and consequently some of the
original impact fees were set too low to adequately cover the cost of required public facilities.
The IFFPs and IFAs prepared by ZFI included an analysis and update of the impact fees that
should be charged for the Southwest Annexation Area as well as for the rest of the City. Because
some of the public facility infrastructure that would be installed in the SWAA would not serve
the rest of the City, two separate service areas were created with respect to Water, Sewer and
Storm Water—the Citywide Service Area and the Southwest Annexation Service Area. Thus for
Water, Sewer and Storm Water, development in the SWAA would pay an impact fee for
facilities that were needed to serve only the SWAA as well as the Citywide fee for facilities that
served the entire City. For the other Public Facilities, there was only one service area which
comprised the entire City.
CityCouncilMinutes-March27,2018(p.21)


Some impact fees (water, sewer, fire, police, and parks) were calculated on a per ERU basis
while storm water was calculated on a per-acre basis and transportation was calculated based the
number of p.m. peak trips generated by a particular use.
If the proposed impact fees were adopted, new developments would be required to pay the new
impact fees. The impact fees would typically be collected prior to the recording of a final plat or
the issuance of a building permit for new development. State law provided that no impact fees
could be collected until 90 days after enactment of an impact fee ordinance.
In order to impose impact fees, state law required that the City Council (1) adopt an impact fee
facilities plan, (2) adopt an impact fee analysis, (3) establish a service area, and (4) approve an
impact fee enactment that established the amount of the impact fees.
Susie Becker noted that the fees proposed for most of Orem would be quite a bit smaller than
those proposed for the Southwest Annexation area.
Mr. Macdonald said it was necessary to support the proposed fees, and the dollar amounts
represented what the City could legally charge. Ms. Becker concurred with his assessment. Mr.
Bybee said staff erred on the side of being conservative and made conscientious decisions
throughout this process.
Mr. Lentz said they could adjust in the future. He asked that if the level of service changed,
would the standard level of service be recalculated. Ms. Becker answered affirmatively. Mr.
Lentz asked if the fees projected in the Public Works master plan were included with staff's
summary. Ms. Becker clarified that impact fees had to be spent within six years of when they
were collected. Mr. Tschirki added there were several projects outside the six- to ten-year
window and would have to be reevaluated later.
Mayor Brunst asked if there had been any calculations based on the number of building permits
the City was currently issuing. Mr. Bybee said staff tried to make some projections of what the
City might bring in; however, they tried to remain conservative in their estimates. Ms. Becker
said if development did not occur, theoretically the City also did not have to provide the service.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
Jeremy Ackley asked how the impact fees would change above and beyond the current fees. He
wondered how much more his building permits would cost.
Mr. Bybee said the amount for a single family home was approximately $6,400 amount. Mayor
Brunst said the City was not currently charging impact fees. Mr. Earl said the water supply fee
would be lower. Ms. Becker added that the fee schedule would not go into effect for ninety
days. After subsequent discussion on the matter, Mr. Earl explained that if Mr. Ackley
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mr. Sumner clarified when someone needed to obtain a building permit, it was important to do
so within 90 days in order to avoid the impact fee. Mr. Earl said there was a minor change in the
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.22)


general circulation. However, there would still be ninety days before the impact fees would be
assessed.
Mr. Lentz said Mr. Bell mentioned that the date was the same day an application was completed.
If there were complications but the permit was not issued, that would not be a problem.
Mr. Lentz moved, by ordinance, to adopt the Impact Fee Facilities Plans and Impact Fee
Analyses, establish impact fee service areas and enact impact fees for (1) water rights and water
supply, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities; (2) wastewater collection and treatment
facilities; (3) storm water, drainage and flood control facilities; (4) roadway facilities; (5) parks,
recreation facilities, open space, and trails; and (6) public safety facilities; on development
activity in the applicable impact fee service areas. Mayor Brunst seconded the motion. Those
voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and
Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
The Monthly Financial Summary for February 2018 was included in the packets distributed to
the Council.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
Mr. Davidson said that representatives of SWONA had been talking with UVU regarding the
future of student housing in an around the Sunset Heights neighborhood. They had expressed a
housing and basement apartment rentals within a specific geographical area. He said this was
something that UVU had requested and could be explored.The Council could express
legislative intent but could not bind future councils on the matter. Mr. Davidson said they should
be sensitive to existing property owners who already legally obtained the right to an accessory
structure. He said they could continue conversations in good faith, but expressed that all
discussions had limitations. Mr. Davidson said in the past, the City has had conversations with
SWONA that were not necessarily productive; however, he did not see anything wrong with
continued dialogue.
Mr. Sumner said in a statement issued by UVU's President, it was indicated that the university
wanted to have student housing units around the campus. He asked if they presently desired to
have another housing unit, and Mr. Davidson answered affirmatively. He clarified that the two
developments under consideration were the PEG development and the Steel property.
Mr. Spencer said discussion would be great; he added that limiting accessory apartments was an
issue.
Mr. Davidson said he and the Mayor had had multiple conversations with members of SWONA.
It was necessary to balance the rights of all people and not simply those who did not want
accessory apartments in their neighborhoods. It was a large issue and could not be done easily or
quickly, but they could work to improve the situation.
City Council Minutes - March 27, 2018 (p.23)


MayorBrunst said he would not mind participating in such a discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Spencer moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting aye:
Richard F. Brunst, Sam Lentz,Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner.
Themotionpassedunanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
OREM
CITYOF
CORPORATE
SEAL
CpDluBete
JoD'AnnBates,CityRecorder
Approved:April10,2018
CityCouncilMinutes-March27,2018（p.24)