City Council · 2018-05-22

CITY OF OREM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
May 22, 2018
3:00 P.M. WORK SESSION -CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTED OFFICIALS
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; Jason Earl, Deputy Fire Chief; Gary Giles, Police
Department Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Christian
Kirkham, Long Range Planner; and Jody Bates, City
Recorder
SWONA PRESENTATION - Palos Verdes Development
Dave Busath, representing SWONA, discussed the concept of wanting to preserve fenced-in
backyards and growth being good but in moderation. They understand the growth pressures
around the city and wanted to discuss the growth of Utah Valley University (UVU). They would
like to help build relationships between the school and the residents in that area. He stated they
were not representing the LetOremVote campaign. He said they presented a survey to 56
petitioners and asked them to answer a few questions regarding the petition process based on
their personal experience. Mr. Busath continued to review the questionnaire which was self-
reporting from those gathering petition signatures.
Mayor Brunst indicated that after talking with several individuals, he felt like a lot of those that
signed the petition were under the impression it was for high density housing citywide, not just
for student housing. He felt the take rate may not have been as high if they had known the true
purpose of the proposed development.
Mr. Busath said it was his understanding those living in this development would not have to be
students; the housing would be for anyone.
Discussion continued regarding the ability to regulate student housing and what constituted on-
site student housing.
Mr. Busath understood UVU really does need on-campus student housing. On campus student
housing helped increase student retention and engagement, and increased the graduation rates,
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.1)


which UVU is at the lowest in the state for all three of those measures. Mayor Brunst responded
that this project was consistent with the area surrounded by UVU, and sits on Campus Drive. He
felt they could classify that as on campus housing.
Mr. Busath continued to review the survey.
Mr. Busath inquired as to why the City Council favored the PEG project. Mayor Brunst said this
particular project was consistent with the area on three sides, and considered this to be on-
campus housing due to it being on Campus Drive. He felt it would offer UVU students a higher
graduation rate, greater retention rate, greater success rate, and a higher GPA. He felt this had
nothing to do with growth plans; this was for students that were already attending UVU and was
something that was needed. Mayor Brunst addressed the relationship between the city and the
Woodbury Corporation. He said as far as donations to candidates, University Place gave
donations to all incumbents and the amount they gave was consistent with other contributors in
the city, which was usually the price for a table at a dinner. He did not think anyone had been
"bought off’ and when the development started PEG was the developer that purchased the
homes. At no time had University Place been the signatories which were where the donations
came from. When PEG came in with their proposal, all the homeowners were willing to sell their
homes with the exception of one. Eventually all those homes were purchased and gave the
homeowner the salvage rights. The developer had some issues with homeless people that had
moved in, and PEG realized they then had a liability issue and needed to move in the direction of
demolishing those homes.
Mayor Brunst concluded the Council was very interested in hearing from residents, so two
surveys had been conducted over the last 18 months. There was a CARE tax survey in October
of 2016 and a UTOPIA/UIA survey in March 2018. In the 2016 survey, 70 percent of those
polled, said the City was going in the right direction. In the 2018 survey of the 78 percent that
responded, 77 percent said the City was going in the right direction and 73 percent said they
approved of the job the Mayor and City Council were doing. 81 percent said they would
recommend Orem to others. The 2018 survey went out to 12,000 residents with 3,000 returns.
These were independent surveys sent out to city residents.
Alan Parrish, Orem resident, said he attended several meetings with UVU officials and the
neighborhoods, and in those meetings it was repeated numerous times that UVU would not
expand east of Campus Drive.
Mr. Seastrand said one of the outputs from the survey was the concern of high density housing, a
concern the Council was well aware of. He said part of what they tried to do as a Council was to
understand the perspectives of the residents, and the challenge was that there were many
perspectives on any given issue. He said they needed to work together to find realistic solutions
to problems, because growth was not going to stop. High density was a national issue, and
elected officials were trying to address the growth.
Mr. Busath said they would like to propose the first of three major initiatives:
·Form a Southwest Orem Planning Council with UVU involvement
 Synchronize UVU and Orem master plans while considering how to stabilize
residential neighborhoods.
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.2)


0Southwest Orem Planning Council Vision Statement
0Southwest Orem Planning Council: Who and When
Discussion continued regarding the proposal of the SWONA group. It was stated the City budget
Mr. Seastrand said he was offended that individuals were questioning his and the City Council's
integrity. He had been on the City Council for 9 years and not once had he seen anyone do
anything illegal, try to take advantage of anything, or have poor integrity. He was offended by
that suggestion.
Mr. Davidson said the intent was to come together to talk about some respective solutions of
how they might work together and navigate through difficult situations. At the end of the day it
was not a situation that was going to go away. The referendum item was going on the ballot and
whatever the outcome, it was not going to be the end. They needed to continue to work together.
Mayor Brunst thanked those involved for their time and presentation.
ANNUAL TRAINING - Open Meetings, Ethics, and Land Use Liability
Mr. Stephens indicated they would be taking care of two issues at once during this presentation.
He started with the review and discussion of the Open Meetings law, as based on State Code 52-
4-103, as follows:
Cities must take actions openly;
·
Cities must deliberate openly;
What constitutes a meeting;
What meetings include;
What meetings do not include;
What constitutes a closed meeting and the process for convening a closed meeting;
Why a closed meeting is held;
Agenda items versus non-agenda items;
Issues of electronic messages;
Electronic meetings;
Notice requirements;
Emergencymeetingrequirements;
Rules of public conduct; and
What requires a roll call vote.
Mr. Stephens next continued the review and discussion regarding Ethics Law:
Improper use of information;
Improper use of position;
Elections and use of City resources during that time;
Improper acceptance of a gift;
Exceptions to gifts prohibitions;
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.3)


Disclosures that are required:
Transactions involving City;
o
Business regulated by the City;
 Doing business with City;
O Personal interest;
· Conflict of interest; and
·Penalties of violations ethics law.
Mr. Stephens recommended the City Council always disclose any issues they may discuss just to
be safe. He turned the time over to Mr. Earl.
Mr. Earl reviewed issues with land use liability:
·Small Cells:
0 Low-powered cellular radio access nodes;
Major cellular providers’ use of small cells; and
The rights and new legislature of small cells with the approval of SB189.
Discussion ensued regarding the area and the regulations that would allow poles and their
locations pursuant to the State Code.
Mr. Earl continued to discuss and show a map of small cells proposed by Crown Castle which
included: their locations, the possible looks of those proposed cells, and how they provided
power for that pole. He indicated that these locations would start to go up in the near future. Mr.
Earl discussed recent concerns regarding lawsuits cities were experiencing for denying
conditional use permits.
DISCUSSION - City Center District
Mr. Bench stated efforts had been made to streamline the ordinance and make it easier for
businesses to understand. The Planning Division would review the ordinance and hold a business
meeting June 5"h at noon, at which time they would give a similar presentation. They had sent out
postcards to business and property owners to invite them to the presentation. Mayor Brunst
indicated that the Planning Division had been very proactive in making sure they not only sent
out cards but also physically visited the businesses to have them involved.
Mr. Kirkham next made a presentation on the following four points:
·Purpose:
 Develop some unique and strategic growth districts;
Preserve existing neighborhoods; and
To give Orem a center and make it a destination.
。
· Citizen engagement efforts:
0 Hired consultant to help with outreach and ordinance drafting;
Held 5 public meetings with 50-100 attending each meeting;
Mailed over 3000 notices, posted on social media, email subscribers;
o
 Launched Orem Forum and have approx. 1174 participants; and
o
0Received and considered public feedback.
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.4)


Highlights of the ordinance:
State Street District Zone, currently being reviewed by the City Legal
Department;
A new article to be proposed, Article 22-24, which will include five (5) separate
zones;
City Center District Zone and Sub-districts allowing for zoning transitions to
residential areas;
Required uses maintaining the commercial core; and
Permitted uses to remain the same and two additional components of
condominiums and apartments to be added.
Mr. Kirkham said that they would move forward with this ordinance and would possibly come
back with some changes in order to accommodate affordable housing in the future. Highlights of
the proposed ordinance would include the following:
Minimum building heights;
Setbacks in order for safer foot traffic;
o
Specific design standards;
o Openspacerequirements;
Parking standard and structures; and
Signage and advertising space.
o
Mayor Brunst inquired as to State incentives and suggested they look at those to see if that would
be beneficial to the City.
Discussion continued regarding existing restrictions that would be maintained as currently
established. This would be a more market-driven design standard. Mr. Kirkham stated they were
hoping the form and function would drive the function. He noted that the moratorium on State
Streetwould notbelifted.
Mr. Bench stated the Planning Commission would be reviewing this document on June 6"h and
would then forward it to the City Council for review.
5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION -CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Mark Seastrand, and Brent
ELECTEDOFFICIALS
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; Jason Earl, Deputy Fire Chief; Gary Giles, Police
Department  Director;  Charlene  Crozier,   Library
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.5)


Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; Christian Kirkham, Long
Range Planner; and Jody Bates, City Recorder
EXCUSED Tom Macdonald and David Spencer
PreviewUpcomingAgendaItems
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items. Mr. Bench reviewed an agenda item that
would come before the City Council on June 19"h regarding the Wiggy Wash fence. Strawberry
Fields and Social Ax Throwing were businesses that were looking at to State Street.
Agenda Review
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.
City Council New Business
The City Council discussed any new business.
The City Council then adjourned at 5:56 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for their regular
meeting.
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.6)


6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald*, Mark
Seastrand,  David  Spencer*, and Brent Sumner
(*participated electronically)
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
APPOINTEDSTAFF
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; Jason Earl, Deputy Fire Chief; Gary Giles, Police
Department t Director;  Charlene  Crozier,  Library
Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; Brandon Nelson, Finance
Division Manager; Pete  Wolfley, Communications
Specialist; Ryan Clark, Economic Development Division
Manager; and Jody Bates, City Recorder
INVOCATION/
Juliana Boerio-Goates, Pastoral Coordinator, St. Francis of
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT
Assisi Catholic Church
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Kena Jo Matthews
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mayor Brunst indicated there were some amendments requested by Mr. Lentz. Mr. Lentz moved
to approve the May 8, 2018, City Council meeting minutes, as amended. Mrs. Lauret seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MAYOR'SREPORT/ITEMSREFERREDBYCOUNCIL
Upcoming Events
Mayor Brunst reviewed the upcoming events, as listed in the agenda packet.
Invitation - Miss Pleasant Grove - Strawberry Days
Mayor Brunst invited Miss Pleasant Grove and her attendants to address the City Council. They
began by introducing themselves. Miss Pleasant Grove invited everyone to the Strawberry Days
Celebration. Strawberry Days occurs over several days, with each day having its own theme:
Kids Night, Family Night, and Tough Enough to Wear Pink Night.
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.7)


The members of the Pleasant Grove Royalty noted some of the fun events featured at Strawberry
Days, such as a car show, the carnival, the strawberries and cream booth, and a baby contest.
Mayor Brunst expressed his appreciation for having the Pleasant Grove Royalty in attendance,
and he noted that Pleasant Grove is a wonderful city.
The Pleasant Grove Royalty made a presentation and shook the hands of the City Council
members.
Report - Heritage Advisory Commission
Heritage Advisory Commission Chair, Kelly Kirkpatrick, addressed the City Council. He stated
that he was in attendance to invite all of the citizens of Utah County to the Memorial Day
celebration at the Orem City Cemetery. He noted that the program would start promptly at 9:00
a.m. He said that he had arranged for four WWlI war birds to fly around the edge of the hill. He
added that there would also be a speech by a military veteran. He noted that the BYU Air Force
ROTC would do a Silent Rifle Detail. The American Legion Post would then exchange the flags
on the poles, as they do every six months. Next would be a 21-gun salute and the playing of
"Taps,”" which is a sacred and solemn goodbye to those who have served and given their lives for
the United States of America. He noted that there would also be a barbershop quartet, which
would sing patriotic songs, along with a band comprised of musicians from all over Utah
County. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked Mayor Brunst to also say a few words at the celebration. Mr.
Kirkpatrick noted that the program would take approximately one hour. He invited attendees to
walk through the more than 1,800 crosses that the American Legion Post with the name tags of
the veterans who are buried in the Orem City Cemetery, as well as the Timpanogos Cemetery,
which is on 900 North 400 East. Mayor Brunst noted that the speaker would be a veteran of the
war in Iraq.
Report-SummerfestAdvisory Committee
Summerfest Advisory Committee Chair, Kena Jo Matthews, explained that Summerfest would
take place June 4-9. She stated that the theme for this year was “A Smart Place to Call Home."
Ms. Matthews reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that provided an overview of the event. She
first noted the slide that had the Summerfest Mission Statement. She then showed a video
featuring Mrs. Lauret that had been prepared to highlight the many and varied events that would
take place at Orem Summerfest. In addition to the video, there were magazines available that
provided information about Summerfest. There are a lot of events happening every night. Ms.
Matthews noted that the video had already garnered 1,80o0 views as of this meeting. Ms.
Matthews next thanked the Partnership Committee, which had managed to raise over $64,000 for
the events, with a large number of sponsors. Mayor Brunst noted that the Grand Marshall would
be Todd Peterson, the owner of Vivint. Mayor Brunst added that Mr. Peterson also often
sponsored the City's fireworks show. Ms. Matthews thanked her wonderful committee, all of
whom were volunteers, who had helped her put together this event. She also thanked City staff
for their excellent assistance.
Mrs. Lauret stated that it had been a privilege to be on the committee as the City Council
Advisor, and she was confident Summerfest would be a great success. Mayor Brunst thanked
Mrs. Lauret for her participation on the committee.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.8)


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.
Braydon Santo, resident of Orem, stated that he served on the City's Transportation Advisory
Commission and was the founder of the Orem Bicycle Coalition. Mr. Santo thanked the City
Council for the leadership to Orem City. He then invited everyone to attend a very special event,
which was a collaborative effort by the Orem Bicycle Coalition, the Orem Youth Cycling
Association, and the City of Orem: “Orem Cycle Fest." The event would be combined with the
Annual Bike with the Mayor and Cruise with the Council event, a local vendor expo, as well as a
Park on Saturday, June 16"h. It will include a continental breakfast starting at 8:30. The event
will run until about 2:00 p.m. The Bike with the Mayor event will start at about 9:00 a.m. There
will be several vendors, including local bike shops. There will also be other vendors selling
discounted products and providing demo bike rides for mountain bikes, road bikes, and the new
electronic pedal-assist bikes. Mr. Santo said that there would also be participation by the Provo
Bicycle Collective to give away up to fifty kids bicycles. To encourage people to ride their bikes
to the event, Mr. Santo said that there would be a free bike valet service. The ticket the bike
riders receive would include the bicycle claim number and a ticket for a drawing of donated
prizes.
Phil Snelgrove, Orem resident, said that in his last water bill he had received a notice indicating
that there was a $9oo,000 surplus in the Utility Fund, and that the proposal was to transfer it into
the General Fund. Mr. Snelgrove proposed that the water rates be reduced, instead. Mr.
Snelgrove explained that he had previously met with the Public Works Director and Mr.
Macdonald, who had proposed some extensive system improvements, and a corresponding utility
rate increase to pay for those improvements. Mr. Snelgrove then explained that he and Mr.
Macdonald had stated that if the improvements had been extended over eight years, not five
years, they would be able to reduce the rate increase that they had proposed to one-half.
Subsequently, the original rate proposal was brought to the City Council and approved. Now
there are surpluses that have been created. Mr. Snelgrove said the statement was deceptive
because the rationale given for transferring the surplus to the General Fund was to keep property
taxes low. Mr. Snelgrove then observed that raising rates and raising taxes both placed a burden
on the citizens. Thus, he proposed that rather than having surpluses, the rates be reduced by
tiers. The first tier would one to twenty-eight thousand gallons instead of the current one to
fifteen thousand gallons. He said that the change would partially offset the surplus. Mayor
Brunst stated that the surplus reference by Mr. Snelgrove was going to be discussed at a later
time in this meeting.
Sarah Bateman, Orem resident, spoke about the Community Free SWAP that would be taking
place soon. The first iteration of the Community Free SWAP took place about ten years ago in
the Geneva Neighborhood. That event has grown into a solid grassroots organization committed
to its two-fold mission of "sharing abundance and uniting communities." Ms. Bateman explained
that the SWAP acronym stood for “Sharing, We All Prosper." It's like a pop-up thrift store at
which all items are free. “People give, people receive, and all are made better for it." The event
includes a logo, along with bilingual signage and banners. Each event is attended by
approximately 400 to 800 individuals of a full range of demographics. Ms. Bateman then shared
City Council Minutes -May 22,2018 (p.9)


some experiences of the generosity of the Orem community. The next Community Free SWAP
will be on June 2"d at the Rotary pavilion in the City Center Park from 8:00 a.m. to noon. Ms.
Bateman stated that further information was available at Freeswap.info or on Facebook at “"Free
SWAP: Sharing, We All Prosper."
CONSENTITEMS
MOTION - Cancel the June 12, 2018, City Council Meeting
Mayor Brunst moved to pull the item off the Consent agenda, making it a scheduled item. 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.
RESOLUTION - Authorizing specified individuals to add or delete users to access and/or
transact with Public Treasurers Investment accounts
Mayor Brunst moved, by resolution, to authorize specified individuals to add or delete users to
access and/or transact with Public Treasurers Investment accounts. Debby 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.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
MOTION - Cancel the June 12, 2018, City Council Meeting
Mr. Lentz stated that he had a concern with the process that was followed to cancel the June 12,
2018, City Council meeting. He said that members of the City Council had received an
invitation to a dinner at BYU. He had turned down the invitation because of the scheduled City
Council meeting that same night. A day or so later he had received an email from Mayor Brunst
in which he said it would be possible to move some of the scheduled agenda items to earlier in
the day to accommodate the dinner. Consequently, two of those agenda items were moved to
this meeting and two were moved to the later meeting in June. This process took place via email
and was not conducted in a public forum. When he ran for the City Council, he made the
commitment to plan his personal duties around his civic duties. He said he was concerned with
the potential that a precedent might be established to cancel a City Council meeting in order to
attend a social dinner.
Mayor Brunst replied by stating that work sessions were moved around depending on what was
being done. He added that City Council meetings had been moved before. He believed that the
dinner with the BYU President and his staff was important because it served to foster the City's
relationship with BYU. He noted that BYU was supporting the City's mass transit effort by
giving free passes to all of the BYU students. Furthermore, Mayor Brunst noted that there was a
lot of other interfacing that Orem City did with BYU. His suggestion, therefore, had been to
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.10)


move the City Council meeting to 4:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. However, he felt that it would be better
to cancel the meeting altogether in order to continue to foster the City's relationship with BYU.
Mayor Brunst moved to cancel the June 12, 2018, City Council meeting. Mr. Sumner seconded
the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Sam Lentz. The motion passed.
RESOLUTION - Requiring  curbside recycling service for  all  new  residential  utility
accounts and   authorizing  the  City  Manager to  sign  an  amendment  to  the   Waste
Management Service Agreement to acknowledge this change in recycling policy
Mr. Bybee presented a request from the City Manager's Department that the City Council adopt
a resolution requiring curbside recycling service for all new residential utility accounts and
authorizing the City Manager to sign an amendment to the Waste Management Service
Agreement to acknowledge this change in recycling policy.
He explained that since March of 2012, the City had implemented and maintained a residential
curbside recycling program which had allowed residents to “opt out" of the service if specific
up of this program, the amount of recycling customers has stayed relatively level at around
12,700 total recycling cans, representing about sixty-four percent of all single-family homes.
However, at the same time, the total amount of regular solid waste cans and green waste cans
provided throughout the City have each increased incrementally—7o0 additional cans each since
2015. Specifically, he said that the increase in total solid waste cans had increased from 19,200
to 19,900 and the increase in total green waste cans had increased from 4,200 to 4,900. The
percent increase in this demand for curbside green waste recycling since 2015 was fifteen
percent.
By comparison, the demand for recycling services among other Utah cities has shown
incremental improvement over time. For example, the table below, which was in the agenda
packet, shows how other Utah cities have provided recycling services and the year they made the
change from Opt-In to Opt-Out or from Opt-Out to Mandatory:
TYPE % USE
CITY YEAR
BOUNTIFUL Mandatory 2011 100%
CENTERVILLE Mandatory (for New) 2008 80%
CLEARFIELD Opt-Out 2015 60%
Mandatory
DRAPER 1996 100%
EAGLEMOUNTAIN Opt-Out 70%
Mandatory
FARMINGTON 2007 100%
KAYESVILLE Opt-Out 2010 80%
LEHI Mandatory
1996 100%
LINDON Opt-Out 2018 47%
Mandatory 100%
MIDVALE 1993
Mandatory
MURRAY 1993 100%
CityCouncilMinutes-May 22,2018(p.11)


PROVO Opt-Out (Considering Mandatory)
RIVERTON Mandatory 1996 100%
SANDY Mandatory
1993 100%
SANTAQUIN Opt-Out 2015 42%
SARATOGASPRINGS Mandatory 2014
100%
Mandatory
SOUTH JORDAN 1996 100%
SOUTH OGDEN 1no-1do 2008
%06
SPANISH FORK Opt-Out 2015 65%
VINEYARD Opt-Out
70%
WEST JORDAN Mandatory
1993 100%
Increasing support and demand for recycling services was also unanimously expressed by the
Natural Resources Stewardship Committee on March 29th, 2018, wherein they officially
recommended the City require recycling services for all new utility account sign-ups while
keeping existing utility accounts on the current “opt-out" program.
In terms of the expected impact of this proposed change, each month the Utility Billing Division
has roughly 300 new account sign-ups, through natural turnover or from newly built homes. By
requiring all new utility accounts to take advantage of our recycling services, it is estimated that
the number of new homes on the City's recycling program would increase by 1o0 per month,
since two-thirds already stayed signed up. As such, since the charge for bi-weekly curbside
residential recycling services is $3.25/month, this would result in $25,350 projected additional
P s   ss       o    
hauler, Waste Management to provide the service.
The City Manager's Department recommended the City Council adopt this resolution requiring
curbside recycling service for all new residential utility accounts and authorize the City Manager
to sign an amendment to the Waste Management Service Agreement to acknowledge this change
in recycling policy.
Mayor Brunst asked if this resolution would impact only new customers and not current
customers, to which Mr. Bybee replied in the affirmative.
In response to Mrs. Lauret's question as to whether or not there was any flexibility on a case-by-
case basis, Mr. Bybee replied in the negative. He noted that the existing system allowed for
some flexibility, but under the new system, all new residential utility accounts would be required
to pay the fee.
Mr. Lentz noted that there was a precedent in that the Storm Drain Fee was for the public good
and was therefore mandatory. He saw the proposal as being for the public good. With regard to
affordability, Mr. Lentz suggested that it might be feasible to offer different size bins, thereby
saving some money to the residents. Mr. Bybee stated that it was his understanding that the
recycling trucks were specifically designed to handle the existing size of the recycling bins.
             s
said that revenue would be a pass-through because it would be comparable to the cost of
providing the service.
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.12)


In response to Mr. Spencer's question as to whether or not the new residents would ever be able
to opt-out, Mr. Bybee stated that according to the proposed Resolution, they would not be able to
opt-out of the fee.
Mr. Macdonald stated he agreed with Mr. Lentz's perspective that this recycling initiative would
be very beneficial to the environment; therefore, he was of the opinion that the fee should be
mandatory for all residents and not just for the new customers. Mr. Bybee said that the proposed
Resolution was just a beginning point to foster recycling using an incremental approach. Mr.
Bybee also clarified that if one family sold their home to a new family, the new family would be
obligated to pay the fee.
Mr. Brunst moved, by resolution, to require curbside recycling service for all new residential
utility accounts and authorizing the City Manager to sign an amendment to the Waste
Management Service Agreement to acknowledge this change in recycling policy. Mr. Lentz
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, and Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Mark Seastrand and David Spencer. The
motion passed.
ORDINANCE - Approving the amounts to be awarded to the CARE grant recipients for
the 2018 CARE granting round
Mr. Downs reviewed a PowerPoint presentation he had prepared to review the history of the
CARE grant and to provide a recommendation that the City Council, by ordinance, approve the
amounts to be awarded to CARE grant recipients for the 2018 granting round.
On November 8, 2005, a majority of City of Orem voters voted in favor of enacting local sales
and use tax of 0.1 percent as a means of enhancing financial support for recreational and cultural
facilities, as well as cultural organizations within the City of Orem. Known as the Cultural Arts
and Recreation Enrichment tax (CARE), the Orem City Council enacted the tax by ordinance on
November 22, 2005. The tax went into effect April 1, 2006, and was authorized for a period of
eight years. On November 5, 2013, a majority of City of Orem voters voted to continue
collecting the CARE tax for an additional ten years. At that time, there was a 50-50 split
between Cultural Arts and Recreation. The allocated money would be come from the funds that
were collected during the previous year.
On February 9, 2016, the City Council amended the CARE Program policies and procedures,
establishing eligibility requirements and an application process for this competitive granting
program. Three categories of grants were established, including: Recreational and Cultural
Facilities, available for publicly-owned or operated facilities; Cultural Arts Major Grants, of
$10,0o0 or more for operating costs of nonprofit cultural arts organizations, Cultural Arts Mid-
Major Grants, of between $5,000 to $9,999 or more for operating costs of nonprofit cultural arts
organizations and, Cultural Arts Mini Grants, of up to $4,999 for operating costs of nonprofit
cultural arts organizations.
Applications for this CARE granting round were due on March 8, 2018. As a group and with
members serving as a smaller review panel, the City Council, along with the CARE Tax
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.13)


Advisory Commission, met in a series of public meetings in March and April 2018 to hear from
applicants and to consider their grant requests.
Utah law required that the entire amount of revenues and interest collected as a result of the
imposition of the tax be distributed in a manner consistent with Utah Code Ann. 59-12-1403,
which allows for granting to one or more facilities or organizations. Utah law also required the
City to provide for that distribution by ordinance.
Mr. Downs indicated that for the upcoming year, the revenue available was $2.175 million,
which would be split 50-50, as indicated earlier, between Cultural Arts and Recreation. He said
that this year there were sixteen mini and mid-major and three major grant applications. Mr.
Downs named, complimented, and thanked the members of the committee who had heard and
considered the grant presentations and applications. Mr. Downs next reviewed the grant
timeline, as provided in the PowerPoint presentation. He noted that there was a separate review
process for the two components of the grant. He said that public input was also gathered. He
also noted that the money could be used for publicly-owned facilities only.
Mr. Downs stated the recreation portion included $1 million for improvements to the Fitness
Center. This is the same amount that was allocated last year. A proposal had been made to
provide this allocation for four consecutive years to make significant strides in enhancing and
improving that facility. Mr. Downs noted that there was a request for an allocation of $15,000 to
provide an operational offset for co-sponsored groups. Mr. Downs stated that there was also a
proposed allocation of $56,188 for additional recreation enhancements.
Mr. Spencer said the operational offset for co-sponsored groups should be $30,000 and not
$15,00o. That money would be taken from the funds allocated for additional recreation
enhancements. Mr. Spencer indicated that each year nonprofit groups that had co-sponsored
events would get a bill from the City the following year for what they had used for fees and
maintenance. This allocation would help to offset those costs.
Mayor Brunst indicated he would support that proposal, as well. He said that the funds this year
were higher than last year's funds and that money was going toward the support of the youth of
the City.
Mr. Lentz stated that what had just occurred was, in his judgment, a textbook demonstration of
why he was so utterly frustrated with the CARE allocation process. The citizens had been
surveyed in 2015 to determine what they wanted, and he opined that the City had not operated in
accordance with that data. He was frustrated that the funds were re-allocated based on a whim,
with no scientific basis to the decision.
Mr. Spencer countered Mr. Lentz's opinion by stating that he had conferred with other people,
including Mr. Hirst, and he felt this was a fair allocation of the CARE tax on recreation because
it would help the youth of Orem. He added that surveys were not entirely reliable and that
decisions should not be based solely on surveys. Discussion continued briefly regarding the
value and use of surveys.
Mr. Seastrand stated the language from the CARE Tax Ordinance was clear. He then asked Mr.
Spencer how the savings to the organizations would be used. Mr. Spencer said that the co-
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.14)


sponsored organizations were currently paying $52,0oo, so the savings to the organizations
would enable them to take care of other needs they might have, such as a scoreboard for the City
Pool. Mr. Seastrand observed that giving funding to programs in the recreation side was not
allowed. Thus, if the swimming organization bought a scoreboard and then gave it to the City,
that would be bypassing the process. Instead, he believed the CARE tax should be used to pay
for the scoreboard and there should not be any change in the fee structure to the organization.
Mr. Spencer said he was just using the scoreboard as an example, and he clarified that the
organization would not be given any money. The bill for the facility fees would be adjusted.
Discussion continued regarding the use of the funds for the fees or maintenance of the facility
and if it would be possible. Mr. Seastrand stated that he felt this mechanism could not be used
within the context of the CARE Tax; therefore, he suggested that the City seek a legal opinion.
Mr. Stephens stated that under the law, the City could grant money for the ongoing operating
expenses of recreational facilities that the City owned. He clarified that although the money
could not be given directly to the co-sponsoring groups, there would perhaps be a way to
accomplish what he was hearing, in that if the $15,0o0 was granted for the ongoing operating
expenses of the City's facilities, that could offset the amount the City charged to the co-
sponsoring groups for the upkeep of the facilities. That might have the same result that everyone
wastryingtoget.
Mayor Brunst summarized Mr. Stephens's explanation by stating that it would be an operational
offset and the money would be covering some of the operational costs. The money wouid not go
directly to the co-sponsoring organizations. Mr. Seastrand said that the offset would indirectly
increase the organizations’ revenue because their bill would be lowered. Thus, if the offset
resulted in the swimming organization's ability and decision to install a scoreboard at the
swimming pool, he felt the City should delineate what the savings to the organization would do
to benefit the City instead of just benefiting the organization as a reduction to the fees they were
charged. Enhancements such as the swimming pool scoreboard should be spelled out in
exchange for the offsetting funds. The same would apply to other organizations that received
offsettingfunds.
Mayor Brunst stated that in essence then, the funds could be applied toward City operational
expenses per what Mr. Stephens had said. Therefore, he felt this was a proper use of the money,
and with the increased funds that the City had available, he said he was comfortable with the
$30,0o0 allocation. There was further discussion on the technical details and propriety of this
allocation. Commissioner Seastrand opined that the allocation was not consistent with the
original intent of the CARE tax on the recreation side. Mayor Brunst stated that he did not agree
with Commissioner Seastrand's perspective. Mr. Downs suggested that the City could ask the
organizations to demonstrate how they had used the offsetting funds to benefit the youth of
Orem. Mr. Spencer said that he would be happy to get with those groups and report back. M1.
Lentz said that instead of seeing that offsetting amount go from $15,000 to $30,000, he would
rather see it go from $15,0o0 to zero and use the money for recreation programs that benefit the
wholeCity.
Mr. Downs reviewed the proposed award for each proposed mini and mid-major grants for the
Cultural Arts side of the CARE tax. He noted the PowerPoint slide that had the list of the
organizations and their respective proposed grant award. Mr. Downs stated that this year the
City went to a reimbursement policy in which the mini and mid-major organizations would have
City Council Minutes -May 22,2018(p.15)


to show specifically how the funds had been disbursed before a reimbursement was made.
Therefore, there would a very clear picture to document how the funds were used.
Mr. Downs next reviewed the major and facility proposals. There were three applicants for
major grants, which were enumerated on the PowerPoint slide. Mr. Downs noted that grants
were one-time-only and that a grant received during one year placed no obligation on the City to
award the grant during a subsequent year. With the Centennial Celebration coming in 2019,
n  st  ss    s    s   s 
to the three major grants, there was some money set aside for funds that would go to arts-related
City-owned facilities.
Mr. Sumner stated that he thought the $63,942 allocated to Facility Funding seemed broad, and
that he would like to see it be more specific to designate where those funds would go.
Discussion ensued on how those funds would be used. Mayor Brunst said that he was
comfortable with how it was set up because he was not worried about how much money went to
the Scera Shell, auditorium etc. Mr. Downs stated there had been some discussions regarding the
improvements to those facilities.  He noted that these amounts would be available by July 1,
2018.
Mr. Lentz reiterated his earlier concern that the survey results, in his opinion, had essentially
been ignored. He felt that the residents had voiced their desire to invest in the Scera, parks,
programs, and assets. He stated that he believed the Scera was a great asset to Orem and that
additional funding should be provided to ensure that it continues to be an important part of
Orem.
Mr. Macdonald stated that he felt there should be additional funding provided for enhancing
facilities for the Centennial celebration. There was discussion on how much money should be
allocated for enhancing the Scera and the Hale Theater in preparation for the Centennial
celebration, and the process for making those determinations.
Mrs. Lauret said that she was not sure she wanted to tie every additional dollar to the Centennial
celebration. But she would like the operators of those facilities to be encouraged to include a
Centennial event with the extra funding they have received.
Mr. Sumner expressed his concurrence with Mrs. Lauret's opinion. He said the Hale Theater and
Scera were run by professionals, and he felt that if the City asked them to include a Centennial
event, he had implicit confidence that they would follow through with the City's request.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to approve the amounts to be awarded to the CARE grant
recipients for the 2018 CARE granting round as listed with the exception that $30,000 be put
towards the operational offset for co-sponsored groups on the recreational side. Mr. Spencer
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald,
David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Sam Lentz and Mark Seastrand. The
motion passed.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PD-35 Amendment -Patio Covers
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.16)


ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-11-48(D)(2) of the Orem City Code to allow patio
covers to encroach up to ten feet into the rear yard setback in the PD-35
Mr. Bench presented the applicant's request that the City amend Section 22-11-48(D)(2) of the
Orem City Code to allow patio covers to encroach up to ten feet into the rear yard setback in the
PD-35zone.
The PD-35 zone currently requires a twenty-foot setback behind all homes. Some homeowners
with back yards on the south of their property have been having problems with their back yards
becoming so hot that they are unusable. To make their back yards more useable, the applicant
was requesting an amendment to allow unenclosed patio covers to encroach up to ten feet into
the rear setback.
The Planning Commission had forwarded a positive recommendation that the City Council, by
ordinance, amend Section 22-11-48(D)(2) of the Orem City Code to allow unenclosed patio
covers to encroach up to ten feet into the rear yard setback in the PD-35 zone. Staff likewise
supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Brunst questioned the direction of the units and the reason for the request. Marshall
Madsen, president of the HOA, stated that the purpose of the patio cover was to enable the space
to be useable because, at present, it was too hot, even in the evening, without some means of
providing shade. Mr. Madsen stated that each individual owner would be responsible for their
own cover, both for cost and construction, based on HOA guidelines. Mr. Madsen was unable to
answer Mayor Brunst's question regarding the cost of the patio covers. Mr. Madsen noted that
100 percent of the members of the HOA were in favor of the request to allow patio covers;
however, only some of the members would likely install the patio covers right away.
Mrs. Lauret stated that she had met with some of the homeowners and she felt this was a
reasonable request and that the amendment under consideration would provide a good
opportunity to allow those residents to have this choice. Mr. Madsen noted that four members of
the City Council had met with the HOA. He was very appreciative of their time and interest.
In response to Mayor Brunst's question regarding the age of the dwelling units in the HOA, Mr.
Madsen said that the oldest unit was three years old.
Mr. Bench indicated that originally there was a specific buildable area, but he felt this issue was
anoversight.
Mr. Macdonald said that he was one of the City Councilmembers that had visited the area and
met with the HOA. He stated that he was very impressed with the way the neighbors and City
staff collaborated to resolve this issue.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Mayor Brunst closed
the public hearing and returned the discussion back to the Council.
Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-11-48(D)(2) of the Orem City Code to
allow [unenclosed] patio covers to encroach up to ten feet into the rear yard setback in the PD-35
zone only. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby
Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.17)


motion passed unanimously.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Lakeview Warehouse Park - OS-5 zone to M1 zone
ORDINANCE - Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Orem by rezoning the property
at approximately 1750 South Geneva Road from the OS-5 zone to the M1 zone
Mr. Bench introduced the applicant and presented the applicant's request that the City Council
amend the Zoning Map of the City of Orem by rezoning the property at approximately 1750
South Geneva Road from the OS-5 zone to the M1 zone.
In 2015, the City annexed the Southwest Annexation Area and adopted General Plan land use
designations for the annexed property. The General Plan land use map designated most of the
area on the east side of Geneva Road as low density residential (LDR) and most of the property
on the west side of Geneva Road (with the exception of the PD-43 zone) as light industrial.
The property on the west side of Geneva Road was designated as light industrial to encourage the
expansion of the Orem Business Park, consistent with the recommendations outlined in the City
of Orem Economic Development Strategic Plan adopted in 2014.
Because most of the property in the Southwest Annexation Area wasn't ready for development at
the time of annexation, the City Council applied the OS-5 zone, which was a “holding zone,” to
most of the annexed property. That action was taken because the City Council anticipated that
nobody would develop the property as an OS-5 zone.
The applicant was requesting a zone change from the current OS-5 zone to the M1 zone, which
would be consistent with the currently adopted General Plan land use designation of light
industrial. The applicant would like to develop the property with five office warehouse buildings.
The Planning Commission had forwarded a positive recommendation that the City Council, by
ordinance, amend the Zoning Map of the City of Orem by rezoning the property at
approximately 1750 South Geneva Road from the OS-5 zone to the M1 zone. Staff likewise
supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
In response to Mayor Brunst's question regarding the timeline for the project, from start to
completion, Jordan O'Toole, who was representing the applicant, Jeff Mansell, stated that they
would have five buildings and start in July 2108. He noted that a site plan had been submitted on
May 21, 2018, contingent on the outcome of the City Council's decision at this meeting. Mr.
O'Toole said there were commercial property users who were looking for space for warehouses
and small offices. The buildings would be about twenty-five feet tall. Rental cost would range
from sixty-four to sixty-nine cents per square foot. Each building would be about 35,000 to
37,000 square feet. The space in the buildings would be divided based on the needs of the tenant
using the space.
In response to Mr. Seastrand's question regarding the typical look the residents to the north
would see, Mr. Bench stated that there would be landscaping along Geneva Road. Any outside
storage would have to include a fence to enclose the space. Mr. O'Toole indicated that there
would be offsets for landscaping all around the business park. The back unit would have yard
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.18)


space that would be enclosed by an opaque. None of the other buildings would have the ability
to store on the yard. Mr. Bench stated that the property owners would be required to comply
with the current landscaping requirements for this zone. The side yards would have about a ten-
foot landscaping buffer. The run-off water would go through the landscaped area before it
reached the storm drain. Mr. Seastrand asked what was on the east side of Geneva Road in front
of the subject property, and Mr. Bench indicated that there were several areas around the City
where residential was surrounded by light commercial.
Mr. Lentz voiced his concern as to the increased traffic with this type of development for the
existing home in the area. He added that the home would become an “"island" in the middle of
light industrial developments. In response to Mr. Lentz's question regarding the residential
development anticipated for the land across the street from the subject property, Mr. Bench said
that low-density residential was being encouraged. However, he stated that there had been
applicants requesting medium- to high-density housing. Those requests were being discouraged
because of the City's General Plan. Those future residents might potentially have the same
concerns as the individual in the existing home; however, the properties would be separated by
Geneva Road. He noted that in Orem and in surrounding communities, there were many homes
that were next to light industrial developments. The homes would likely not face Geneva Road;
instead, they would have their own access into the development.
In response to Mr. Lentz's question as to whether or not the proposed development would make
it harder to get in and out of the driveway of the existing home, Mr. Bench said the road would
be widened to include deceleration lanes. He added that the whole Geneva Corridor would
eventually be widened. He opined that once Lakeview Parkway was completed, which would
take place in about five years, the traffic volume on Geneva Road would be mitigated.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing at 7:34 pm.
Daniel Johnson, son of Dale Johnson, who owns the home near the subject property, handed out
some views of the location of their home. He said that they would like to maintain the home as a
family home, and they were opposed to the proposed zoning change. He said that he felt the
community did not want industrial. He observed that in a few years, Geneva Road would not be
the division that it is now. Nowhere in the three-mile stretch where Geneva Road starts on
Center Street in Provo to this point is Geneva Road a division between zones. Instead, both sides
of the road are residential. The proposed change would create an industrial island in the middle
of a residential community; therefore, it should remain residential and agricultural from Provo to
this point on the east side of Geneva Road. Mr. Johnson added that the proposed rezoning would
make the east side of Geneva Road much less desirable. He noted that the east side of Geneva
Road was between ten to forty feet higher than the west side of Geneva Road. In particular, the
Johnson land on the east side is about forty feet higher, and no one would want to live next to
this industrial park because even with a fence, the residents would see right into the industrial
park. Mr. Johnson said that the City should continue this area with residential zoning.
Byron Taylor began by asking how this area, Lakeview, had been designated as the dumping
area for anything but single-family homes. He said that he had heard the statement in this
meeting that it was expected that there would be no residential development in this area. He then
said that he did not understand that statement because Provo and Vineyard had managed to put in
a lot single-family dwellings. He made an appeal to the Council that the single-family homes
City Council Minutes -May 22, 2018 (p.19)


were more compatible and appropriate for the community.
Elaine Schoefield said that Lakeview was founded in 1850, so that area had a lot longer history
than the City of Orem did. She said that the residents wanted to maintain some semblance of
history and community. She said light manufacturing would not accomplish that objective.
Laurie (last name not provided) said that she owned the property that was just west of the subject
property. She said that there was unmatched beauty in that area. To obstruct it with light
industrial development would be a sad day for the community. She asked the City Council to
consider the land use and stated her opposition to the rezoning as the land owner to the west.
Therewere no more public comments.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. and returned the discussion back to the
Council.
Mrs. Lauret wondered if there was any way to provide a larger buffer between the light industrial
and the residential area, particularly the Johnsons' home. Mr. O'Toole said that on the north side
of the subject property there was a dirt road twenty feet wide that could not be touched because
there was a water pipe underneath. There would also be twelve feet of landscape. Thus, there
would be a buffer of almost twenty-five feet between the proposed industrial park and the
residents. Mrs. Lauret observed that residents generally didn't like to look out their windows
and see office buildings or industrial sites. Thus, she wanted to know if there was any way to
shift the buildings down and provide an even larger buffer zone. Mr. O'Toole said that he and
his colleagues did not own any more property than what was shown on the map. He said that
they also had to ensure that they were in compliance with the City's parking requirements.
Mr. Lentz asked Economic Development Division Manager, Ryan Clark, to address the Council.
Mr. Clark explained that in the Economic Development Strategic Plan, which the City Council
had adopted in 2014, the number one goal was to increase the sustainability of the City's tax base
through  increased property  values.  The Plan identified two strategies for achieving that
objective. One was Class A office development, and the other was to encourage business park
development in the southwest annexation area. That document guided the zone change when the
City annexed the property and settled on industrial land uses for that area. Mr. Clark next cited
some statistics pertaining to the current market picture. As of May 1, 2018, it was stated that the
County had a two and one-half percent vacancy rate in industrial. The industry norm was five to
seven percent. He then observed that even if Orem added another million square feet of
industrial development, the County would still be below the industry norm. Thus, there is a huge
demand for industrial property. Mr. Clark noted that the City now had the opportunity to expand
its industrial park that was already encroaching into the subject area from the north that borders
the other Johnson farm. That property owner has slowly sold off his property as US Synthetic
has expanded. Mr. Clark opined that the development currently occurring could account for why
City staff was centering upon this industrial use. In addition, the proposed use would have a
lower impact to the sewer system, so the sewer improvements would not cost so much. That was
an important factor for encouraging the industrial development. Mr. Clark also noted that as
Lakeview Parkway connected to Geneva Road, and crossed the Johnson property, that would
turn into two hard corners. So there could potentially be some commercial development at that
location. Mr. Clark also pointed out the fact that Lakeview Parkway connected directly to the
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.20)


Provo Airport. Consequently, as that airport grew, there would be more demand for shipping
andwarehouseneeds in this area.
Mr. Sumner indicated that several of the people in attendance had attended the Orem Chamber of
Commerce Summit. At that meeting, the housing shortage was mentioned, which he believed
was even more critical than the industrial shortage. In response to Mr. Sumner's question as to
how many homes could be placed in the subject area, the number cited was thirty to forty. He
observed that he was having a hard time fitting this with the area around it, especially since
Provo was moving west with more residential property.
Mr. Seastrand acknowledged that these were not easy decisions to make. He then clarified that
the concept of annexation came to the City Council as a result of the property owners that said
they didn't want to be in the County because that meant their only option was to have five-acre
residential lots. That was why the OS-5 property transferred over, so that it would stay with
what the current County option was. Therefore, the property owners could continue to develop
their property the same way as it was when it was in the County. That would mean that they
would be five-acre lots, based on the Os-5 zoning. Thus, the annexation was not intended to
force people to do anything different than what they currently had the rights to do under the
County. The difference was that in order for people to develop their property, there had to be a
method to get sewer and water, and other development services. The City then went through a
lengthy process to enact the annexation. At the meeting in which the annexation took place,
there were three options that were presented and considered. The stated intent at that time was to
try to keep this area fairly rural and not have it be a lot of high density and not be too dissimilar
from what it already was. The Master Plan had an Option A, which had the medium density
residential, but it did not garner much support, so it was taken off the table. Option B was to
make the land light industrial because that land use would maximize the land value to the
property owners, as opposed to single-family residential development. Option C, which was
adopted in the Master Plan, was the mixed use on the one side, featuring low-density residential
and agriculture, and then with the additional road that would be coming through, that created
some other challenges from a residential standpoint, so there was some agreement to go with
higher density residential instead of light industrial in that one area, which was the key driver in
getting the sewer and water coming in. The overlay of where the road would be cutting through
the Johnsons’ property meant that there would be a lot of traffic circling that area, which would
suggest that residential development would be more challenged there, and the light industrial
development would give a better overall property valuation. Therefore, he observed that the
challenge currently confronting the City Council was the fact that according to the Master Plan,
there would be low-density residential on the east side and light industrial on the west side, with
a corner of community commercial, such as a Maverik or other such business that would
accommodate the area. Mr. Seastrand pointed out that the City Council now had an applicant
who was proposing a land use that was consistent with the Master Plan that had already been
agreed upon and adopted. Thus, it would be difficult at this point to contravene what was in the
Master Plan. To do so would first require making a change to the Master Plan. Consequently,
he said that he felt stuck because the application was in compliance with the Master Plan that
was done as part of the annexation.
Mr. Davidson said that when the City Council deliberated over these different General Plan
options, there was an understanding, based on the approved General Plan that was adopted, that
the City would go back and size the utilities to the specific parcels, as designated. Thus, while
CityCouncilMinutes-May22,2018(p.21)


there may be a desire to modify uses, such modifications to the land uses could dramatically
modify utilities and the impact fees. Additionally, the infrastructure in the area would not be
able to accommodate those changes. Therefore, there was method in moving forward with the
General Plan considerations, which have had a bearing on the sizing and construction of the
utilities that are still underway. Changing the General Plan at this point would require the
resizing, possibly upsizing, of all the utilities. The financing associated with that would create a
problem because the developers would be reimbursing the City through impact fees for the
utilities in that area. Therefore, if the General Plan were amended, there would be significant
financial ramifications. Furthermore, the infrastructure, as currently designed, would not
accommodate a change to residential development of the subject property. Mr. Davidson
clarified that the utilities were sized based on what capacities and resources were available. Any
based on the anticipated uses according to the General Plan. Furthermore, Mr. Davidson said the
impact fees had already been paid, so to change the rules in the middle of the game would be
seriouslyproblematic.
Mayor Brunst stated that he would like to continue this item so that further cost information
could be provided if the General Plan were to be amended. Mr. Davidson said that the cost
would not be the only factor. The pipe that had already been laid would have to be dug up and
replaced.
Mr. Lentz moved, by ordinance, to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Orem by rezoning the
property at approximately 1750 South Geneva Road from the OS-5 zone to the M1 zone. Mrs.
Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, and
Mark Seastrand. Those voting nay: Richard F. Brunst, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The
motion passed.
6:00P.M.PUBLICHEARING-PD-5Amendment-Setbacks
ORDINANCE - Amending Article 22-11-17(I)(2) of the Orem City Code reducing the
setback from 30 feet to five (5) feet along 200 East in the PD-5 Zone
Mr. Bench presented the applicant's request that the City Council amend Article 22-11-17(1)(2)
of the Orem City Code to reduce the setback in the PD-5 zone along 200 East from thirty feet to
five feet. Mr. Bench clarified that the proposed amendment would affect only the property that
abuts on 200 East. That change would have no impact on parking.
University Square was built in 1994 and included a greenhouse on the northeast side of the
building. The applicant would like to enclose the greenhouse and turn it into additional retail
space. However, the greenhouse extends into the required setback. Originally, it was permitted to
encroach into the setback because the greenhouse was considered “temporary."
The greenhouse would need to meet setback requirements before it could be enclosed. The
applicant was requesting an amendment to the setback requirements of the PD-5 zone in order to
bring the greenhouse into compliance with the setback requirements.
The Planning Commission had forwarded a positive recommendation that the City Council, by
ordinance, amend Section 22-11-17(1)(2) of the Orem City Code to reduce the setback in the PD-
5 zone along 200 East from thirty feet to five feet. Staff likewise supported the recommendation
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.22)


of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Brunst invited the applicant to address the City Council.
Brady Morris, who works with Ensign Engineering, indicated that he was representing the owner
of the property.
In response to Mr.'s Lentz's question as to whether or not there were any safety issues with the
turn on the road by the subject property, Mr. Bench said that he was not aware of any. He noted
that the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer had both reviewed this request and they had no
issues. Mr. Bench noted that he had not reviewed the police records, but he was not aware of
any safety hazards associated with the subject property.
Mayor Brunst observed that if a person was leaving the parking lot and going to the right, the
driver would be looking through the netting to see what was coming the other way. Thus, he
wanted to know if there would be any visual liability due to the inability to see around the corner
when that area was enclosed. Mr. Bench said that the Transportation Engineer said there would
be no issue. The stop bar might have to be moved up for the visibility. Mr. Bench said that the
request was five feet; however, the City Council could change that number if they were not
comfortable with it. Mr. Davidson indicated that there were already clear view requirements in
place; consequently, the development review process, as well as the site plan evaluation and
approval, would include consideration of the sight triangle to ensure compliance with the City's
current safety standards. Mr. Lentz concurred with the need to ensure that the corner would be
safe for drivers and pedestrians.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing 8:07 pm. Hearing no comments, Mayor Brunst closed
the public hearing and returned the discussion back to the Council.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend Article 22-11-17(l)(2) of the Orem City Code to
reduce the setback in the PD-5 zone along 200 East from 30 feet to five feet so long as it meets
the safety standards of the clear vision sight triangle. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those
voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand,
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider public input on the proposed transfer of funds
from the enterprise funds to cover general fund utility costs over and above administrative
and overhead costs
Mr. Manning and Mr. Nelson presented the City Manager's recommendation that the City
     u         
residents regarding proposed transfers from enterprise funds to the general fund in the FY 2018-
2019 budget.
On April 17, 2018, the City Council received a draft of the Tentative Budget for the Fiscal Year
2018-2019. This budget contained a proposed transfer of funds from the utilities to cover non-
administrative or overhead costs to cover the City's own use of City owned utilities.
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.23)


The State Auditor requires that cities pay the retail rate for their own usage of city-owned
utilities. The City of Orem uses water, sewer, storm water and street lighting to supply its own
properties. These properties are primarily parks, but they also include cemetery, City Hall, the
Police Station and fire Stations and other city properties. Mr. Manning clarified that the
Enterprise Funds were different from the General Fund in that they were run as independent
businesses.
Mr. Manning explained that the City had long built the cost of supplying these properties into the
utility rates. The reasoning behind this decision was that the tax payers and the utility rate payers
were almost always the same people. Therefore, the simplest way to cover these costs was to
include them in the respective utility rates.
Now that the City is required to pay the utilities for these services, the options available to the
City are:
1) Increase property taxes to cover the cost of these utilities;
2) Cut services enough to free up the cash to pay for the utilities; or
3) Transfer the funds back to the General Fund.
Mr. Manning reiterated that the same people who paid water rates, by and large, were the same
people who paid the property taxes. So, they would be paying, one way or the other, for the
City's utility costs. The value of the transference of funds was that by doing so, the City could
provide the same level of service for the same fees.
Mr. Manning next reviewed the amounts proposed to be transferred, as follows:
Transfer From Amount % of Total Fund
Expenditures
WaterFund $900,000 4.6%
Sewer $16,000 0.1%
StormWater $130,000 2.5%
Street Lighting $15,000 0.9%
Total $1,061,000
He explained that money from the General Fund would be transferred to the appropriate
Enterprise Fund in accordance with amounts on the table just reviewed. Via a transfer back, that
same amount of money would be transferred back to the General Fund. The hope, then, would
be that the City's utilities would be paid for, and the money would be taken back so that the City
did not have to either reduce the services provided or raise taxes. Thus, there would be
compliance with the spirit and intent of the law.
Mr. Manning next reviewed the PowerPoint presentation that had been prepared to show what
the City had to cover.
In response to Mr. Lentz's request for clarification on the 4.1 percent attached to the cost cited
for City water, Mr. Manning said that approximately 4.1 percent of a person's water bill was
applied to the water costs for City-owned facilities. Mr. Lentz referenced the question that had
been asked earlier in the meeting by Mr. Snelgrove, and he acknowledged that it was still a
CityCouncil Minutcs-May22,2018(p.24)


challenge to explain to the citizens how a portion of their own utility bill went towards paying
for the City's utility bills to keep the property taxes low.
Mr. Manning next reviewed a slide that delineated the revenue sources of the Enterprise Fund.
The surplus noted on the last line was from the rates that had been deemed as necessary to
support the needed Capital Replacement Program to ensure the viability the systems.
Consequently, the City generates more money than what is needed so that the overage can then
the surplus was designated for capital needs and was built into the rating structure so that the
City could avoid going into debt.
Mr. Manning next reviewed the slide that delineated the utility expenses. He enumerated some
of the various uses of the funds derived from water payments. They include such things as fleet
needs, line replacement, and the future construction of a water tank. On the wastewater side,
funds were being applied toward line replacement and addressing a long-term problem at the
wastewater reclamation plant. For storm water, the focus has been on the West Union Canal
projects since it was being abandoned.
In response to Mayor Brunst's question regarding the status of the abandonment of the West
Union Canal Company, it was stated that the West Union Canal had not yet been disbanded, but
the process was in progress. Once it was disbanded, the City of Orem would need to ensure that
no storm water flowed in it, or the City would incur some liability for using it. The canal
property would presumably be deeded over to the respective property owners adjacent to the
canal. It was also noted that state law was not clear on the liability associated with the
abandonmentofacanal.
Mr. Manning next reviewed a slide that had a more detailed view of the utility expenses. He
noted that debt was going down as the City paid off its obligations.
Mr. Manning then reviewed a slide that overviewed administrative and transfer information. He
explained that the General Fund and other funds provided each other services. He noted that
some of the fees were considered contracted services. He said that the budget and accounting
system made it possible to show the true cost of an operation.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Phil Snelgrove sought to confirm his understanding that when the rate increase was proposed, it
was based upon system expansion, not on personnel or operating costs. He clarified that he had
no objection to the transference of funds from the one to the other. But he wanted to know why
there was a surplus of $1 million. Mr. Manning explained that $1 million was being taken from
the reserves in the water utility for capital needs. It was money that had been set aside in prior
b s   s  a  s     s q  s
regarding the year on which this information was based, Mr. Manning stated that it was Fiscal
Year 19, which started on July 1, 2018. Mr. Manning confirmed that the City currently had the
$1 million to proceed with the capital project in the upcoming fiscal year (July 1, 2018-June 30,
2019).
Mayor Brunst noted that the City's financial statement listed what the capital improvement
City Council Minutcs - May 22, 2018 (p.25)


projects were. The City accomplishes the projects on a “pay-as-you-go" basis. Thus, money
was put in the bank to apply toward capital improvement projects.
When Mr. Snelgrove asked if those improvements were paid out of the General Fund, Mr.
Manning replied in the negative. Mayor Brunst added that they were paid out of the surplus of
the various Enterprise Funds. Mr. Snelgrove then asked why the surplus funds were being
transferred to the General Fund if they were needed for physical improvements. Mr. Manning
said they were not being transferred to the General Fund. Mayor Brunst added that they were
two different items. Mr. Manning said that the surplus to which Mr. Snelgrove was referring
was money that was sitting in the Enterprise Funds reserves, akin to their bank account, which
they had saved over time. Now they were going to buy some new lines, meters etc. On the
operating side, the $900,000 in water was money the General Fund owed to the Water Enterprise
Fund for the water use by the City. So that the City would not have to cut its services or raises
taxes to make that payment, the money would be sent right back as part of the transfer. Mr.
Manning said that this was an operational issue that was part of the City's standard operation
                s  s
is paid and received in the City's Enterprise Fund, after which it is returned to the General Fund
so that there is no cost to the citizens.
Mr. Lentz said that Mr. Snelgrove had earlier raised a good point about a five-year versus an
eight-year plan. When the City Council reviewed this document about two years ago, they
looked at options that included five years, seven years, ten years, and then a bonding option. The
City Council settled on the seven-year option.
Mr. Snelgrove stated that he still did not understand why there had to be a rate increase of the
size that was enacted when it could have been paid for with approximately half of that rate
increase. Mayor Brunst recommended that Mr. Snelgrove meet with Mr. Macdonald, Mr.
Manning, and Mr. Nelson to review the numbers regarding the water rates.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing at 8:26 pm. and returned the discussion back to the
Council.
Mayor Brunst noted that the only requirement for this agenda item was a public hearing and that
no action was needed.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -Adopt Final Budget FY 2018-2019
ORDINANCE - Approving and Adopting a Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-2019, Adopting
Compensation Programs, Adopting Fees and Charges, Setting the Property Tax, Franchise
Tax, Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax, Telecommunications License Tax, Transient
Room Tax, and E-911 Fee Rates
Mr. Manning and Mr. Nelson presented the City Manager's recommendation that the City
Council, by ordinance, approve and adopt the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Budget, adopt the
compensation programs, adopt the fees and charges schedule, and set the property tax, franchise
tax, municipal energy sales and use tax, telecommunications license tax, transient room tax, and
E-911 fee rates.
City Council Minutcs - May 22, 2018 (p.26)


On April 17, 2018, the City Council received a draft of the Tentative Budget for the Fiscal Year
2018-2019. Budget work sessions were held on February 27, March 3, March 13 and March 27.
In addition, two public hearings were held to review CDBG budget requests.
The purpose of this hearing was to consider the budget for Fiscal Year 2018-2019, along with the
compensation program and the fees, charges, and tax rates of the City.
Mr. Manning explained that getting a budget to balance was like a three-legged stool.
Everything needed to be in place to make the budget work. One leg of the stool consisted of the
new revenues, which for the entire budget would be almost $97 million.  The transfers
constituted another leg of the stool. That amount was just under $18 million. The third leg of
the stool was the appropriation of surplus funds, which was just over $3 million. Mr. Manning
Mr. Manning explained that the revenues were generated by utility rates and taxes. He added
Mr. Manning stated that property taxes would not be increased, the franchise tax and municipal
energy sales and use tax rates would remain at six percent, and the transient room tax was going
to stay at one percent. The telecommunications license tax would remain at 3.5 percent and the
and/or additions to miscellaneous fees and charges were proposed in many departments.
Mayor Brunst indicated that the Provo City Council moved to look forward to funding a new
water reclamation plant at a cost of $220 million, to be completed during the next two to three
years. Therefore, he was thankful for Orem's process in currently meeting those standards.
Mr. Seastrand inquired regarding the impact the property tax rate would have in light of the latest
change that was enacted by the Utah State Legislature to freeze the tax rate. Mr. Manning stated
that leaving it as is would be beneficial to Orem because the tax rate in Orem has incrementally
gone down. Mayor Brunst stated that it was his understanding that any changes to the tax rate
would affect the school district and not Orem City. However, until that data was available, Mr.
Manning said there was no way to provide a definitive answer on what the impact would be.
Mr. Manning then reviewed the expenditure side of the budget, using the same analogy of the
three-legged stool. One leg was personnel, and it constituted 38.7 percent of the budget. The
second leg, operations, constituted 43.2 percent of the budget. The third leg, capital, constituted
18.1 percent of the budget. In addition, Mr. Manning noted that there was a projection of 8.45
newemployees.
Mr. Manning next reviewed a slide that provided more detail with regard to proposed
Mr. Lentz noted that when the initial budget hearing had taken place, there was going to be an
opportunity for citizens to participate in a “Chat with a Bureaucrat" activity on Facebook. Since
that has not occurred yet, he wanted to know when that would take place. Mr. Manning said that
it could take place later this week or next week. As for the actual numbers, Mr. Lentz stated he
City Council Minutcs -May 22,2018 (p.27)


was amenable to the one percent cost-of-living adjustment for City Councilmembers; however,
he was not comfortable with the City Council giving themselves the merit increase that had been
proposed.
Mr. Spencer referenced the sports fees on pages 38-39 and expressed his recommendation that
rates remain the same as they were during FY 17-18.
Mr. Macdonald clarified that the Councilmembers’ compensation was still below what a citizens
committee had recommended a few years ago. Therefore, he did not have a problem with what
be established to make that decision, instead of having the City Council make the decision of
setting their salary. Mr. Davidson said that the City Council would ultimately have to make the
decision. How that figure was arrived at would be at the discretion of the City Council. Mr.
Macdonald reiterated that even if the proposed increase was enacted, it would still be
substantially below what the previous citizens committee had recommended.
With regard to youth sports, Mr. Spencer reiterated his desire to keep the fees at the same rate as
the current year until the Zions study could be completed. He added that he had spoken with the
Recreation Department Director, Karl Hirst, and he was amenable to that recommendation. City
Manager, Jamie Davidson, said that he thought the study had been included in the fees, so the
proposed fees were reflective of the Zions study.
Mr. Hirst likewise stated that it reflected what would be seen in the Zions study. It was meant to
be a step increase. However, if the City Council wanted to hold off on the decision until the final
report of the Zions study was presented, he would be agreeable to that. When Mr. Davidson
sought to confirm that what was in the budget was only a fraction of what Zions was
recommending, and whether or not it would be better to wait for the full report before adopting
the full fee, Mr. Hirst said it would be up to the City Council. However, the current proposal
was just a step because he anticipated that the Zions report would contain a higher figure than
what was recommended. Mr. Spencer stated that he believed every group should be looked at to
make sure everything was in line. Therefore, he felt the decision on the sports fees should be
delayed so that no one group was picked on. Mr. Davidson said that he thought the proposal
presented by City staff was fair. Mr. Manning stated that the Zions fees would consist of what
was needed to ensure cost recovery. Sometimes cost recovery can take place, and sometimes it
cannot takeplace.
Mayor Brunst asked whether or not the fee rates could be changed after a decision was made.
Mr. Davidson said that several years ago, the City Council had tasked staff with right-sizing the
fees and making them commensurate with the cost of providing the services in the City. Staff
has done that, but now the suggestion was being made to roll those costs back. He stated that he
was willing to do what had been suggested, but he was confident that in a few years, the City
Council would go the other direction again based on where the City's budget was. He stated that
he believed the proposed budget reflected an appropriate share of the costs to run the programs.
Discussion continued regarding the proposed fees, along with the results and purpose of the
study. It was noted that the recommendations that had been made in the budget were reflective
of the information that had been obtained from the Zions study.
City Council Minutes -May22,2018(p.28)


Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing 8:46 pm. Hearing no comments, Mayor Brunst closed
the public hearing and returned the discussion back to the Council.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to approve and adopt a Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-2019,
adopt Compensation Programs, adopt Fees and Charges, and set the Property Tax, Franchise
Tax, Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax, Telecommunications License Tax, Transient Room
Tax, and E-911 Fee Rates. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F.
Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
There were no Communication Items.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
Mr. Seastrand brought up a point of order with regard to the Mansell property. The vote was
close at 4 to 3. The motion on the table was to accept the proposal as it was. He said he was not
sure if the counter-motion was to continue the item to do a little more looking at it before making
a final decision or if it was a flat-out deny it. Mayor Brunst clarified that he never made a
motion, per se. He wanted to make a motion to continue the item so that there could be a study
of what the costs were of the land west of Geneva Road and north of the PD zone down below.
However, it was just a statement and not a motion. To accommodate that avenue, Mr. Davidson
said the City staff would need to do three things: (1) evaluate the physical size and design of the
utilities, including all lines, sewer facility capacity, design constraints, and pump stations (2)
study the impact fees that were tied to that area; and (3) look at the Development Agreement that
the City had entered into with Mr. Mansell to see how that document would be impacted by this
discussion.
In response to Mr. Seastrand's question regarding the staff resources to accomplish those tasks,
Mr. Davidson said that at the June 19 meeting, staff could provide a cursory review, but it would
not be ready for action at that time. In response to Mr. Seastrand's question as to the amount of
information the Mayor and other Councilmembers would need, Mayor Brunst said that he would
want a “"ballpark" idea. If the ballpark information showed that the change might be feasible,
Mayor Brunst would want more detail. Mr. Davidson then said that if the cursory review
showed that the changes would be feasible, it would be another three to six months before the
General Plan and impact fee documents could be amended, along with any necessary changes to
the existing agreements and the engineering/utility modeling tied to the lines, treatment facilities,
lift stations etc.
Mr. Seastrand explained that he was asking those questions because the proposal was affecting
basically two property owners: the Mansell group, which had made a proposal that was
compatible with the current General Plan that had been approved by the City Council; and the
Johnson family, who was concerned about how the proposal would affect their home and
property values. He felt that in light of what was already in the Master Plan, a decision had
already been made by the City Council with regard to the Master Plan. That said, he felt that this
was an important enough element that a little further study would allow the City Council to take
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.29)


a more definitive look, either from the perspective of the Mansell group or the Johnson family.
The determination needed to be made if it would be better to proceed with light industrial
development of that area, which would have a higher property value; or use that area for
residential development. Mr. Seastrand summarized by stating that he wasn't sure if it was
worth putting the City staff through that much work to complete all of those studies.
Mr. Davidson said that when the City started down this path, consideration had been given to
which would be the most aggressive of the City's development options. Option A would include
over 3,500 ERUs (equivalent residential units). The City is currently at approximately 1,600
ERUs. He opined that no developer would come to the City Council and request any less
density. Instead, they would push for the 3,500 model versus the 1,600 model. Mr. Davidson
added that he didn't think this would be the first and only time this type of discussion would take
place. He said that he was aware of someone who would like to put in high-density housing
across the street from the Johnsons. Mayor Brunst said that he was not interested in high density
housing. He said that he thought the time and expense to study the feasibility of amending the
General Plan would be worthwhile, but not in great detail at this point.
Mr. Lentz said that he had made the motion because he did not want to put the staff through all
of that extra time, distraction, and expense to do that work when the City Council had already
given staff the long-range plan, and the Mansell proposal fit within that plan. Furthermore, in his
opinion, the proposed use of the land was better than more single-family residential housing.
Mr. Seastrand said that this discussion may be a moot point because in order for it to be
reconsidered, he would have to make a motion to re-open, and someone would have to second
the motion. He said that if it would not be too egregious on the staff, he would like more time to
make a final call because the east side of Geneva Road would also be impacted by the decision.
City Attorney, Greg Stephens, read from the City Council Meeting Policies and Procedures
Manual, wherein it stated that “any two Councilmembers who voted in the majority on a motion,
approved or denied, may request a reconsideration." Thus, two people who voted in the majority
would have to say they wanted to reconsider this. If that happened, the City Council would then
vote. If the vote passed, the City would renotice it and consider it at a later date.
Mr. Sumner said that things change. He noted that the City Council had undergone a discussion
on their vision for State Street. He'd hate to have to vote for anything on State Street that the
City Council would decide ten years from now that this City Council had fouled up.He believed
that the City Council had the job to do its due diligence, so though he did not want to give the
staff more work to do, he'd like to see more numbers on this issue.
Mr. Lentz said that the changes that were being discussed were not a subtle tweak, not just a
refinement. What was being discussed would be a 180-degree change from what was mapped
out in the General Plan.
Mr. Davidson said that at this meeting there had been a request for a light industrial
development. The property right across the street was being planned for high-density residential
for fourteen units to the acre. At that density level, a lot of the 1,600 ERUs would be swallowed
up. That was why he was suggesting this would not be a one-time occurrence because if the City
City Council Minutes -May 22,2018 (p.30)


Council was willing to revisit this matter, there would be future efforts by developers to have this
conversation again and again.
Mayor Brunst asked the majority on this vote if there were any of them who wanted to revisit
this issue. Mrs. Lauret replied in the negative. Mr. Macdonald asked Mr. Seastrand to clarify his
thoughts on the matter.
Mr. Seastrand said that he would like an additional four weeks to just reconsider this issue for the
Johnsons and other property owners so that the City Council could ensure a cohesive solution.
This was such an important decision and the vote was so close that he believed it warranted
further study and consideration.
Mr. Macdonald sought to confirm that Mr. Davidson's concern was that the extra month would
not give much more clarity than what currently existed, and that by putting the subject property
in the OS-5 zone, the City Council knew that eventually that zone would pivot and some
additional choices would eventually have to be made. Mr. Davidson said that the property was
initially put in the Os-5 zone because it was a holding zone, with the full expectation that
developers would be required to come to the City Council to make the zoning amendment
request and to ensure that the request would be consistent with the General Plan that was adopted
three years ago. That was, to some degree, a safety valve to ensure that the City was keeping
good track of the ERUs that had been tied to that area and to the overall impact fee cost structure
that had been established at that time when those impact fees were adopted. He said that he
believed a cursory review of the costs was possible; however, he believed that the costs would be
significant if the infrastructure were to be upsized and if there were major changes to the General
Plan that could accommodate significantly more density.
Mr. Macdonald asked if commercial development would place less strain on sewer and water
than residential development, to which Mayor Brunst and Mr. Tschirki replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Tschirki added that the density that was being proposed on the east side of Geneva Road was
at fourteen unit to an acre. At ten acres, that would be about 140 units. He added that there were
many variables that staff would have to understand before any calculations could be run on this.
The seven-acre parcel could be looked at, but if there was going to be an increase in the variety
and density of the residential uses in the entire southwest area, that would require a significant
amount of time to provide just a preliminary report. An impact fee study was conducted for
southwest Orem about five years ago that included medium-density and higher-density units.
That was about 3,600 ERUs. Today the City is at 1,600 ERUs. If there were to be changes, the
City would have to undo the infrastructure that had already been put in place. That might
include relaying new and bigger sewer lines, which would be very costly. And who would pay
for that expense?
Mr. Seastrand clarified that the east side would stay as is. For him the question was light
industrial versus residential, includinglow-densityresidential.
Discussion ensued on potential development options in the area being discussed.
Referencing the impact fee study that had been conducted for the annexation area and the impact
fees elsewhere, Mr. Lentz then asked if the number of ERUs going into that area would doable.
Mr. Tschirki said that it would increase just enough to increase the capacity of utility service
City Council Minutes - May 22, 2018 (p.31)


required to provide that service. Mr. Lentz next referenced the wedge between Geneva Road and
 s s             n g
that parcel as an ideal place for developing single-family homes. Mr. Davidson said that was
why felt the land had been designated as light industrial, but if the property owner wanted to
develop that parcel as single-family homes, that would be a possibility.
Mr. Seastrand asked if it was possible to do an equivalent change of the property from light
industrial to single-family residential, and if so, how many single-family homes could go in
  s             s
that information could be calculated, along with some additional options such as additional
capacity andoverallcost.
There was subsequent discussion regarding the logistical ramifications of amending the General
Plan. Mr. Macdonald stated that he would not second the motion to reconsider this issue. He did
not believe that there would be any more clarity in a month provided by further study.
Mayor Brunst brought this discussion to a close.
NOTE: The following discussion took place during the Municipal Building Authority meeting,
but pertained to items discussed in the regular City Council meeting and so have been included
in these minutes.
Mr. Davidson stated he had some new information regarding the southwest annexation area and
wanted to make sure the Council had all the information possible.  He stated Steve Earl had
made him aware of a conservation easement in that area and turned the time over to Mr. Earl for
further information.
Mr. Earl said this information is based on his understanding and recollection. When the general
plan was first being worked on and determining the capacity, the number of ERU's that were
determined the system would handle varied in numbers. The sponsor of that annexation petition
was trying to do a high density development on the Wilkerson farm property. It is his
recollection that when that capacity was addressed they were factoring 150 units/ERU's to that
property. Ultimately they council never rezoned that property per his request. Several months
later that property was purchased by someone and turned into a conservation easement, leaving it
as open space. Those 150 ERU's that was figured to take up capacity in the system has now
essentially been freed up.
Discussion continued regarding the different zonings and possible capacity of the system in that
area.
Mayor Brunst suggested they adjourn and allow staff to provide the Council with further
information.
ADJOURN TO A MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF OREM
Mayor Brunst moved to adjourn to a meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orem
City Council Minutes -May 22,2018 (p.32)


after a five-minute recess.Mrs.Lauret seconded the motion.Those voting aye: Richard F.
Brunst,DebbyLauret,SamLentz,TomMacdonald,MarkSeastrand,DavidSpencer,andBren
Sumner.Themotionpassedunanimously.
Themeetingadjourned at9:14p.m.
OREM
CITYOF
CORPORATE
SEAL
QoDluBeto
JoD'AnnBates,CityRecorder
Approved: June 19, 2018
CityCouncilMinutes-May22,2018(p.33)