€¦ · Web view · 2018-01-10There was subsequent discussion about the previous year’s entertainment including the Deseret Book ... She regularly heard sirens and hoped it

CITY OF OREMCITY COUNCIL MEETING

56 North State Street Orem, Utah December 12, 2017

4:00 P.M. WORK SESSION – PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM

CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst

ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner

APPOINTED STAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division Manager; Ryan Clark, Economic Development Division Manager; Tim Dalsing, Public Works Crew Leader; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder

DISCUSSION – Large Animals in City Limits

Mr. Bench shared information about permitted animals within residential zones and the minimum distance of barns, pens, or corrals from any dwelling or public street. He said animals were allowed in residential zones only if the following conditions were met: (1) the area of the lot on which the animals are kept was at least one acre, with the exceptions for rabbits, pigeons, ducks, and household pets, and (2) the animals were included on the list of permitted animals and the number of animals did not exceed the maximum number allowed per acre.

In response to a question, Mr. Bench said that pigs were not a permitted animal in residential zones in Orem. The permitted animals were not to be free range, but had to be limited in the space they could occupy. He further stated that a combination of permitted animals was allowed, as long as the criteria about acreage and maximum numbers were followed. Mr. Bench said migratory animals like ducks and pigeons were not usually a problem because of their nature. Chickens were limited to 20 animals per acre, and could not be raised for the purpose of slaughter. Roosters were not allowed.

Mr. Lentz asked how other cities handled the issues of large animals in residential areas. Mr. Bench said it varied from city to city; some handled it according the property size but others

City Council Minutes – December 12, 2017 (p.1)

outright excluded these animals in residential zones. Mr. Lentz expressed concern about how changes in the code might affect those who already had animals.

Mr. Bench said 67 residential properties had animals, and of those nine of them had horses. In response to Mr. Sumner’s question, Mr. Bench said that in his 15 years of working for the City he had not heard any complaints about horses until now. It was possible that such complaints had been made in the past and had not reached him, but this was his first time addressing this. However, Mr. Bench stated that complaints were what started this conversation.

When asked about calls to animal control, Chief Giles said it was difficult to answer the question because they did not separate the calls by what kind of animal was being called about. His recollection was that most animal control calls involving large animals were when a horse or cow or llama got out of its corral or pen and was roaming. Chief Giles said if anyone had ever called and complained about smell that would likely have gone to NPU as a neighborhood nuisance and not to animal control.

Mr. Macdonald said he had to give the Hoffmans credit because this would not change their situation, but they wanted to prevent others from having the same issues they were facing. However, he did wonder if theirs was such an isolated situation that it might be premature to make any significant changes to the code overall. Mr. Bench said at this time they were not proposing any changes but wanted a discussion to hear the Council’s thoughts on the matter.

There was continued discussion regarding large animals in residential zones. Some items of discussion were:

Keeping animals for farming and self-sustainability purposes Land acreage requirements and property taxes Issues of odor and/or unsightliness from animal waste Neighbors/visitors petting or feeding animals Conflicting issues of property rights

Craig Jacobsen, resident, said he lived in northwest Orem and had horses on his property. He said horses had been kept in that area for over 60 years, and the only complaint he had ever had was when a group of mothers knocked on his door wondering where the horses were so their kids could feed them carrots. He added that on the whole, horse manure had the least odor issues than other large animals. His neighbors had not complained, and he felt that some liked having the horses in their neighborhood.

Mr. Lentz said it seemed that there were two separate conversations: (1) the merit of having horses or other animals in a residential neighborhood, and (2) the problems that might arise from introducing large animals into neighborhoods that had never had them before.

Mr. Sumner said it seemed like they were discussing a non-problem, and felt that issues could be discussed and handled as they arose. He felt there were too many what ifs to make any changes to the ordinance.

Mr. Hoffman said he had lived next to a large lot for four years, and they were concerned about their neighbor’s plans to keep horses on that lot. He said it will affect the quality of the


neighborhood as well as their ability to sell if they wanted. In response to Mayor Brunst’s question, Mr. Hoffman guessed the neighboring large lot was a couple of acres.

Mr. Davidson reminded the Council that even if they were to consider a change now, it would not keep the Hoffman’s neighbors from bringing in more animals. They would be grandfathered in and their use of the land would be designated as legal, non-conforming.

Mr. Lentz said it might be worth exploring overlay areas where large animals would be permitted and it would keep them from going into other areas. Mr. Seastrand said they did have the guidelines in the current ordinance, which specified things like acreage required and maximum number of animals. Those standards should be the way to implement the zoning.

Mayor Brunst said it was a tough issue, because it was all about property rights. What one land owner wanted might not be what another land owner wanted, and vice versa.

DISCUSSION – Summerfest Organization and Planning

Mr. Downs introduced Kena Mathews, Chair of the Summerfest Advisory Committee, and turned the time over to Ms. Mathews to update the Council on some changes that were being proposed.

Ms. Mathews said she was excited to serve as the Chair for the upcoming year’s celebration. She said last year they decided to create a subcommittee within the Summerfest Advisory Board, but they never actually created the subcommittee or filled in those seats. They were going to move forward with that this year, hoping to fill those seats with a sponsorship chair and other community members at-large. Another proposal was to add two more members to the Summerfest Advisory Committee to help with the workload. She said the addition of two more members was especially critical if the Council wanted to continue to have Summerfest activities held in two City parks.

Ms. Mathews said that historically the activities were held at the City Center Park, but the last two Summerfest celebrations had expanded to host activities at the Scera Park as well. She shared some of the pros and cons of having Summerfest at one park versus spreading into two parks.

ONE PARK o Pros:

Reduces overtime expenses Allows police and fire to more easily patrol/respond Still allows for all activities to continue Put all activities in one place for families that don’t want to drive or walk

¾ mile to enjoy activities Puts wear on only one park Allows for family activities to be together on “Family Night”

o Cons: Parking is all concentrated around one park People have started getting used to the two-park model


Space is limited May have to put caps on participation in activities such as car show,

business showcase, etc. Eliminates non-paying food trucks

TWO PARKS o Pros:

Additional room/shade Creates a place for more free activities, separate from the paid activities at

City Center Park Room for continued growth Showcase more of the City Parking scattered across two different areas Allows for a “non-carnival” experience

o Cons: Difficult to attend activities at both parks if they are going on

simultaneously Additional overtime costs and safety concerns Extreme wear to Scera Park a few weeks before Colonial Heritage Festival

There was discussion about the pros and cons for each scenario. One of the major issues had always been parking, and having activities in two locations would certainly help reduce the number of cars in one given area. In response to a question about the elimination of non-paying food trucks, Mr. Downs explained that only a certain number of food vendors were able to pay to be official vendors for Summerfest, and the fees they paid helped to offset other costs. Having two locations, they could potentially double the number of fee-paying vendors, i.e. food trucks.

Ms. Mathews showed overhead aerial views of how the park(s) would be set up, either at one or both locations. She showed how the individual components would fit into the City Center Park, including an area that had not previously been used with two of the baseball diamonds. They would need to reserve some space to keep a safe perimeter for the fireworks, but there was some space to be found there.

There was continued discussion about the following: Summerfest Car Show

o Military carso Number of cars o Proposed placement

Business showcase o Go from 35 open spaces to 55

Sponsorships o If sponsors paid $1,500 they automatically got a booth

Kids activities and entertainment Community Booths

o Enough space for public safety vehicles Family Night – all day Thursday

o Additional activities for kids and family that day


o Discounts on carnival tickets

Some Council members expressed concern about the additional strain being in two parks would put on the police and fire departments. Chief Giles said it would be an added expense to offer the overtime, but he felt staff-wise it would be no problem. They would be able to cover the regular patrol shifts and get volunteers for the Summerfest shifts. The cost was the real issue, not coverage, but it was certainly doable.

Ms. Mathews was hoping to get direction from the Council on which scenario they preferred. The general consensus was that spreading the activities into two parks was preferred, though there was still some concern about the additional costs and spreading the police and fire too thin.

In response to a comment about funding, Mr. Price said that sponsorship money, as well as fees and charges, were used to cover direct costs. Mr. Davidson said the City covered many of the soft costs, like budgeting overtime for officers to work the event. These soft costs did not show up in the Summerfest budget but they were there. For example, wiring the park so that they no longer needed to rely on generators cost $60,000. He said that long-term they were always striving to improve the Summerfest event, but not necessarily continue to grow the event. There were only so many parks employees, police officers, etc. and they did not want to city services to have to take a back seat to this one event.

Mr. Davidson said he was not opposed to allocating additional city resources, but they had to budget for it. He said he would support having a base budget to buffer the costs, and the Summerfest Committee could utilize sponsorship money to go above that. They would not always have someone with a special skillset like Wally Harkness to help with fundraising, and he thought that incrementally setting money aside would help hedge those costs. Mr. Downs reiterated that it was not the goal to continue to grow the event, but to help make it manageable and sustainable.

There was subsequent discussion about the previous year’s entertainment including the Deseret Book sponsored concert and the fireworks. Summerfest Committee members said that this year would be similar in terms of entertainment.

Mayor Brunst suggested setting aside $25,000 for Summerfest for the coming year.

Mr. Macdonald thought that was too high an amount, considering that they had been given $15,000 the previous year and had only used about half of that. He also did not feel comfortable using public funds to provide a concert that not everyone would attend; he felt would be more appropriately funded by CARE tax money, not Summerfest funds.

In response to Mr. Macdonald’s suggestion that the remaining funds from the $15,000 roll over year to year, Mr. Davidson explained that the money came from fund reserve and did not roll over. One compromise could be having the $25,000 in the City Council Contingency fund, and if they ever needed to draw from that account it would require action from the City Council to allocate that money toward the event.


Mayor Brunst said this was a community event where everyone in the city benefitted. He felt the Council was in agreement to move forward.

Mr. Sumner asked how the Centennial celebrations would tie in with Summerfest. Mr. Davidson said Ryan Clark and his team were working on a plan that included events in and around Summerfest. There would probably be some unique things in the 2019 Summerfest celebrations because of that. They had set money aside from the General Fund and they would anticipate setting more money aside leading up to that.

5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION – PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM



APPOINTED STAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division Manager; Ryan Clark, Economic Development Division Manager; Tim Dalsing, Public Works; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder

Preview Upcoming Agenda ItemsStaff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.

Agenda ReviewThe City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.

City Council New Business Mr. Davidson had a few updates he wanted to share with the Council before they adjourned to the formal meeting. He first wanted to let the Council know that the Alpine School District Board was also meeting this night, and the issue of elementary school consolidation was on their agenda. He said he and Mayor Brunst had spoken with Superintendent Sam Jarman and his business administrator, and they were reassured that it would not result in a change in the current use of the property in the short term.


Note: At approximately 5:35 p.m. the laptop experienced technical difficulties, causing a break in the audio recording. The audio began recording again at approximately 5:38 p.m.

Mr. Davidson said there had been discussion of a possible trade for land around Scera Park for property that was Hillcrest Park. The intent was to keep Scera Park open while building a new school on the existing ground, but parking and student drop-off areas would be a concern. There would be further discussion on the matter once they knew the direction the School Board was going.

Mayor Brunst said the residents wanted the greenspace around Hillcrest Elementary to stay with the City. He said there had been lots of discussion about a feasibility study in splitting Orem from the Alpine School District, and he said they would have to include Vineyard and Pleasant Grove to make that work. He was personally in favor of splitting from Alpine School District.

Mr. Davidson said that UTA was working hard to have the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system open for the fall beginning of the 2018 school year. He said there had been an agreement reached in which students and faculty from both BYU and UVU would be provided with an eco-pass to use the system. This would provide an automatic ridership of approximately 12,000-15,000 people. This was a victory for the BRT program, particularly the inclusion of BYU in the eco-pass deal. In the past, BYU had been resistant because they did not charge student fees, so having them sign on for a 10-year agreement was big.

Mr. Davidson said the Council would soon hear recommendations from the Public Works Advisory Commission (PWAC) on their evaluation of UTOPIA/UIA. He said it had been a challenge for them, like all those who had tackled this problem before, but they did have solutions to propose.

Mr. Lentz gave a brief update on UIA. He said UIA’s plan was to step away from the old model of asking cities for a pledge, and were basing any new request for capital off of the system’s own revenue that was generated. That was the plan the last time they met, and it was an improvement from the old model.

Mr. Davidson said this was a unique situation, in that the rating agencies were finding it difficult to determine if this was municipal utility debt, or corporate debt, or something else entirely. The City’s ability to pay was above and beyond, but they had not seen anything like this before. It would be interesting to see what rating they would give, if they felt comfortable giving a rating at all. He said more information would be forthcoming at the beginning of the next year.

The Council adjourned 5:57 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.

6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBERS




APPOINTED STAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Ryan Clark, Economic Development Division Manager; Peter Wolfley, Communications Specialist; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder

INVOCATION / INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT James Brown PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Boy Scout Troop 999

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Spencer moved to approve the following sets of meeting minutes: City Council Meeting November 14, 2017 Joint City Council Meeting with ASD November 15, 2017 Special City Council Meeting November 21, 2017

Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL

Upcoming Events

The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.

Appointments to Boards and Commissions

Mayor Brunst moved to appoint George Van de Water to the Heritage Advisory Commission, to appoint Becky Buxton to the Transportation Advisory Commission, and to reappoint Courtney Burns to the Library Advisory Commission. Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

MAYOR PRO TEM – January 1 through June 30, 2018


Mayor Brunst moved to appoint Tom Macdonald as the Mayor Pro Tem from January 1 through June 30, 2018. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

CITY MANAGER’S APPOINTMENTS

Appointments to Boards and Commissions

Mr. Davidson presented a recommendation that Leslie Nelson and Wilford Whipple be appointed to the Board of Adjustment and Board of Building and Fire Code Appeals respectively, and asked for the Council’s advice and consent.

Mayor Brunst moved to appoint Leslie Nelson to the Board of Adjustment, and to appoint Wilford Whipple to the Board of Building and Fire Code Appeals. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior to the meeting, and comments were limited to three minutes or less.

Angel Busath, resident, wanted to discuss the increase of traffic along 800 South near UVU. She said the increase of traffic this year was astronomical compared to previous years; it was difficult for her to back out and leave her home. She said this was a direct result of UVU closing of Campus Drive and rerouting students to 800 South and 400 West. Ms. Busath said she had reached out to Orem and UVU’s traffic engineers about her concerns. She had safety concerns particularly for the students walking to and from Lakeridge Junior High. Students used to be able to walk to school but with the increase in traffic more and more of them needed to be dropped off. She said the PEGG development that was proposed would only make a bad problem worse, and she asked that an unbiased traffic study be done. Ms. Busath reminded the Council that some of them ran on a platform of maintaining Orem’s neighborhoods and addressing traffic concerns, and she hoped they would keep those promises in mind when considering any changes or new developments.

Mary Rowley, resident, also wanted to discuss the proposed PEGG development. She said she was touched by the prayer offered at the beginning of the meeting, and said it was a blessing to live in a community where people could come together to figure out what would be best. She tried to recall a quote about progress and growth, and added her concerns about increased traffic. She regularly heard sirens and hoped it was just for fender-benders and not more serious accidents. Ms. Rowley said she was not alone in these feelings, and she represented many of her neighbors in these concerns. They loved UVU and knew it was good for the school to grow, but she felt they were overreaching and overstepping the boundaries between the neighborhoods and


the school. The closure of Campus Drive, along with the proposal to cram 1,600 students into the area, was going to drastically change the neighborhood. She hoped the developers would consider other possibilities, as well as the desires of the community. She wanted Orem to stay a wonderful place to live.

Brad Weston, resident, wanted to echo the concerns shared by his neighbors about the proposed PEGG development. He said he was concerned with the quality of life for the long-time owners of the neighborhood. The neighborhood had strong families, safety and a low crime rate, and high quality of life. The traffic was already busy and would get worse, and the quality of life would be diminished. He said there was a high possibility that eventually developers would completely take over the neighborhood, but there was no precedent in absorbing this kind of growth. Mr. Weston had seen information about UVU’s Master Plan, and he felt that if the university was going to expand they should do so in their satellite expansion areas. He hoped the City Council could encourage smart growth to keep the neighborhoods strong.

Murray Lowe, resident, said it had been an honor to run for City Council and was grateful for the chance to come and discuss UVU’s growth. He said that support of the unfettered growth of UVU was not strong at the county or state level, while it seemed to be at the City level. This proposed PEGG project abutted the junior high school, and Alpine School District had said that the only way this development would work would be to have the traffic empty on Campus Drive – a drive currently closed. He said the developer had strong-armed a change in that. Mr. Lowe said the traffic was untenable, and UVU grew at a rate double to the development of everything around it. He suggested that a neighborhood plan be done by the neighbors themselves. Allowing one-off zoning allowances was not a good fit for the neighborhood, and even though PEGG was calling it student housing, there was no requirement that residents be students. He felt there were other, better options that could be worked through with the neighborhood.

Mark Tippets, resident, wanted to comment that the lights at the City Center looked beautiful – almost as good as Temple Square. He congratulated the re-elected city officials, and said that this must be a difficult position. He likened it to being a judge, having to make tough calls. He was also addressing the proposed PEGG/Woodbury development and their request for a PD zone to build high density housing. He had spent months collecting data. He owned a construction company that had built two-thirds of the homes in the neighborhood, and being so close to UVU had been a selling point. He said it was important to preserve the limited residential areas there were, where families and neighbors had put down deep roots. He imagined that students, while being good folks, would not be putting down the same deep roots. Mr. Tippets said that a high density development in the middle of a neighborhood was not right and made no sense. He acknowledged the importance of UVU in the community, but asked where the line was drawn between allowing the school to grow and preserving neighborhoods. He asked that the City Council use their judgement and consider the neighbors’ concerns on this issue.

Elizabeth Kaufika had signed up to speak but was no longer present at the meeting.

Jayna Bauer, resident, said she was representing a group called Citizens for Safety. Their major concern was that there were not enough police officers to keep the city safe. She shared some information, that the population of Orem was approximately 98,000 and there were only 93 sworn police officers employed by the City. That meant that a minimum of six and a maximum of eight officers, including the shift sergeant, were on duty at a time. For context, she pointed to


the eight people at the dais and designated them to different positions and calls. The Mayor stood in for the sergeant, and he was saddled with mountains of paperwork. He would not be available to respond to a call. If two or three officers were needed to respond to a major traffic accident, then two or three more need for a robbery, then only one lone officer was available to respond to all other calls. She also noted that there were only three Neighborhood Preservation Unit (NPU) officers to serve the whole city for code violations. These resources were just not enough for such a large city. She provided a handout to the Council with suggestions on ways to address the issue.

CONSENT ITEMS

RECOMMENDATION: Motion for the City Council to accept the Consent Item(s) as noted.

MOTION: Adopt 2018 City Council Meeting Schedule

REQUEST: The City Recorder recommends the City Council, by motion, adopt the 2018 Annual City Council Meeting Schedule.

POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide

BACKGROUND: Section 52-4-6 of the Utah Code Annotated requires the City to ". . . give public notice at least once each year of its annual meeting schedule . . ." and to ". . . specify the date, time and place of such meetings . . ." in said notice. Posting the notice at the principal office of the public body and publication of said notice in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction shall satisfy public notice.

Generally, the City Council will meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month, except when these dates conflict with holidays, elections, or conferences.

The City Council has the ability to add, delete, or change any of the meetings on this proposed schedule prior to approving it. The City Council may also add, delete, or change the schedule--with proper public notice--once it has been approved.

Mr. Seastrand moved to adopt the 2018 City Council Meeting Schedule. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

SCHEDULED ITEMS

6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SLU Codes in M1 and M2 zones ORDINANCE – Amending Appendix ‘A’ of the Orem City Code by changing Standard Land Use Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and waste materials) from “Permitted” to “Not-Permitted” uses in M1 and M2 zones


Mr. Bench presented a request from the Development Services Department that the City Council amend Appendix ‘A’ of the Orem City Code by changing Standard Land Use Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and waste materials) from “Permitted” to “Not-Permitted” uses in M1 and M2 zones.

Currently, solid-waste disposal (SLU 4850) is permitted in the M1 and M2 zones and scrap and waste materials (SLU 5193) is permitted in the M2 zone. Both these uses by their nature carry with them negative externalities associated with the disposal and transfer of waste. Such externalities include offensive sights and smells, noise, pollution, dust, attraction of fowls and rodents, and traffic generation of heavy vehicles.

Such negative externalities have previously not posed as significant of an impact on Orem due to lack of nearby development, a lower intensity of use, or more effective efforts by facility owners to suppress negative impacts.

In recent years, the City of Orem and neighboring Vineyard City have both experienced a large amount of commercial, industrial, and residential redevelopment around Geneva Road (adjacent to the industrial areas that permit waste-related uses). Furthermore, the City of Orem is in the process of conducting a Geneva Road Area Master Plan and Brownfield Study, which will identify areas around the current M1, M2, and CM zones that show potential for redevelopment. Due to the changing nature of development in this area, and due to the nuisance that existing solid-waste uses have presented for neighboring properties, Staff believes it is not in the best interest of the City and the general public to allow such uses to remain permitted in the M1 and M2 zones.

Waste disposal and recycling are services that are needed in the area. However, such facilities are best located on land where there is a separation from residential, commercial and other industrial uses sufficient to protect such uses from the noise, dust, smell and other negative impacts that waste disposal and recycling uses are likely to create. With the changing nature of development in the City’s M1 and M2 zones as well as the properties adjacent to those zones, and the ongoing development of land that has heretofore been vacant and might have previously supplied an adequate buffer for waste disposal and recycling uses, it is no longer reasonable or in the best interest of the City to allow waste disposal and recycling uses in the M1 and M2 zones.

Staff therefore recommends that the City Council amend Appendix ‘A’ of the Orem City Code by changing Standard Land Use Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and waste materials) from “Permitted” to “Not-permitted” as shown below:

APPENDIX A. LAND USES BY ZONE

The Planning Commission recommends the City Council, by ordinance, amend Appendix ‘A’ of the Orem City Code by changing SLU Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and


waste materials) from “Permitted” to “Not-Permitted” uses in the M1 and M2 zones. Staff supports the Planning Commission recommendation.

Mr. Bench said they were in the beginning stages of creating a Geneva Road Master Plan, and the land uses along that corridor were going to be an important part of that master plan. With all the growth in Vineyard the area was prime for redevelopment. He said there were two existing businesses that would be affected by this change; they would be designated as legal non-conforming if this change were to go through.

Mayor Brunst said that he thought this would be a beneficial change. The North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District was nearby and was a more appropriate location for transfer station purposes.

Mr. Seastrand asked for clarification between solid waste disposal and incineration, and scrap and waste materials. Mr. Bench said scrap would include recycled cans, old water heaters, copper wiring, etc. and it was primarily metal. Solid waste could include residential waste, but this location was approved for construction waste like lumber and sheet rock. SLU Code 5193 was concerning recycling, and SLU Code 4850 was concerning the transfer station.

Mr. Davidson added that the facility in question that provided service under Code 4850 focused on construction and demolition materials and not residential solid waste.

Mr. Lentz asked about the master plan Vineyard was working on. He commented that until recently, the “Triangle” or the “Wedge” had been almost the edge of the earth but now there was vibrant residential and commercial growth in the areas with more to come. He asked if Mr. Bench knew of the timeline for Vineyard’s Master Plan process. Mr. Bench said he was not exactly sure on Vineyard’s timeline. He knew that a few years ago Vineyard had said they were planning for growth of 30,000 people. At the time it had seemed almost unbelievable but they were well on their way to achieving that goal. As they grew and developed, it seemed like Orem should capitalize on that and work with them for redevelopment of the area as well. It would be mutually beneficial.

Mr. Lentz asked if any other facilities provided the same services as the two businesses they were currently discussing. Mr. Bench said there was a large scrap material and metal waste recycling location on South State Street in Provo.

Mayor Brunst asked to clarify about incineration services in the City. Mr. Bench said he was not aware of any businesses that currently used incineration. He also specified that a crematorium would be found under an entirely different land use category entirely.

With no further questions from the Council, Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.

Bruce Baird, legal counsel for Dunn Construction, said these businesses had beneficial use in the city. They provided high paying jobs as well as offering a necessary service. He felt that narrowing their ability to do business and removing the SLU code would “ghetto-ize” the use. If a business could not improve their facilities they would be stuck with the negative externalities. He said his client was looking to enclose their facility to mitigate the concerns with the facility, but they would not be able to do so if their business became legal non-conforming. It was


difficult to obtain financing. He said blight was often a result of this kind of change and he suggested that instead of removing the SLU code that allowed them to operate, the City should impose regulations and standards on those negative externalities. Mr. Baird said removing those SLU codes would only damage ongoing businesses and keep them on the trajectory to having them be exactly what the City does not want.

Dave Kallas, representative for Geneva Rock and Clyde Companies, said that this would be a seemingly minor change that had major consequences for their operation. He asked that the Council postpone this vote, or vote against it. He said he represented large property owners in that neighborhood who provided not only good jobs but also provided a necessary service with their hot mix plant and concrete vouch plant. They recycled concrete and asphalt products, and hoped to expand their development. This would be next to impossible if they were labeled as legal non-conforming. In response to a Council member’s question, Mr. Kallas said that when roads were torn up, that waste product had to go somewhere. At their facility, they crushed the pieces to become similar to an aggregate and they were one of very few facilities along the Wasatch Front where this recycling could be done. He said by changing the zoning it felt like the City was asking this business to leave, and he thought that would be a big mistake. He pointed out that this business was sandwiched between two sets of railroad tracks, and there were not many other businesses that would be appropriate in that location.

Mike Dunn, from Transfer and Recycling, said he had been in the business for 17 years and over that time the recycling business had changed a lot. When he had first established his business, he was encouraged to go along the Geneva corridor because of Geneva Steel and because it was a good location for industrial uses. Now with all the growth and change in Vineyard and in the area, his business was apparently an eyesore. He had submitted plans a number of times to make corrections or improve his business and each time he was met with opposition from the City. Mr. Dunn said that trash was never going to go away, and he was trying to recycle and keep things from just being thrown away. He wanted to expand and modernize in the zone that was established 17 years ago, and he asked that they give him the time to work through the issues so that the facility could be improved and be more usable.

Gary Steele, with MCR Recycling, said he would be directly affected by this proposed change. He said that offensive sights, smells, and rodents were not an issue at his facility. He had not heard of any complaints against his business and he was wondering why they had been included in this proposal. He said they would have a difficult time pursuing any growth in their business if they were legal non-conforming. He felt that the SLC codes were two separate land uses and should be considered separately.

Carlos Magdeleno, manager of MCR Recycling, echoed Mr. Steele comments, and said that it boggled his mind that the City wanted to push recycling out. He said that as development occurred and as Vineyard and this area of Orem continued to grow, recycling would be even more important. The dense housing and construction created a need for a recycling center and people would either have to drive their recycling all the way to Provo or, more likely, they would let the materials sit on the roadside or be tossed into the regular curbside garbage. The regular garbage was not equipped to handle recyclable materials like that. Mr. Magdeleno said recycling was invaluable; it may be called unsightly but they were providing a much needed service.


Matt Harris, a UPS employee, said his work was right in the middle of these two affected businesses. They had issues with air quality with his workers, and he felt this was a direct result of these transfer and recycled waste facilities. If the City would allow these businesses to enclose, or make the improvements they were proposing, he felt the air quality issues would be resolved. If they were hampered by being legal non-conforming, they would not be able expand and improve. He said that closing these facilities would affect not just Orem but the surrounding areas as well; this would have a ripple effect they could not foresee.

Mila Johnson said she worked with Pick-A-Part, an organization that recycled and crushed cars. She said in one month they might handle as much as 200 tons of metal, as well as 1,200 gallons of assorted vehicular fluids like transmission fluid, oil, and gasoline. These had to be disposed of properly and only so many facilities could provide these services. She said eliminating their land use code would make it very difficult for them to conduct their business, and they were the only one of its kinds in Utah County. She hoped the City would continue the item so companies like hers could present their “case” against this proposal.

Jesse Stauffer, with Stauffer Towing, said he knew the industry well and towing companies regularly were dragged into the recycling debate. They needed recycling facilities to tow cars to that knew how to properly handle and dismantle the vehicle. If they were removing this land use, what would stop them from removing towing as well? He said Orem had a unique requirement that tow trucks needed to respond to auto accident within 15 minutes of receiving the call; that was a tough mandate to meet. Mr. Stauffer said he was worried about his company’s future if they were lumped in with legal non-conforming businesses. He hoped to expand and grow his business, and being limited by a code change would affect his entire life. He asked that the City Council consider the ripple effect this proposed change could have.

Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.

Mr. Seastrand asked for some clarifications from those who commented and from Mr. Bench. He first asked Mr. Kallas to explain his position because Mr. Seastrand was not sure he saw the connection between what Mr. Kallas did and the proposed code changes. Mr. Kallas said that they were one of the largest recyclers in the state by volume and weight, but they often were dealing with multiple materials. The EPA and other federal and state agencies classified these materials differently from how the State might classify them. Mr. Kallas stressed again the importance of having their kind of recycling facility available. Mr. Seastrand thought Mr. Kallas might be misunderstanding what the proposed change would do; Mr. Bench said the business that Mr. Kallas represented should not be affected by this proposal.

While Mr. Kallas was still at the podium, Mr. Lentz asked him if the businesses that would be affected by the proposal offered complementary services that his companies need to use to do their business. Mr. Kallas said they certainly worked with these kinds of recycling centers, and their close proximity was helpful. He worried that little by little things would change and important services would be squeezed out on Geneva Road.

Mr. Seastrand also wanted to clarify with Mr. Bench how Stauffer Towing and the Pick-A-Part car recycling businesses would be affected. Mr. Bench said the proposed changes should not affect them.


Mr. Macdonald said the hope was not to turn Orem into the recycling center for all of Utah County. He commented that some of the services these businesses offered may seem a little unorthodox, but upon hearing the comments tonight he wondered if there was a way to change the proposal. It seemed like giving these kinds of businesses their own PD zone in the area could help those that were proving invaluable services while limiting or even negating the opportunity for undesirable services to come into the area in the future. Mr. Bench said that could be possible, and acreage was a factor. There was brief discussion about the acreage the two businesses occupied.

Mayor Brunst said there had been discussions about limiting the number of green recycling or scrap businesses in Orem. He recognized that the businesses already in place were substantial fixtures in the community and said they certainly needed the recycling facilities. However, they were not necessarily trying to grow the industrial base in the area; they were exploring many options. He said he had his own concerns about businesses being marked as legal non-conforming, particularly when it came to obtaining financing. Mayor Brunst thought Mr. Macdonald’s suggestion of creating a PD zone for these businesses could allow them to improve and redevelop while keeping out undesirable uses.

Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Bench to clarify what Mr. Mike Dunn had said about meeting opposition from the City, and if Mr. Dunn was ever given a permit. Mr. Bench said he was not given a permit; since 2013 Mr. Dunn had been trying to do some things and the City made corrections where needed, and from the City perspective Mr. Dunn had not done enough on his end to move forward. Mr. Bench said it seemed that Mr. Dunn had been intending to expand and improve his operations for some years without much movement.

Mr. Bench pointed out that if the Council were to continue the discussion on this item to a future City Council meeting date, it would essentially freeze any changes in the area. This meant no expansions, or new businesses, could take place there. As long as the legislation was pending, the area would be “frozen” for change.

Mr. Lentz asked Mr. Harris to clarify his position, as he had seemed both against and in favor of the proposal in his comments. Mr. Harris said it would help the air quality if Mr. Dunn’s proposal to enclose his building was able to move forward. He said it was the nature of the business that dirt and other debris might end up in the air, and if they were able to contain that problem and improve the way they did business, then Mr. Harris saw that as helping all parties. He did not want the Council to vote in such a way that Mr. Dunn would not be able to improve and enclose his building.

Mr. Lentz said he understood that businesses wanted the opportunity to grow and improve, but there had been issues of compliance and code violations with these businesses in the past. He wondered if continuing with the current ordinances would produce different results. Mr. Bench said that was unclear, and reminded the Council that they were in the same predicament with Mr. Dunn’s business as they were in 2013. Mr. Lentz continued that the idea of these businesses growing and expanding much more concerned him. He said the Geneva corridor had a future, but was not sure green waste and metal recycling were it.

Mr. Seastrand said he saw the SLU codes as two different types, and felt differently with each one. He felt that the metal recycling was an appropriate and needed service, but he did not feel


the same about the transfer station. He felt the smells, appearance, and general cleanliness was much harder to control, and the North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District was there to fill that need. He said he was trying to think about the long-term consequences of these actions, and reiterated that he was more concerned about the waste issue than the recycling issue.

Mr. Sumner asked about the noticing for this hearing. Mr. Bench said two weeks ago they had searched through the database of business licenses, and according to their research only two businesses met these SLU codes and those businesses had representatives present at the discussion. Mr. Sumner felt there would be ripple effects he had not thought of, and expressed his desire to continue the item to allow more time for consideration of all the information.

Mayor Brunst said these were excellent Orem businesses and the services they provided added to the City. He said recycling was important, and he personally was not yet comfortable voting on the change until he had the chance to do more research.

Mr. Lentz asked Mr. Bench what the recommendation of the Planning Commission had been. Mr. Bench said it was a unanimous vote in favor of removing the SLU codes.

Mayor Brunst moved to continue the discussion on this item to the City Council meeting scheduled for February 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously to continue the item.

RESOLUTION – Adopting the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan and amending the Orem City General Plan to include the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan as Appendix M

The Development Services Department requested that the City Council adopt the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan and amend the Orem City General Plan by adopting the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan as Appendix M.

Mr. Snideman said this is the fifth neighborhood plan to be completed in the City of Orem’s Neighborhood Plan Program. The major goals of the plan included promoting community planning by working with residents to identify local concerns and needs, improving communication with residents, and applying City-wide plans at the neighborhood level.

Three public open houses were held and a citizen-driven Advisory Committee was formed to help identify concerns, shape the vision statement, and assist in drafting the plan. Community outreach was also supported by an online survey which was completed by over one hundred residents in the three neighborhoods.

Each neighborhood plan serves as a guide for future planning decisions made by City Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council based on the goals and vision established by the residents. It is intended that each neighborhood plan will be updated approximately every five years.


The Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan and amend the City of Orem General Plan to include the Orem Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan as Appendix M. City Staff supports the Planning Commission recommendation.

The members of the ad hoc committee for the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan (GHOPS plan) that were present were: Lise Christiansen, Cathy Abrose, Lisa Anderson, and Jayna Bauer. Mr. Snideman thanked each of them and the expressed his gratitude to the whole committee for all the time, thought, and effort they had put into this plan. He reminded the Council that these neighborhood plans were a coordinated effort between City staff and the neighbors themselves, and the purpose was to empower each neighborhood to come together and identify goals and guidelines that would strengthen their community. Mr. Snideman said that he enjoyed working with residents from the individual neighborhoods to get specific information on their challenges and also their strengths. Sometimes the Council would only hear from one or two individuals on a given issue, and these neighborhood plans allowed more people the opportunity to add their voice. He said the plans would not instantly solve all neighborhood problems, but it was to provide direction to the City on issues the residents in those neighborhoods cared most about. The plans would be revisited and updated every five years.

The neighborhood vision statement for the GHOPS plan was: “We are neighborhoods that value community and diversity, and we have a strong desire to promote safety, health, and education for all of our neighbors.” Ms. Abrose said these neighborhood areas were becoming increasingly diverse, with many cultures being represented, and that served to make them stronger – not divided.

Mr. Snideman said this was an interesting cross section of the City, and probably the most diverse area he had worked with so far. He said they had gone on a short bus tour of the neighborhood areas, which had been very informative for the committee in shaping their goals. He shared some of the transportation, economic, neighborhood policing, and land use goals that were identified. He pointed out one goal that he had been surprised by, that the residents suggested a slight tax increase to ensure the level of service the City provided for services like police, fire, parks, and public works.

Ms. Anderson commented that in their research on this plan they learned that the City had only three officers specifically assigned to handle neighborhood concerns and enforce zoning issues. If one considered the population of Orem, three officers were not nearly enough to give full coverage. She said residents should consider the increase to be an investment in City services, so that staff could be increased and the level of service could stay high.

Mayor Brunst asked about the kinds of code violations they saw in their neighborhoods. Ms. Anderson said that the common problems were unkempt or junky yards, illegal home businesses, and illegal accessory apartments that created traffic and parking issues. Ms. Abrose added that specific areas had specific issues, like the issues affecting the neighbors by Wiggy Wash. The sound and light pollution had caused one family to move already, which was concerning, and they did not want to lose anymore. Ms. Bauer said the Neighborhood Preservation Unit (NPU) officers were trying to do their part with their limited staff and resources.


Mr. Lentz asked about the survey they conducted. Mr. Snideman said over 5,000 Orem households in these neighborhoods were sent a link to the survey, and they received around 120 responses. He said these neighborhoods were some of the oldest in the city and that the sample probably skewed toward older residents.

Ms. Abrose said this had been an educational and eye-opening process for her. They had the chance to meet with City staff from the various departments, and heard some wonderful ideas on how to make improvements in the city; the main issue was that there was no money to fund these ideas. This was a special community, and she wanted to do her part to invest and build it up for future generations.

Mr. Snideman said that another goal they had set which surprised him was about establishing community gardens and farmers markets. Orem had no public community gardens currently – the garden on the Orem Community Hospital land was privately owned but was open to the public. Mayor Brunst said there were some property owners who had extra lots, and if the owners were willing those lots could be used for neighborhood gardens. Mr. Seastrand said there was one such garden on private property owned by Tim Stay; it had been such a success for their neighborhood that the City had offered to pay the water on the garden property so that the land owner would not have to cover those costs as well.

Mr. Snideman continued by sharing some of the neighborhood policing goals in the GHOPS plan. Some of the ideas included a rental license program to help manage properties with absentee landlords, increasing the number of staff for NPU for a greater police presence in the community, and increasing public safety staff in general. For land use the committee had outlined such goals as preserving the character of the existing neighborhoods and avoiding spot zoning, placing higher density development in appropriate areas along major roads and future transit lines, change certain requirements to create better buffering between commercial and residential land uses, and to allow for private property owners to utilize more water efficient xeriscaping techniques. In response to Mayor Brunst’s question, Mr. Snideman said these goals were all set through the committee’s discussion; all staff did was take their ideas and word them in “master plan-type language”.

Ms. Bauers echoed what Ms. Abrose had said about this being an eye-opening experience. She said she learned a lot about how a city was run, and it helped her understand better what could or could not be done.

Ms. Abrose added that the process had endeared her more to the city and to staff as well. They saw both the nitty-gritty reality of running a city, but also got to see the hopeful optimistic side of planning and accomplishing ways to improve the community.

Ms. Anderson said she hoped this plan was not something that the Council accepted, and then tucked away in a box and forgot about. She hoped they would respect the goals they had set, and would keep the neighbors involved. They had put a lot of work into the plan, and wanted to help make it successful.

Mr. Seastrand commented that these were the neighborhoods he grew up in. One of the challenges they faced as members of the City Council was trying to get a good feel of how the majority viewed an issue. He asked the committee members if they felt this plan really


represented their neighborhood’s vision for the future, and if they could take ownership of the plan. They said that they could. Ms. Anderson said they had worked well with Mr. Snideman and staff in crafting the plan, but the ideas and goals were their own. Ms. Abrose added that they had not felt influenced or pressured on anything; they felt free to share their thoughts and opinions on each topic of discussion. They also spoke with neighbors who were not on the committee to get additional input.

In response to a follow up question, Ms. Anderson said the absentee landlord program was something that was done in Salt Lake County with great results. It helped keep the properties maintained without having to strong-arm anyone.

Mayor Brunst said Orem was one of the best communities in the nation, and appreciated the efforts each neighborhood was putting into these plans.

Mr. Macdonald said he appreciated the efforts of the committee and city staff to dig a little deeper with each of the neighborhoods and bring issues to the Council’s attention that might not otherwise have been. He hoped they would continue to stay involved and be active neighborhood voices.

Mayor Brunst opened the discussion for public input.

Margaret Holmes, resident of the Orem Park neighborhood, said she had been involved with this plan as well. She had enjoyed her experience, and she wanted to comment on the goal of a slight tax increase. She quoted Benjamin Franklin, saying, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” She would add a third certainty, and that was change. It was important to plan for the future, and as far as taxes were concerned, you get what you pay for. Taxes were generally how city services were paid for, and to improve services sometimes you had to increase the budget.

There were no further public comments, so Mayor Brunst brought the discussion back to the Council.

Mr. Seastrand then moved, by resolution, to adopt the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan and amending the Orem City General Plan to include the Geneva Heights, Orem Park, & Suncrest Neighborhood Plan as Appendix M. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

RESOLUTION – Accept Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Audit

Mr. Manning and Mr. Nelson presented the City Manager’s recommendation that the City Council, by resolution, accept the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Audit as presented. They introduced James Gilbert from the firm of Gilbert & Stewart CPA, PC.

In accordance with State Law, the City is required to have a complete financial audit performed by an independent auditing firm on an annual basis.


Over the past several months, the accounting firm of Gilbert & Stewart CPA, PC has been reviewing the City’s financial records and has now completed their audit. All of the audit information is included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Representatives from Gilbert & Stewart CPA, PC will review the CAFR in their presentation to the City Council during the meeting. The City ended the fiscal year at June 30, 2017, in sound financial condition and has received an auditor’s opinion with no qualifications (a “clean” opinion).

Mr. Gilbert affirmed that Orem was given a “clean opinion” on the audit report. He said the one item they found was that the City’s General Fund balance did exceed 25 percent of the total revenue of the General Fund. He said this can be easily remedied during a budget amendment. Mr. Nelson said they were planning on that budget amendment to be on the agenda of the first City Council meeting in February 2018.

Mr. Macdonald said many board of directors had audit committees, and asked if it was common practice in a city to have the audit committee made up of the elected officials. Mr. Gilbert said some cities had audit committees that were separate, but that was not required by statute. He said large school districts, meaning over 15,000 students, were required by statute to have audit committees.

Mayor Brunst said that a small audit committee had been created with himself, Mrs. Lauret, Mr. Manning, Mr. Nelson, and representatives from Gilbert & Stewart to go through the report thoroughly and to give their recommendation. They were recommending that it be approved.

Mr. Gilbert reviewed the auditing processes for the Council. He said a booklet with three separate reports had been distributed to the Council. The booklet contained reports on (1) compliance with the laws and regulations for the federal government, (2) compliance with laws and regulations for major federal programs, and (3) compliance with the laws and regulations for the State of Utah.

Note: Mr. Macdonald stepped out of the meeting at 8:04 p.m.

Mayor Brunst said the auditing firm had done an impressive job and he thanked Mr. Gilbert for their work. Mr. Gilbert said that Orem staff had been very good to work with.

Mrs. Lauret echoed the Mayor’s thanks and said she respected the open and honest way the audit was conducted. She had appreciated that she could ask questions and they responded with a high level of professionalism. Mr. Gilbert thanked her for her comments, and said they were available to answer questions any time of the year.

Mr. Seastrand said he was always surprised and a little intrigued over the years to hear about organizations that had funds that were embezzled. He asked Mr. Gilbert’s opinion on the safeguards in place with Orem and if they were sufficient. Mr. Gilbert said the internal control systems in place would easily identify any material items that were being diverted or mismanaged. He said the unfortunate thing was that an organization this large probably had something – however small – going out the door. That was common for any organization of this size. He said that by and large, Orem was in good hands and the internal control systems in place were adequate at this time. He had no recommendations.


Note: Mr. Macdonald returned at 8:09 p.m.

Mr. Nelson quickly ran gave a high level overview of the audit report. He said the increases mentioned on the slides he was showing were in comparison to the prior year, not necessarily the budget. He said they were very conservative in the revenues they budgeted, which he asked them to keep in mind. In General Fund expenditures, there was an increase of about $1.8 million and most of that was related to salary and benefit increases. Some of the other items listed on expenditures were either increases or had been created during the prior year, so going from zero to any amount of money looked like a significant increase.

Mr. Lentz said he wanted to clarify a point made in Mr. Nelson’s presentation. With UTOPIA payments that were made, it was not reflective of a trend where things were getting more expensive for us but instead it was just paying an outstanding bill. Like Mr. Nelson had said, going from zero to any amount looked like significant increase. Mr. Lentz just wanted to make that clarification because to those who misunderstood it might look like UTOPIA was digging the city in further and further, when the reality was that they were in a much better place now than they had been previously.

Mr. Macdonald asked if the expense was accrued in previous years when it was due. Mr. Nelson said it was not. For the operating expenses (op ex) assessment, there was no requirement on the City’s part to pay that. Mayor Brunst said the City had held off paying that. Mr. Macdonald said he understood that, and the Macquarie amount should have been accrued years ago when entering into that milestone. Mr. Nelson said they should have done an estimate of that amount. Mr. Lentz said the issue was that Orem was not actually billed by the agency. Mr. Macdonald said that should not have made a difference, the amount should have been accrued. Mr. Nelson agreed and said it should have been in there, around $100,000.

Mr. Nelson said the total General Fund balance increased by $1.4 million, and the thing to keep in mind was that that included a transfer of $3.7 million of excess funds from the prior year. To meet the State legal fund balance maximum requirements the City would need to transfer $1.6 million and to meet the City’s 15 percent fund balance goal an additional $2.4 million would need to be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. Mr. Nelson said the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) now required that pension liability information be included as part of this report. This was a large number, and the City’s share of the pension liability was $14.3 million. This number was volatile and could swing wildly one way or another, either very high or unusually low. This year the Utah Retirement Systems (URS) changed the actuarial or earnings assumptions, which had a huge impact on the bottom lines for enterprise funds.

Mr. Seastrand asked if that required a transfer of funding. Mr. Nelson said it did not, and that it was balance sheet related.

Mr. Nelson concluded by sharing information regarding to the recreation fund and City debt. On the recreation side, the contribution of $402,000 covered nearly the entire shortfall in revenue. With that contribution, the Orem Fitness Center almost broke even. The contribution for the current fiscal year was a slight increase of $404,000. Mr. Nelson said the bonded debt was down $5.3, excluding the principal payoff related to the two bond refunding. Those were the 2008 Water and Storm Sewer Bonds, and the 2007 Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds. He said the


City began paying the Siemens Energy lease, and the total long-term liabilities decreased $3.3 million. That included debt, pension, workers compensation reserves, etc.

Mrs. Lauret said she was slightly concerned about the pension increase, and asked if that was expected. She also asked if that pattern might continue. Mr. Nelson said that was not something that could be known for certain, because URS did not give out that information until May or even June and it would change year to year. He said he did not anticipate another jump like they had seen, but it was difficult to guarantee.

Mr. Macdonald said the pension increase was not unique to Orem; anyone with a defined benefit plan has been understating liability for years by not including those numbers. These numbers were now made available in an effort to be more transparent and some companies were forced to make huge adjustments. The City’s adjustment was only from 7.5 percent to 7.2 percent; it could have been much worse. He said this was not a new thing but it was now a requirement to report.

Mayor Brunst said Orem and the State of Utah were lucky to be in such good shape. He was confident that the pension increase would not be as large next year.

Mayor Brunst then moved, by resolution, to accept Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Audit as presented. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

COMMUNICATION ITEMS

The Monthly Financial Summary for October 2017 was included in the packets distributed to the City Council.

CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS

Mr. Davidson informed the Council that he had received a message from Alpine School District Assistant Superintendent Rob Smith. The Alpine School District Board had been meeting concurrent with their meeting, and the Board did in fact vote to consolidate Scera Park and Hillcrest elementary schools. Mr. Davidson said his understanding was that students would be shifted to accommodate the rebuilding of Hillcrest.

Mr. Sumner said he had received communications from people, particularly those involved with the Hillcrest “group”, blaming the City Council for this action.

Mayor Brunst said that Alpine School District was a big part of the city, but they were a separate entity with their own Board of Directors and management. Orem Mayor and City Council did not make decisions on behalf of Alpine School District.

Mr. Sumner said he had tried many times to explain that very point, but without much success.


ADJOURNMENT

With nothing further on the agenda, Mayor Brunst said he would entertain a motion to adjourn.Mr. Macdonald moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m.

Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder

Approved: January 9, 2018


Documents

€¦ · Web view · 2018-01-10There was subsequent discussion about the previous year’s entertainment including the Deseret Book ... She regularly heard sirens and hoped it