City of Orem s2

CITIES OF OREM AND PROVO SPECIAL JOINT MEETING Multi Purpose Room #106 56 North State Street, Orem, Utah May 22, 2007

This meeting was for discussion purposes only. No action was taken.

CONDUCTING Orem Mayor Pro Tem Mark Seastrand

OREM ELECTED OFFICIALS Mayor Jerry Washburn; Councilmembers Margaret Black, Les Campbell, Dean Dickerson, Karen McCandless, and Shiree Thurston

PROVO ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Midge Johnson, Barbara Sandstrom, George Stewart, and Cindy Clark

OREM STAFF Rachelle Conner, Deputy City Recorder; Cami Gray Office Clerk

PROVO STAFF Terry Ann Harward, Executive Director

INVOCATION Orem Councilmember Les Campbell

Call to Order

Mayor Pro Tem Mark Seastrand called the meeting to order at 12:28 p.m.

Items of Common Interest

Water Policy Mayor Washburn addressed a common concern with a new water policy, which was set by the Supreme Court. There was legislation three or four years ago that set the doctrine of, “use it or lose it.” The Supreme Court is now enforcing it. One community in Utah has lost a considerable amount of their water. Essentially, this removes the incentives for conservation and buying water shares to plan for future growth.

Ms. Clark questioned whether the state engineer has absolute authority. Mayor Washburn replied that the state engineer does not have absolute authority when it comes to the appeal. The Supreme Court has upheld it, and that is the concern.

Mayor Washburn advised that the water department has to be careful in managing wells and all other resources. They must show there is a need for the water they have. They cannot sell their water.

Mr. Stewart clarified that shares cannot be sold unless it is on a year-to-year basis when there is some excess. This provides some flexibility, but it cannot be sold forever.

Joint Orem/Provo City Council Minutes – May 22, 2007 (p.1) Mayor Washburn indicated that, since water can be rented or leased out, there is hope that it is not viewed as water that is not needed.

Mr. Stewart explained that even if the water is not needed this year it may be needed next year, and that is why it cannot be sold permanently.

Mrs. Thurston commented that Vineyard has one of the highest amounts of water shares in the whole state. They are looking to develop, but no one knows how long it will be and how long before they are told they cannot hold the water any more.

Ms. Clark indicated that it would force faster development. Residential growth does not give back the property tax, but they take from services. If they are growing too fast it could end up causing deficits in other city services.

Mrs. Thurston said that many people planned ahead in Orem and bought the orchard water rights to help develop the city. Orem has not had any developers bring water rights; they just buy them from the City.

Mayor Washburn pointed out that if there were a drought and citizens were encouraged to conserve water, the water could potentially be lost.

Mrs. McCandless wondered whether it was five consecutive years that the water was not used, and asked if shares could be rotated. Mayor Washburn responded that it cannot be rotated.

Mr. Stewart questioned whether the water issues needed to be looked at legislatively. The Legislature passed it, and the State has upheld it, which means legislation is the problem. They should be looking for Legislative remedies. Mayor Washburn remarked that the Utah League of Cities and Towns is going to try to do that.

Mr. Stewart noted that it will not be unanimously supported. Mayor Washburn agreed and said it is a case of the “haves and the have nots.”

Mr. Stewart said he understands that an area north of Salt Lake is experiencing quick growth, and they do not have enough water.

Mayor Washburn wondered if the developing areas like Herriman, Kennecott, Saratoga Springs, and Eagle Mountain have enough water.

I-15/Transportation Mayor Washburn mentioned a presentation given by Merrill Jolly, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), which gave four alternatives for the freeway construction in the Provo/Orem Sector. UDOT committed yesterday to prioritize the collector/distributor option as the favored recommendation. The plan calls for a bridge interchange at 800 South in Orem. The plan shows a diamond intersection at Provo Center Street, although a single-point urban interchange (spui) could still receive full consideration because it is the preferred option. UDOT closed the process yesterday in order to get it to the federal government for approval and get the

Joint Orem/Provo City Council Minutes – May 22, 2007 (p.2) “clock ticking”. The plans were to get I-15 started in 2011 or 2012, and now they are considering starting in 2009.

Mrs. Sandstrom explained that Provo’s problem is traffic would probably be rerouted to Geneva Road which would be inadequate at this time. Mayor Washburn noted that they are really trying to accelerate Geneva Road and have that as an alternative. Utah Transit Authority (UTA) was talking about commuter rail coming sooner. They need to let the legislators from Utah County, Becky Lockhart, John Valentine, and John Dew, know of their support for “Alternative A.”

Ms. Clark pointed out that the neighbors who live a block and a half from the train station in Provo have worked for over ten years on multimodal plans. The cities need to do anything they can to help push the message to UTA and UDOT about the commuter rail and multimodal center. They have done two major studies and paid thousands of dollars. Many of the property owners feel this is something for the overall good.

Mayor Washburn expressed that there is a push to move the multimodal plans to the south, which he fully supports; however, they need to make sure that Provo gets an intermodal center.

Traffic Signals/Construction Ms. Clark noted that Provo City has changed their signals to have lagging lefts, even on UDOT roads. She advised it might confuse people that drive in both Orem and Provo, because Orem does not use the lagging left system. She expressed the need for more traffic consistency.

Mrs. McCandless advised that the lights on State Street use the lagging lefts unless there is construction.

Mayor Washburn explained that the lagging lefts are not consistent. There are lagging lefts and first lefts spread throughout the city. The engineers are trying to manage the traffic and deciding what they want to do with the signals. Mayor Washburn remarked that they would have staff look at it.

Mrs. Thurston explained that with construction on 800 North there have been no left turns in any direction. Traffic has been monitored from the traffic center in order to keep things moving, especially at the peak construction areas. Mrs. Thurston pointed out that it will be a long time before they are done with 800 North.

Mr. Stewart questioned what they are doing with 800 North. Mayor Washburn responded that the road will no longer be straight. It will be deeper and swing toward the south.

Traffic Issues Ms. Clark mentioned traffic issues on 800 south, Main Street, and Orem Boulevard. On Orem Blvd. it is hard to make a right turn because the bend in the road makes it hard to see oncoming cars. There is no light at the 800 South and the Main Street intersection, and there should be.

Mayor Washburn responded that putting a light there is a number one priority in the next budget year.

Joint Orem/Provo City Council Minutes – May 22, 2007 (p.3) Mrs. McCandless reviewed a problem with 200 West and University in Provo. The asphalt is too high and riding a bike on the college connector trail can be dangerous.

Mapleton City Mrs. Sandstrom asked if Mrs. McCandless was working for Mapleton City.

Mrs. McCandless advised that she is the planning director and has a staff of four. Even though the cities are different, they have similar problems that manifest themselves in different ways.

Ms. Clark questioned whether the form of government affects it. Mrs. McCandless responded that their form of government is five Councilmembers and a Mayor that chairs the meetings. The Mayor does not vote unless there is a tie.

Helicopter Pads Mrs. Sandstrom asked what happened to the helipad situation and whether the City Council set limits. She also questioned how the residents feel about it.

Mayor Washburn replied that they are allowed to land here and they do. There are limits, and they never hit the maximum limit. The residents appear to be alright with it.

Definition of a Family Mrs. Thurston inquired about Provo’s definition of a family.

Mr. Stewart stated he thought they had defined it; however, some of the original supporters came out against it. After months of discussion it was just let go. Mr. Stewart stated that there is a big problem with the family ordinance, but they could not come to a consensus.

Mayor Washburn clarified that the reason they are trying to define it is to limit the number of renters in a home to no more then three unrelated people.

Ms. Clark mentioned they had several people quote Jeffery Ernest, Planning Commission chair, by saying that property owner’s break even with three unrelated people living together, and they make a profit with four. Some neighborhoods asked whether the Council could reduce the definition of unrelated people to two in R-1 zones; however, it did not help. It did not affect the apartment structures, because they were built in a higher density zone. They are still fighting the fact that it is an economic incentive in Provo to rent the homes verses staying in them. People are renting their homes for $250 per renter. Thirteen neighborhoods came to the Council and asked for two unrelated, blood marriage, or some other legal relationship to be the definition of a family. In some neighborhoods it is three, and most of the river bottoms did not apply because of accessory apartments. There is a zoning problem in the University Gardens neighborhood because the homes are close enough to the law school that they are being rented to five or six students. With the new justice court, they should finally be able to enforce it and have the individuals prosecuted. The breaking down of confidence is causing more people to move.

**Mr. Dickerson left the meeting at 1:04 p.m. Justice Court Mayor Washburn inquired about the new Provo Justice Court. Mrs. Sandstrom said it is scheduled to open the first of July.

Joint Orem/Provo City Council Minutes – May 22, 2007 (p.4) Ms. Clark stated the main reason for the Justice Court is for zoning enforcement because of the difficulty in getting a hearing in Fourth District Court.

Mr. Campbell asked how they legally separate the cases. Mr. Stewart responded they will hear misdemeanor cases only.

Mrs. McCandless questioned whether all the revenue goes to the State or if some stays with the City and whether it would be a revenue generator. Mrs. Clark responded that it will not be a generator, but will prevent money loss.

Mr. Campbell questioned the total estimated cost. Mr. Stewart replied that it is only being started, but it will be revenue neutral, because the City can collect all the fines rather than just a portion of it. But more importantly, it will bring enforcement on the kind of cases the city feels are important.

Ms. Clark stated that they tried a hearing administrator; however, they can still appeal and draw out process. It is a cost to the tax payers for cases to go to District Court, where city loses because code enforcement issues do not carry the same level of urgency as other issues handled by the District Court. Provo City thought it was the most efficient way to help tax payers.

Mrs. Sandstrom stated that it is going to be in the remodeled Wells Fargo building on west center; however, this will not be the permanent location.

Mayor Washburn inquired about the staffing they would have.

Mrs. Sandstrom advised that their new Justice Court Administrator is from Provo City’s law department. His name is Rick Romney. They opened it up for different people to come in and apply and he was selected. They also have police officers assigned to it.

Mr. Stewart stated that most of the security will be off-duty police officers from Orem.

**Mrs. Clark left the meeting at 1:12 p.m.

Mrs. Sandstrom stated that they just made Orem Police Captain, Bob Conner, a constable.

Mrs. Conner explained that Mr. Conner has started an off-duty security company, and it is not just Orem police officers that will be working there.

Mr. Stewart indicated they did not want Provo police officers there who might have been involved in an arrest.

When Mrs. Thurston asked whether it would expedite cases, Mr. Stewart said that it is the main reason they are doing it, and Justice Courts pay for themselves. Police Staffing Mrs. Sandstrom questioned whether the Orem City Police were fully staffed. Mayor Washburn responded that they are. There are ninety police officers and forty-five fire fighters.

Joint Orem/Provo City Council Minutes – May 22, 2007 (p.5) Mr. Stewart indicated that they have ninety-eight authorized police officers right now, and they will have one hundred. This is only sworn officers. Provo is really struggling with officers leaving and not having a full staff.

Mrs. Sandstom mentioned their fire chief, Coy Porter, will be retiring in June.

Mr. Stewart remarked that Provo’s golf course this year will require three hundred thousand dollars.

Catholic Church Mr. Campbell inquired about the historic Catholic Church and whether the intent is to destroy the building. He asked if a demolition permit had been issued yet.

Mr. Stewart advised the historical designation was removed, and Mrs. Harward stated that a permit was issued that afternoon, and the Catholic Church had picked it up. She indicated that there are a number of groups that have been negotiating with the developers who have the option to purchase it.

Mr. Stewart asked whether the demolition permit gives them permission to destroy it, or if they have to wait until they take care of the asbestos issues. Mrs. Harward replied that they had to have the asbestos issues taken care of before the city would issue the permit.

Mr. Stewart then said it looks like the building is going to come down if a demolition permit has already been issued. That just makes the land more valuable to those that do not want to preserve it.

**Mrs. McCandless left the meeting at 1:24 p.m.

Set Date and Time for Next Meeting

The next Orem/Provo joint study session was scheduled for August 28, 2007, at noon in Provo.

The Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder Approved: June 12, 2007

Joint Orem/Provo City Council Minutes – May 22, 2007 (p.6)