CITY OF OREM CITY COUNCIL MEETING 56 North State Street, Orem, Utah September 11, 2018
This meeting may be held electronically to allow a Councilmember to participate.
4:30 P.M. WORK SESSION - CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
PRESENTATION - North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District (30 min) Presenter: Brenn Bybee and Rodger Harper
DISCUSSION - SCERA Shell Study (15 min) Presenter: Steven Downs
5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION - CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
1. PREVIEW UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Staff will present to the City Council a preview of upcoming agenda items.
2. AGENDA REVIEW The City Council will review the items on the agenda.
3. CITY COUNCIL - NEW BUSINESS This is an opportunity for members of the City Council to raise issues of information or concern.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4. CALL TO ORDER
5. INVOCATION/INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT: BY INVITATION
6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: BY INVITATION
7. PATRIOT DAY OBSERVANCE
7.1. PATRIOT DAY 2018 - In remembrance of 9/11 To honor those whose lives were lost or changed forever in the attacks on September 11, 2001, we will observe a moment of silence. Please stand and join us.
1 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1. MINUTES - August 14, 2018 City Council Meeting MINUTES - August 28, 2018 City Council Meeting For review and approval 2018-08-14.ccmin DRAFT.docx 2018-08-28.ccmin DRAFT.docx
9. MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
9.1. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Beautification Advisory Commission - Elaine Parker Senior Advisory Commission - Ernst Hlawatschek Applications for vacancies on boards and commissions for review and appointment Elaine Parker_BAC.pdf Ernst Hlawatschek_SrAC.pdf
10. PERSONAL APPEARANCES – 15 MINUTES Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not scheduled as public hearings on the Agenda. Those wishing to speak are encouraged to show respect for those who serve the city. Comments should focus on issues concerning the city. Those wishing to speak should have signed in before the beginning of the meeting. (Please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less.)
11. SCHEDULED ITEMS
11.1. RESOLUTION - Authorizing the execution of an amended Interlocal Cooperative Agreement by and between the Board of Education, Alpine School District and the City of Orem providing for School Resource Officers in certain Alpine District Schools Staff recommends that the updated Interlocal Agreement - a revision of the Interlocal Agreement for SROs with Alpine School District adding one additional SRO to the Junior High Schools - be approved.
Presenter:Chief Gary Giles RES--SRO Interlocal Agreement_September 2018.docx
12. COMMUNICATION ITEMS
12.1. MONTHLY FINANCIAL SUMMARY For Review Monthly Financial Summary - July 2018.pdf
13. CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS This is an opportunity for the City Manager to provide information to the City Council. These items are for information and do not require action by the City Council. 2 2 14. ADJOURN
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. If you need a special accommodation to participate in the City Council Meetings and Study Sessions, please call the City Recorder's Office at least 3 working days prior to the meeting. (Voice 801-229-7000)
This agenda is also available on the City's webpage at orem.org
3 3 DRAFT 1 CITY OF OREM 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3 56 North State Street Orem, Utah 4 August 14, 2018 5 6 3:00 P.M. WORK SESSION – CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 7 8 CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst 9 10 ELECTED OFFICIALS Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark 11 Seastrand, and Brent Sumner 12 13 APPOINTED STAFF Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steven Downs, 14 Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; 15 Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Richard 16 Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, 17 Development Services Director; Scott Gurney, Fire 18 Department Director; Ned Jackson, Police Captain; 19 Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Jason Bench, Planning 20 Division Manager; Kirby Snideman, Long Range Planner; 21 D. Jacob Summers, City Prosecutor, Jonathan Ditto, 22 Assistant City Attorney; Kena Mathews, CDBG/CNS 23 Programming; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder 24 25 EXCUSED Councilman David Spencer, City Manager Jamie Davidson 26 27 28 Note: Due to technical difficulties, the video was streamed without audio. Apologies for any 29 inconvenience this may cause. 30 31 INTRODUCTION – Parking Study Discussion 32 Mr. Snideman began by asking the City Council what they often heard from residents about their 33 areas of concern, with answers ranging from housing and other density concerns to parking and 34 traffic concerns. Along with consultants David Proffitt, Diego Carroll, and Reid Ewing from 35 Monument Engineers and the Metropolitan Research Center, Mr. Snideman discussed the 36 purpose of the parking study and next steps moving forward. 37 38 OREM PARKING STUDY 39 Introductions 40 o Little remaining undeveloped land 41 o Future growth through redevelopment 42 o In the past, major projects used PD Zone (parking was a negotiation) 43 o PD Zones no longer allowed in residential areas 44 o With the Districts, we need solid standards 45 o Protect existing development and neighborhoods when redevelopment occurs 46 o Partnered with the best in the industry: 4 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.1) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 . Reid Ewing – Metropolitan Research Center 2 . Diego Carroll – Monument Engineers 3 Study Methodology 4 o Accurate information about the “fit” between the amount of parking needed and 5 the amount of parking provided at different land use types will help set evidence- 6 based parking requirements for new development and avoid case by case 7 negotiation. 8 o Methodology Overview 9 . Identify Orem City Parking Requirements/Land Use categories to be 10 updated 11 . Develop/execute data collection plan (build on MRC experience, 12 including Station Park and East Village) 13 . Analyze data and make recommendations 14 Orem’s Current Parking Standards 15 o Parking requirements vary widely, even for same land use 16 o 60+ different codes – including 25 planned development zones – govern parking- 17 space provision in commercial, office, and high-density residential zones (chart) 18 Data Collection Methodology 19 o County people and vehicles entering/leaving all 10 sites 20 o Track parking stall occupancy over entire day 21 o Ask individuals mode and reason for trip (map) 22 o Count Day 23 . Approximately 40 planning students from U of U will conduct 24 . Counters 25 . Surveyors 26 o Example #1 – Parkway Lofts (student housing) 27 . 2 main entrances + 1 pedestrian entrance adjacent to FrontRunner station 28 . 4 students at site: 29 2 counters 30 2 surveyors 31 o Example #2 – University Crossing (commercial) 32 . 8 entrances 33 . 11 students 34 8 counters 35 3 surveyors 36 Conclusions 37 o The result of this study will provide empirical evidence of the “fit” between 38 parking supply and demand for key land uses in Orem. This information will 39 allow the city to set evidence-based parking requirements for new development 40 Next Steps 41 o Complete parking count and surveys (September/October 2018) 42 o Complete analysis and report to recommend parking standards for major land- 43 uses (multi-family focus) 44 o Work with City staff to recommend amendments to parking ordinance (parking 45 rates; shared parking) and enforcement strategies 46 o Present recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council 47 (November/December 2018) 5
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.2) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 2 Mr. Snideman said this was a complicated problem, and they were doing the best work they 3 could for the area. The hope was to eliminate the need for case by case approach to determining 4 parking requirements, but to use the Parking Study as the guideline for set parking standards. 5 6 Mr. Proffitt said they would compare codes and data to cities along the Wasatch Front, as well as 7 national data from comparable projects. Mayor Brunst suggested that they study the area near the 8 Promenade Apartments on Geneva Road, as that was a point of friction and should be included. 9 10 Mr. Lentz asked about retroactively renegotiating parking for existing projects. Mr. Snideman 11 said they would not go back, but would set the standard going forward which would help save 12 the time of renegotiating every project. Mr. Bench assured the City Council that the plan would 13 be updated periodically to make sure that it was suiting the needs of the city. 14 15 Mr. Snideman added that this would be particularly useful because it was tailor-made to Orem 16 with Orem-specific data. In response to Mr. Seastrand’s question, Mr. Snideman said that this 17 may be a good tool for other communities of a similar size and density. 18 19 In response to Council questions regarding the inclusion of transit option in the Parking Study, 20 Mr. Carroll said the utilization of transportation options like the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and 21 FrontRunner would likely indicate a load reduction. Mr. Ewing added that they had looked at 22 developments next to transit stations around the country, and found that the parking demand was 23 about half the suburban average. 24 25 26 DISCUSSION – General Plan Update 27 Mr. Snideman said this discussion had two parts they would address, including housing in Utah. 28 He introduced Brynn Mortensen, Public Policy and Special Projects for Salt Lake Chamber, and 29 said she would be addressing the issues of housing and land use. Mr. Snideman said that as new 30 projects in Orem were approved and added to the General Plan, they were entered in the order in 31 which they had been approved. They planned to rearrange the chapters – which would stay the 32 same – to make the General Plan easier to search, and keep similar projects in the same area of 33 the plan and appendices. 34 35 OREM GENERAL PLAN – Orem Planning Division 36 Introduction 37 o What is a General Plan? 38 . A general plan is a comprehensive long-term plan for the physical 39 development of the city. In a way, it is a “blueprint” for future 40 development of the city. 41 o General Plan governed by Utah State Code (10-9a-4) 42 . Must include at least: 43 Land Use Plan 44 Transportation Plan 45 Moderate Income Housing Plan 46 2011 General Plan included: 6 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.3) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 o Chapter 1: Introduction 2 o Chapter 2: Land Use 3 o Chapter 3: Transportation 4 o Chapter 4: Housing 5 o Chapter 5: Urban Design 6 o Chapter 6: Economics 7 o Chapter 7: Parks & Recreation 8 o Chapter 8: Public Services & Facilities 9 o Appendix: (12 items) 10 Complete since 2011: 11 o State Street Corridor Master Plan 2014 12 o Economic Development Strategic Plan 2015 13 o Transportation Master Plan 2016 14 o Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space Plan 2017 15 o Street Connection Master Plan 2017 16 o Neighborhood Plans: 17 . Canyon View, Orchard, and Cascade 2015 18 . Orem North and Sharon Park 2017 19 . Northridge, Heatheridge, and Windsor 2017 20 . Aspen and Timpview 2017 21 . Geneva Heights, Orem Park, and Suncrest 2018 22 2018 General Plan 23 o Chapter 1: Introduction 24 o Chapter 2: Land Use 25 o Chapter 3: Urban Design 26 o Chapter 4: Housing 27 o Chapter 5: Economics 28 o Chapter 6: Transportation 29 o Chapter 7: Parks & Recreation 30 o Chapter 8: Public Services & Facilities 31 o Appendix: (14 items) 32 Major Changes 33 o Update with plans completed since 2011 34 . Thousands of residents have participated in these plans 35 o New Land Use Map 36 . State Street Mixed Use Districts 37 Allow for strategic growth 38 o New Moderate-Income Housing Plan 39 . Required by State of Utah to be updated every 2 years 40 . (This plan meets Utah State deadline of December 2018) 41 New Land Use Map 42 o Mixed Use Districts: 43 . Accommodate the State Street District Zones 44 . Allow for strategic growth in the City as outlined in the adopted State 45 Street Master Corridor Master Plan (map) 46 New Moderate-Income Housing Plan 47 o Required by State code 7
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.4) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 o Outlines the existing conditions in Orem 2 o Presents options and strategies that the City Council can explore in the coming 3 years 4 HOUSING GAP COALITION 5 Landmark Study – “What Rapidly Rising Prices Mean for Housing Affordability” 6 o First of its kind, getting ahead of the looming housing crisis 7 Utah Housing Unit vs. Utah Household Growth (graph) 8 o Priced Out 9 . Uncheck Housing Prices – by 2044, Utah Housing prices could be 10 equivalent to today’s San Francisco prices 11 . More than $700,000 in the next 26 years 12 What’s Driving up housing costs: 13 o Housing shortage 14 o Construction & labor costs 15 o Local zoning ordinances & Nimbyism 16 o Land Costs & Topography of Wasatch Front Counties 17 o Demographic & Economic Growth 18 What now? 19 o Possible Solutions 20 . Transportation and Land Use Connection (TLC) & regional councils 21 . Local Housing Authorities 22 . Keys to Success program for construction and labor “Build to Success” 23 . Awareness campaign 24 Next Steps 25 o Call to Action and Discussion 26 . General Plan Overview 27 Moderate Income Housing Plan 28 . Zoning Overview 29 o For more information or to become involved 30 . For more information or to read the full report, visit 31 SLChamber.com/HousingGapCoalition 32 . Follow us on Twitter @UtahHousingGap 33 . For sponsorship or membership information, contact Brynn Mortensen at 34 [email protected] 35 36 Mr. Snideman said current data showed a 95% occupancy rate for multi-family housing. Ms. 37 Mortensen said data showed that between the years of 2011 and 2017, the number of households 38 actually exceeding the number of housing units available. Utah currently had the 4th highest 39 home prices increase in the nation; a home purchased in 1991 for $125,000 would now cost 40 $347,000. Ms. Mortensen reviewed the factors in the rising costs. 41 42 Lynelle Smith, Director of the Housing Authority of Utah County, responded to a question about 43 what defined affordable housing. She said the Department of Housing and Urban Development 44 (HUD) guideline was that housing costs should not exceed 30% of the household income. She 45 said that was becoming more and more of an issue as housing costs continued to rise. The week
8 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.5) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 of August 20 through 25 was Affordable Housing Week, and said they currently assisted over 2 400 Orem families with subsidies for housing. 3 4 There was continued discussion about housing requirements from State legislation, economic 5 growth in Utah and nationwide, actual costs versus types of housing and owning versus renting, 6 and continued public outreach with the awareness campaign. Council suggestions for the study 7 included: 8 Actual costs vs Types of Housing & Renting vs Owning 9 Regional growth in overlapping communities like Provo and Vineyard 10 Infrastructure and impact fees 11 Conservation of natural resources 12 Creative solutions 13 14 Mr. Snideman said they intended to bring the updated General Plan to the City Council for 15 formal adoption at a future meeting. 16 17 18 PRESENTATION – United Way Utah County Community Assessment 19 Mr. Bybee turned time over to Utah County United Way Director Bill Hulterstrom to share 20 information related to growth and housing from the 2018 Utah County Community Assessment. 21 22 Mr. Hulterstrom reviewed the Utah County Community Assessment report. He said that Utah 23 County was the 2nd largest county in the state, representing approximately 26% of Utah’s 24 population growth from 2010 to 2016. There was a misperception that this growth was from “out 25 of town” people, when the data showed that it was internal growth, i.e. kids and grandkids, etc. 26 Most of the growth in the job market was also linked to that same internal growth. Population 27 growth was outpacing housing, and the bigger that gap was between the supply and the demand, 28 the less sustainable the economy would be. 29 30 Mr. Hulterstrom said different ages and family dynamics had different housing needs and 31 desires. Utah County was the youngest county of its size in America, with the median age in 32 Orem being 25.9 years old (Utah County average was 24.4 years old). Student populations and 33 young families skewed some of the age statistics but 48% of the adult population in Utah was 34 between 18-34 years old, and in Utah County 55% of the adult population was 25-44 years old. 35 Shortages in affordable housing could lead to an exodus of young, single professionals in a city, 36 and that was a demographic cities should want to maintain to help keep a robust economy. Older 37 residents tended to be more organized about speaking to their issues than younger residents were, 38 so those concerns were not always heard and addressed. 39 40 Mr. Hulterstrom shared information regarding education, income, and health. He said Utah 41 County was the 7th most educated county in the country, with nearly 8 out of 10 adults having at 42 least some college education. Alcohol use and abuse, domestic violence, and depression and 43 anxiety were all on the rise. Depression among youth was also increasing, and last year 1 in 8 44 youth in Utah County had made a plan about how to attempt suicide. He said social media and 45 cell phone use may have been potential factors, but generally the youth was not feeling safe, 46 connected, or confident. Alpine School District was working with educators, students, parents, 9
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.6) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 and community leaders to try and address this serious issue. Mr. Hulterstrom concluded that 2 these were all important areas of discussion for the future planning and growth in Utah County. 3 4 5 DISCUSSION – Proposed Nuisance Ordinance Amendment 6 Mr. Stephens introduced city attorneys Mr. Summer and Mr. Ditto to discuss options for dealing 7 with nuisance violations. Mr. Summers reviewed current processes, providing steps and 8 estimated timelines for each option as well as sharing concerns with how things were processed 9 currently. 10 11 NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION 12 Easy Way or the Hard Way 13 o Options for dealing with Nuisance Violations 14 . Criminal Justice System: prosecution of Nuisance in the Criminal Justice 15 System (Orem Code 11-1-10(D)) 16 . Civil Litigation 17 . Administrative Citation Process 18 The Life of a Criminal Case 19 o Officer Interaction > Citation, Arrest, Referral > Screening Review by 20 Prosecution > Filing of formal charges > Arraignment > Pre-Trial 21 Conferences/Plea Negotiations > Trail > Appeal 22 Criminal Prosecution 23 o Nuisance Timeline 24 . May 1: Neighbors call OPD to complain of accumulations of debris 25 . May 2: NPU Officer makes contact with complainant and homeowner 26 . May 16: NPU Officer follows up with homeowner 27 . May 30: NPU Officer follows up with homeowner 28 . June 1: NPU Officer cites homeowner for Nuisance 29 . June 25: Homeowner appears in the Orem Justice Court (OJC) for an 30 Arraignment 31 . July 18: Homeowner appears in the OJC for a Pre-Trial Conference (PTC) 32 . August 15: Homeowner appears in the OJC for follow up PTC 33 . Trial scheduled for October 8 34 . Judicial Order to clean up property – 60 days – December 35 o Total Time Elapsed 36 . 7 months to get Judicial Order 37 . Enforcement – still may not get compliance effectively after Judicial 38 Order 39 Injunctive Relief 40 o Timeline 41 . January 2018: Filed Case 42 . February 2018: Notice of Opposing Counsel filed 43 . March 2018: Answer to complaint 44 . May 2018: Request for PTC 45 . June 2018: Objection to request for PTC 46 . October 2018: Substitution of Counsel 10 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.7) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 . November 2018: Attorney Planning Meeting Report and Case 2 Management Order 3 . February 2019: Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatories and Requests for 4 Production of Documents 5 . February 2019: Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Criminal 6 Convictions and Motion for Summary Judgement 7 . March 2019: Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to Take 8 Judicial Notice of Criminal Convictions and Motion for Summary 9 Judgement 10 . March 2019: Defendants’ Motion in Support of Defendant’s Motion for 11 Summary Judgement 12 . March 2019: Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendants’ Motion to Strike and 13 Memorandum In Support Thereof 14 . July 2019: Notice to Submit for Decision on Motion for Summary 15 Judgement 16 . August 2019: Order regarding Motion for Summary Judgement 17 . December 2019: Order for Forced Abatement 18 o Total Time Elapsed 19 . 1 year 11 months to get Judicial Order 20 Concerns with Current Ordinance 21 o Due Process 22 . No independent arbiter 23 . Unclear what the City can charge violators 24 . No financial cap on fines 25 o Voluntary Agreement Requirement 26 . Currently, a Neighborhood Preservation Unit Officer must first attempt to 27 get the violator to voluntarily correct the violation 28 Summary of New Nuisance Ordinance 29 o Enforcement official will use one or more of the following: 30 . Voluntary Correction Agreement 31 . Administrative Citation 32 . Notice of Violation and Summons to appear at an Administrative Hearing 33 The violator can avoid having to appear at an administrative 34 hearing if he/she corrects the violation before the set deadline 35 If the violator does not appear, the Administrative Law Judge will 36 enter an order against the violator, the City can abate the nuisance 37 and pass along cost to the violator 38 o Creation of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) position 39 Voluntary Correction Agreement 40 o Timeline 41 . May 1: Neighbors call OPD to complain of accumulations of debris 42 . May 2: NPU Officer makes contact with complainant and homeowner 43 NPU Officer attempts to have responsible party enter into 44 voluntary correction agreement 45 Responsible Party agrees to voluntary correction agreement 46 NPU Officer sets compliance date 47 . June 1: Officer returns to property and completes compliance inspections 11
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.8) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 If property was not in compliance, Voluntary Correction 2 Agreement becomes an Administrative Order and the City may 3 abate the nuisance 4 o Total Time Elapsed 5 . Roughly 1 month, but will depend on the parties and the officer’s 6 discretion 7 Administrative Citation Process 8 o Timeline 9 . May 1: Neighbors call OPD to complain of accumulations of debris 10 . May 2: NPU Officer makes contact with complainant and homeowner 11 NPU Officer attempts to have responsible party enter into 12 voluntary correction agreement 13 Responsible Party refuses to voluntary correction agreement 14 NPU Officer issues an Administrative Citation 15 . May 12: Deadline to file request for Administrative Hearing 16 . June 2: Administrative Hearing 17 . June 12: Administrative Order 18 o Total Time Elapsed 19 . Roughly 2 months until Administrative Order issued 20 Notice of Violation 21 o Timeline 22 . May 1: Neighbors call OPD to complain of accumulations of debris 23 . May 2: NPU Officer attempts to make contact with complainant and 24 homeowner 25 NPU Officer unable to make contact with responsibly party 26 Notice of Violation and Summons served by mail 27 Notice of Violation contains specific date for Administrative 28 Hearing and specific date to bring property into compliance 29 . June 1: Compliance due date set in Notice of Violation 30 Property remains in violation 31 . June 11: Administrative Hearing 32 . June 21: Administrative Order 33 o Total Time Elapsed 34 . Roughly 2 months until Administrative Order issued 35 Benefits of the Recommended Amendments 36 o More options for those enforcing the nuisance ordinance 37 o Violations can be resolved more quickly 38 o Efficiency – the City will be able to address more violations 39 o Alleged violators will have due process protections 40 Policy Considerations for the Council 41 o Fined/Recoupment of abatement costs/Administrative Costs? 42 . Fines – Recommend the Council adopt a civil fine. The fine amount could 43 be drafted into the ordinance language, $100/violation/day. 44 . Recoupment of abatement costs – Recommend the Council adopt the 45 mechanism to recover costs expended by the City to abate. 12 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.9) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 . Administrative Fees – While other cities impose an administrative fee, the 2 recommendation is not to adopt an Administrative Fee. 3 o The draft language in the ordinance would withhold business licenses, permits for 4 new structures, etc., until the violations are corrected. 5 . Recommend the Council adopt this provision. While it may be a 6 controversial provision, it will aid in the enforcement of administrative 7 orders and encourage compliance with the ordinance. 8 9 There was continued discussion on the proposed ordinance amendment. Options and tools 10 available to NPU officers were discussed. Concerns and comments voiced by the City Council 11 included timelines and weather, the water rate changes affecting dead or weed-filled yards, and 12 violators’ being out of state landowners, having mental health issues, or general indifference to 13 the process and the problem persisting. 14 15 OPD Capt. Jackson introduced Sgt. Paraskeva who was taking over NPU. Sgt. Paraskeva said he 16 had not seen a direct correlation to the water rate changes and more open NPU cases, but said 17 they currently had approximately 100 active cases for dead yards and weeds. He added that 18 Orem had mental health resources to help in those instances. 19 20 Mr. Macdonald said he had concerns about setting a cap that may continue the cycle of 21 indifference. Mr. Ditto said the cap was intended to keep the fine at a reasonable amount, and to 22 avoid the appearance that the City was trying to control personal property. He said they 23 suggested the cap be set to $1,000, which many cities used as their cap. 24 25 Mr. Stephens said there was still the abatement process, which would help encourage violators to 26 fix the problem. Mr. Summers said the City had never forcefully abated before, though it was a 27 potential option. If the City did a forceful abatement, they could place a lien on the property to 28 recoup some of the costs for the abatement as well as the $1,000 fine. Sgt. Paraskeva added that 29 Provo City had changed their process to use voluntary agreements with violators and 90% of the 30 issues were resolved without having to go beyond that initial step. 31 32 Mr. Summers said the hope was to find the balance between correctional fines and punitive fines. 33 They wanted to find faster and more reasonable solutions to these issues, and give NPU officers 34 more flexibility in working with violators. 35 36 37 DISCUSSION – Summerfest 2018 Recap and 2019 Planning 38 Mr. Downs shared a video recapping the Summerfest 2018 festivities, and thanked all the 39 volunteers who gave countless hours to making Summerfest a success year after year. He 40 reminded the City Council that next year would be the Orem Centennial Celebration, and they 41 had already secured Governor Gary Herbert to serve as the Grand Marshall of Summerfest 2019. 42 They felt this was fitting as Gov. Herbert was an Orem resident and would be serving his last 43 year as Utah’s governor. 44 45 Mr. Downs said there were a few details for Summerfest 2019 the planning committee wanted to 46 discuss with the City Council to make sure they were on the right track for the city’s 100th year. 47 He said that they wanted to make sure that the celebrations were better, not necessarily bigger. 13
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.10) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 The geographic expansion of Summerfest had, in some ways, come at the cost of some of the 2 quality, and they wanted to refocus that. In recent years the festivities had been split between the 3 City Center Park and the Scera Park, which had presented some challenges. He said they wanted 4 to take some of the good things at Scera Park back to the City Center and expand there, utilizing 5 additional space including the Senior Friendship Center. 6 7 City Council feedback and ideas regarding Summerfest 2019: 8 Make Thursday more family-friendly by offering activities and entertainment for kids 9 earlier in the day, and allow for early carnival ticket sales for Family Night 10 Change the location of the Baby Contest to the Senior Friendship Center, and stagger age 11 categories to avoid overcrowding 12 Maintaining the Car Show at the Scera Park, but returning the majority of activities to the 13 City Center Park 14 15 Mr. Downs said there had been discussion with Adam Robertson of the SCERA to hold a concert 16 with a bigger-named entertainer Memorial Day weekend as a kick-off to Summerfest. He said 17 they would continue to plan and get specifics worked out as the year progressed. 18 19 Shawn Lalliss, Chair of the Summerfest 2019 Committee, briefly discussed the possibility of 20 eliminating politically-driven parade entries. There was continued discussion on the merits and 21 obstacles to removing political parade entries, and Summerfest 2019 in general. 22 23 24 5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION – CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 25 26 CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst 27 28 ELECTED OFFICIALS Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark 29 Seastrand, and Brent Sumner 30 31 APPOINTED STAFF Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steven Downs, 32 Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; 33 Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Richard 34 Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, 35 Development Services Director; Scott Gurney, Fire 36 Department Director; Ned Jackson, Police Captain; 37 Charlene Crosier, Library Director; Jason Bench, Planning 38 Division Manager; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Paul 39 Goodrich, Transportation Engineer; Ryan Clark, Economic 40 Development Director; Christian Kirkham, Long Range 41 Planner; Kirby Snideman, City Planner; D. Jacob Summers, 42 City Prosecutor, Jonathan Ditto, Assistant City Attorney; 43 and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder 44 45 EXCUSED Councilman David Spencer, City Manager Jamie Davidson 46 14 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.11) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 2 Note: Due to technical difficulties, the video was streamed without audio. Apologies for any 3 inconvenience this may cause. 4 5 Preview Upcoming Agenda Items 6 Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items. 7 8 Agenda Review 9 The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda. 10 11 City Council New Business 12 The City Council discussed any new business. 13 14 The City Council then adjourned at 5:54 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for their regular 15 meeting. 16
15
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.12) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2 3 CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst 4 5 ELECTED OFFICIALS Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark 6 Seastrand, David Spencer* and Brent Sumner 7 (*participated electronically) 8 9 APPOINTED STAFF Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steven Downs, 10 Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; 11 Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Richard 12 Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, 13 Development Services Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Chief; 14 Ned Jackson, Police Captain; Charlene Crozier, Library 15 Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works 16 Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench, 17 Planning Division Manager; Pete Wolfley, 18 Communications Specialist; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy 19 City Recorder 20 21 EXCUSED City Manager Jamie Davidson 22 23 24 Note: Due to technical difficulties, the audio was streamed without video on orem.org. The video 25 with audio is available in segments on the City’s YouTube channel. Apologies for any 26 inconvenience this may cause. 27 28 29 INVOCATION / 30 INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Lisa Baldwin 31 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Shawn Lalliss 32 33 34 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 35 36 Mr. Lentz moved to approve the July 17, 2018, City Council Meeting minutes. Mr. Macdonald 37 seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom 38 Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed. 39 40 41 MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL 42 43 Upcoming Events 44 Mayor Brunst reviewed the upcoming events, as listed in the agenda packet. 45 46 Appointments to Boards and Commissions 16 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.13) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 Mayor Brunst moved to reappoint Sheralyn Bennett and Tanya Harmon to the Beautification 2 Advisory Commission, and to appoint Devin Rich to the Public Works Advisory Commission. 3 Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam 4 Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed. 5 6 Presentation – Miss Orem 2017 7 Miss Orem 2017 Amanda Flinders thanked the City Council for their support and words of 8 encouragement during her time as the reigning Miss Orem. Her interest in her city and 9 community had been sparked, and she was grateful for the opportunities she had to work 10 alongside the Council, and to learn and serve. Ms. Flinders shook hands with the Mayor and 11 Council. 12 13 14 PERSONAL APPEARANCES 15 16 Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not 17 scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior 18 to the meeting, and comments were limited to three minutes or less. 19 20 Jana Bauer indicated that she intended to speak about the proposed rezone on 1200 West. Mayor 21 Brunst suggested that she wait to speak until the public hearing for that scheduled item. 22 23 A resident who failed to identify himself spoke about building out the City’s fiber network. He 24 said he had a home-based business that depended on the internet, and speed was a crucial factor 25 in his success. He referred to a survey conducted some months previous regarding the public’s 26 favorability on building out the fiber network, and said it had generated similarly positive 27 responses to the one conducted regarding the Fitness Center and the Library Hall. He wished the 28 City Council would reconsider including options for the fiber buildout on the ballot. 29 30 Russ Bird said he represented a group of citizens that supported including a vote on bond options 31 for the Fitness Center and the Library Hall. He recalled his time as a student living in Orem and 32 using the Fitness Center regularly, and he said Orem had always been a city with a forward- 33 thinking mentality. The reality was that the once state of the art recreational facility was in need 34 of overhaul, and the proposed bond was a great opportunity to accomplish that without an 35 increase in taxes. He encouraged the Council to approve including this bond issue on the 36 November ballot. 37 38 Denise Devynck said she was a great admirer of the Mayor and wanted to share some 39 information with the Council and the public. She had a permaculture food forest, which sustained 40 itself with rainfall. She had used water systems similar to those used in dry areas of Arizona 41 because the conservation of water as a resource was something she was passionate about. She 42 likened running out of water to running out of air to breathe, and said water was nearly as crucial 43 to survival as air. Ms. Devynck invited all to an open house she was holding on water 44 conservation, and distributed fliers for the event. 45 46 47 SCHEDULED ITEMS 17
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.14) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 2 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 3 ORDINANCE – Amending the General Plan of the Orem City Code by changing the 4 General Plan designation at approximately 540 North 1200 West from Medium Density 5 Residential to Regional Commercial 6 7 Mr. Bench reminded the City Council that this was a continued discussion from two previous 8 City Council meetings. He reviewed the background information on this item from the agenda 9 packet, including the timeline for the item. He reminded the City Council of the Planning 10 Commission’s recommendation to deny the proposed amendment to go to commercial for the 11 office building. Mr. Bench invited applicant Randy Farnworth and his representation Paul 12 Washburn to come forward. Mr. Bench reviewed the two proposals Mr. Farnworth had 13 presented, the first being to rezone the area to commercial and build a two-story office building 14 and the second being a residential option to build 5 homes. 15 16 There was discussion about the pros and cons of each proposal. General issues affecting either 17 proposal included: 18 Building height requirements 19 Setback requirements 20 Expansion of 1200 West 21 Additional traffic 22 23 Mr. Bench said the Planning Commission’s main concern was commercial creep into a 24 residential area. If the City Council denied the commercial rezone and suggested that the 25 applicant pursue the residential proposal, the Planning Commission would approve the 26 subdivision but it would not change the zoning and would not need to come before the City 27 Council again. Mr. Bench said residential structures could be two-stories and go to a height of 27 28 feet in this area. A commercial structure could go to a height of 60 feet, though with the 29 requirement that they must stay equal to the height of surrounding structures. 30 31 Mr. Goodrich addressed questions regarding the expansion of 1200 West. He said that was a 32 roadway identified in the Transportation Master Plan for expansion, but it was not currently 33 slated for expansion. The setback requirements for either proposal would work for the future 34 widening of 1200 West. 35 36 As far as traffic, Mr. Farnworth said his guess was that residential would cause more traffic, 37 though that was dependent on the type of business that would occupy the office building. Office 38 traffic was usually metered and not as sporadic. Mr. Farnworth said he was not looking to 39 continue his business. The structures currently on the property were old and in need of major 40 repairs, but his business was legal, non-conforming so it made more sense to raze the existing 41 structures to build new. He felt this was an opportunity to find new and better ways to utilize this 42 piece of property. 43 44 Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 45
18 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.15) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 Jana Bauer said she had emailed all members of the Council but had not gotten a response. She 2 agreed with the Planning Commission’s concerns about commercial creep, and said the 3 neighbors would much prefer houses to an office building. She cited information from the City’s 4 “Imagine Orem” website that said neighborhoods were a priority and would not change. She felt 5 the current mindset of the Council seemed to be protecting the interests of developers and 6 businesses, not the interests of the residents. Ms. Bauer said it would only take one zoning 7 change like this to become a free for all. She added that 1200 West was still a residential 8 roadway, and preferred that additional traffic be directed to Geneva Road, not through her 9 neighborhood. She encouraged the Council to protect the residents and protect their 10 neighborhood by leaving the zoning residential. 11 12 Gary Anderson said he too was against changing the zone from residential to commercial. He felt 13 this was an instance of “spot zoning”, trying to squeeze an office building or warehouse into a 14 neighborhood. He asked if they would feel the same if the proposal was in their own 15 neighborhoods. The residents did not want this change, and had appeared at several public 16 meetings to state their opposition. Mr. Anderson echoed Ms. Bauer’s feelings that it seemed the 17 City Council deferred to the requests of developers before protecting neighbors in Family City 18 U.S.A. He asked that the Council follow the good judgement and recommendations of the 19 Planning Commission and city staff and deny the rezone request. 20 21 John Durrant said he was also against this rezone request, and he recalled standing before the 22 City Council many years ago where the promise was made that they would not allow the 23 encroachment of Highway Services and other commercial developments into the neighborhood. 24 Now it felt like it was going that way piece by piece. He felt their neighborhood was viewed as 25 “the armpit of the city” and asked the Council if it meant nothing when they gave their word. Mr. 26 Durrant said he had lived in his home for 37 years, and he said things had changed a lot in those 27 years. He challenged the Council to visit his home and stand in his yard to see what it was like 28 living next to 1200 West. He said it made his skin crawl to hear them talking about widening that 29 road, making things busier than they already were. 30 31 Brian Schramm said he wanted to address comments made in previous meetings. He said Mr. 32 Sumner had asked the residents why they were picking on a business owner like Mr. Farnworth, 33 but Mr. Schramm wanted to reverse the question: why was the Council picking on this 34 neighborhood? He did not feel the Council had neighborhood cohesion as a priority; dozens of 35 families were apparently not as important as business owners. The building of a commercial 36 building right in the middle of their homes would reduce the material value of their homes and 37 properties. He agreed with Mr. Durrant’s question about the Council keeping their word, and 38 asked that the current Council not change the social contract that had been made in the past. 39 40 Richard Bauer said he appreciated living in a great republic with elected officials whose role was 41 to represent the will of the people. Years back he had spoken to a Senator who had voted in 42 opposition to will of his constituents and when asked why, the Senator stated that it was because 43 he knew more. Mr. Bauer asked the City Council why they wanted to punish many residents for 44 one business owner: who did you represent, the one or the many? He urged them to consider 45 that. 46 19
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.16) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 Julie Smith said Linda Harlow had asked her to appear on her behalf. Ms. Harlow said she was 2 okay with the project. 3 4 Harold Dale said he was encouraged to hear the proposal to keep that property residential, as 5 they did not need more commercial. He said he had lived in Orem since 1984 and felt like the 6 whole town had gone berserk. If today he was looking to move, he certainly would not move to 7 Orem. Mr. Dale said that previous changes to their neighborhood, including the establishment of 8 a commercial assistance house, had affected his service in his church with more and more 9 neighbors needing assistance. They had been told the assistance house would not affect the 10 neighborhood, but that had not been the case. He said having a commercial area in this 11 residential neighborhood made no sense to him, and it seemed like someone just looking to make 12 a dollar. He said residential just made everyone feel better. 13 14 Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. 15 16 Mr. Washburn said that the property had been zoned commercial when Mr. Farnworth first 17 established his business, so he had just been doing what he was supposed to do. As for the 18 expansion of 1200 West, Mr. Washburn said that was not just the decision of the City but MAG 19 and UDOT and others would be involved. 20 21 Mr. Lentz inquired as to why single family homes were in that area if it had been zoned for 22 commercial uses. Mr. Bench said there was a time in the 1980s were conditional use permits 23 (CUP) were allowed in residential zones, so Mr. Farnworth had gotten a CUP to allow his 24 business there. 25 26 Mr. Farnworth said if this proposed change was all about making more money, he would just 27 stick to the residential options. But he did not imagine that people wanted to pay the amount 28 these houses would cost to have one side of their property lines by a trailer court. He hoped to 29 leave the neighborhood better than when he arrived, and for his part he felt developing the land 30 for commercial use accomplished that. In his 30 years of business, he had never heard any 31 complaints from the neighborhood. When he began this process, they sent out hundreds of 32 notices for neighbors to come to a meeting regarding the proposal and only 4 came – 2 of whom 33 voiced support for the rezone. Mr. Farnworth thanked the neighbors who had voiced their input, 34 but he was in a quandary. He said the reality of growth was that the areas along 1200 West 35 would likely become commercial in the future, no matter what had been promised in the past. He 36 stated that he was not a big developer, but was a small business owner from the area looking to 37 do what was right while allowing him to live. 38 39 Discussion continued about growth in Utah County, and the best ways to manage that growth for 40 all – residential and commercial alike. Mayor Brunst mentioned the discussions from the 41 previous meetings regarding the need for smaller, more affordable homes in Orem and felt like 42 that would be a better use for this property than an office building. 43 44 Mayor Brunst then moved to DENY the request amending the General Plan of the Orem City 45 Code by changing the General Plan designation at approximately 540 North 1200 West from 46 Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial. Mr. Lentz seconded. Those voting aye to 20 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.17) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 deny: Richard F. Brunst, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, and Mark Seastrand. Those voting nay to 2 deny: Debby Lauret, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed 4 to 3. 3 4 5 RESOLUTION – Fence Modification for Wiggy Wash Car Wash at 220 West Center Street 6 in the C2 Zone 7 8 Mr. Bench recommended that this item be continued to the next City Council meeting, to be held 9 August 28, 2018. 10 11 Mayor Brunst moved to continue the resolution to August 28, 2018. Mr. Macdonald seconded 12 the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, 13 Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed. 14 15 16 RESOLUTION – A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL BOND ELECTION 17 TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2018, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO 18 THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF OREM, UTAH (THE “CITY”), A 19 PROPOSITION REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $24,500,000 20 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO FINANCE ALL OR A PORTION OF THE 21 COSTS TO (A) ACQUIRE, CONSTRUCT, FURNISH, AND EQUIP RENOVATIONS, 22 ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY’S FAMILY FITNESS CENTER, 23 INCLUDING FAMILY FRIENDLY CHANGING ROOMS, FAMILY ORIENTED 24 FACILITIES, A SUSPENDED TRACK AND ALL ANCILLARY AND RELATED 25 IMPROVEMENTS, AND (B) ACQUIRE, CONSTRUCT, FURNISH AND EQUIP A 26 COMMUNITY LIBRARY HALL AT THE CITY CENTER CAMPUS, INCLUDING 27 ALL ANCILLARY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE 28 PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING; APPROVING THE FORM OF 29 AND DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF ELECTION AND THE 30 BALLOT PROPOSITIONS; AND RELATED MATTERS 31 32 Mr. Bybee reviewed the background information from the agenda packet. He said the full 33 presentation had been given at the work meeting on July 17, 2018, and he would be giving a 34 summarized review this evening. He said this proposal was continued investment in Orem’s 35 families. Mr. Bybee shared a personal anecdote of going to the Recreation Center when he was a 36 boy, and said the hope was to revitalize the family fitness options for future generations. 37 Similarly, residents throughout the county and state came to the Orem Public Library to 38 participate in programming. These projects would have great impact for Orem families. Mr. 39 Bybee then reviewed information from a recent survey regarding general interest and support for 40 these projects. The top two messages that resonated from the survey results were: 1) not having 41 an increase in property taxes compared to current levels, and 2) seeing the specifics of what the 42 funding would go toward. 43 44 Mr. Bybee shared renderings of the proposed upgrades to the Fitness Center and the proposed 45 Library Hall. The projects would allow for flexibility of programming based on current trends 46 and demands. He said there was an existing General Obligation (G.O.) bond for street lighting 47 that would fall off in the coming year, and the proposal was to continue a G.O. bond in the exact 21
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.18) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 same amount so there was no net increase in taxes for the bond. Mr. Bybee said the City had 2 already set aside $8 million from donations and CARE funds dedicated to these projects, which 3 was essentially the City’s down payment for these projects. This would be a 30 year term on the 4 bond, which could be paid back early if there was a surplus in city revenue. 5 6 Mr. Bybee said they were before the City Council this evening to request that the option for the 7 bond be included on the November 2018 ballot. If the bond was passed by a majority vote, they 8 would break ground on the projects summer 2019. They would maintain the aquatic side of the 9 Fitness Center and rebuild around that, with an anticipated reopening in winter of 2021. The 10 Library Hall had an anticipated opening of 2020. 11 12 Mrs. Lauret and Mr. Spencer asked about the square footage on the proposed Library Hall. Mrs. 13 Crozier said it would be 20,000 square feet. Mr. Spencer reiterated his long held position that he 14 was not a proponent of the Library Hall. 15 16 Mr. Lentz said he loved both projects associated with this proposed bond, but had two main 17 concerns. His first concern was the combining of both projects together, and asked why they 18 could not be voted on separately. Mr. Bybee said they had not wanted to pit art projects against 19 recreation projects, when data showed that 90% of residents used either the Library or the Fitness 20 Center, or both. This would be paid with existing tax rates and directly benefit to the vast 21 majority of residents. Mr. Bybee added that building the projects in the same timeframe would 22 save on construction costs as well. 23 24 Mr. Lentz said his second concern was trying to propose a way to get UTOPIA built out. He did 25 not understand the rationale of placing this bond on the ballot before finding a way to build out 26 the city’s fiber infrastructure. A UTOPIA bond would help pay for the other projects, potentially 27 including these Library and Recreation projects. Mr. Bybee said that UTOPIA was important, 28 and so were these. They wanted to find a path forward with smaller projects that had strong 29 citizen demand to build confidence and trust, and that would help build momentum to tackle 30 other big projects. 31 32 Mr. Lentz said every year he had served on the City Council they had said UTOPIA was a 33 priority, yet he saw no progress beyond the status quo. Mr. Seastrand disagreed with that, and 34 said Mr. Lentz had been instrumental in helping to clean up some of the backlog and move 35 things forward. Mr. Lentz said UTOPIA was moving forward, but it was not because of efforts 36 Orem was making. From his perspective, the City had not been doing anything. Mr. Seastrand 37 again disagreed, and said the City had paid back funds which they had the option not to pay. Mr. 38 Lentz said that was not progress, but paying what was already owed. 39 40 Mayor Brunst said these projects were not in competition with cultural arts options like the 41 SCERA and the Hale Center Theater, or recreation options like VASA or other gyms and cross 42 fit facilities. They served a specific function for families, and thought it was good thing to 43 include this bond on the November 2018 ballot. 44 45 Mayor Brunst then moved, by resolution, to provide for a Special Bond Election to be held on 46 November 6, 2018, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City of Orem, 22 City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.19) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 Utah (The “City”), a proposition regarding the issuance of not to exceed $24,500,000 General 2 Obligation Bonds to finance all or a portion of the costs to (A) acquire, construct, furnish, and 3 equip renovations, additions and improvements to the City’s Family Fitness Center, including 4 family friendly changing rooms, family oriented facilities, a suspended track and all ancillary 5 and related improvements, and (B) acquire, construct, furnish and equip a Community Library 6 Hall at the City Center campus, including all ancillary and related improvements; providing for 7 the publication of a notice of public hearing; approving the form of and directing the publication 8 of a Notice of Election and the Ballot Propositions; and related matters. Mr. Seastrand 9 seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, 10 Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Sam Lentz. The motion 11 passed 6 to 1. 12 13 14 COMMUNICATION ITEMS 15 16 There were no Communication Items. 17 18 19 CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS 20 21 Mr. Bybee had no information items to share. 22 23 24 ADJOURNMENT 25 26 Mr. Macdonald moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those 27 voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, 28 David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed. 29 30 The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. 31
23
City Council Minutes – August 14, 2018 (p.20) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 CITY OF OREM 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3 56 North State Street Orem, Utah 4 August 28, 2018 5 6 4:00 P.M. WORK SESSION – CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 7 8 CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst 9 10 ELECTED OFFICIALS Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David 11 Spencer, and Brent Sumner 12 13 APPOINTED STAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant 14 City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager; 15 Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation 16 Department Director; Bill Bell, Development Services 17 Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary 18 Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, 19 Library Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; 20 Jason Adamson, Risk Manager; Jason Bench, Planning 21 Division Manager; Kirby Snideman, Long Range Planner; 22 Ryan Clark, Economic Development Director; Kathi 23 Beckett, Economic Development Analyst; Kena Mathews, 24 CDBG/CNS Programming; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy 25 City Recorder 26 27 EXCUSED Councilman Sam Lentz 28 29 30 DISCUSSION – Dowdle Portrait Review 31 Mr. Clark and Ms. Beckett shared a draft of the Orem Centennial Celebration portrait with the 32 City Council and staff. Mr. Clark excused representatives from the Dowdle Folk Art 33 organization who could not make the meeting, but Mr. Clark reiterated their message that this 34 was a draft and was not available for public viewing. He continued that a previously discussed 35 list of “must have” items and other suggestions from the City Council were provided to Mr. 36 Dowdle for the creation of the portrait. Mr. Clark emphasized that it was important to allow for 37 the artist to take the lead on the balance and composition of the work of art. The draft was shared 38 so the City could provide feedback. 39 40 The City Council and staff reviewed the draft and provided feedback to Mr. Clark and Ms. 41 Beckett. Mr. Clark reminded the City Council to keep the artist’s vision and deadlines in mind. 42 43 44 PRESENTATION – General Plan Exhibit: 2018 Orem Moderate-Income Housing Study 45 Mr. Snideman shared the Orem Moderate-Income Housing Study, which outlined existing 46 conditions in Orem, as well as presented options and strategies that the City Council could 24 City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.1) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 explore in the coming years. He said this was a State Code requirement, and it would be added to 2 the General Plan when completed. He reviewed information about the affordability challenges 3 facing the community, and factors that were driving up the costs of housing in Utah. Data 4 showed that in this decade new households were exceeding the number of housing units 5 available. Mr. Snideman said the biggest economic driver of the short supply and high demand 6 was reproduction, which was to say that large families continued to grow and want to stay in the 7 area. He said there was a misconception that the shortage of housing would keep people from 8 moving into area, but more and more people were living in accessory apartments and squeezing 9 as many people in as possible. This situation created a lot of equity in existing homes, but was 10 hurting people’s children and grandchildren that wanted to stay and grow in Orem but could not 11 afford to do so. 12 13 Mr. Snideman reviewed Orem’s history of zoning for all stages of life, allowing for new growth 14 and development. This history of inclusion was why Orem was higher than the state average in 15 mixes of housing types. The study would examine best practices in other cities of similar size 16 and in our community to explore options to help address this regional issue. He said there were 17 things the City could do to ease some of the burden of increasing affordability challenges, 18 including being less restrictive in some zoning requirements. 19 20 There was discussion with City Council and staff about the following: 21 Smaller homes on smaller lots 22 Modular homes 23 Community land trusts 24 HOA requirements 25 Inclusionary zoning 26 27 Mayor Brunst suggested the possibility of incentivizing senior residents to rent living space with 28 other senior residents. Mr. Bench said they did have a provision in place allowing the renting of 29 space to an individual that was 65 years old or older without designating that as certified 30 accessory apartment. 31 32 Mr. Davidson said strong neighborhoods came from inclusion and a diverse mix of housing 33 options and residents. He cautioned against designating areas for certain types of housing which 34 could lead to feelings of segregation or the creation of areas labeled as “projects”. There would 35 need to be an effort to reach out and educate the public, because historically the ideas or 36 suggested solutions they were discussing had not been embraced by the citizenry. The mentality 37 behind “Not in my backyard” (NIMBY) pushback was prevalent. Mr. Davidson said they were 38 approaching the requirement of including the Moderate-Income Housing to the General Plan in a 39 thoughtful way, trying to assess ways to make things better. This was not intended to create 40 controversy, but to generate solutions for a complex issue. 41 42 Mr. Snideman said they were updating the City’s Land Use Map to accommodate for the State 43 Street District zones. These would allow for strategic growth in the City as outlined in the 44 adopted State Street Master Plan. 45 46 There was a suggestion to reach out to state legislators on this issue. Mr. Davidson said the hope 47 was to avoid a statewide mandate that would cost the City money without expressly addressing 25
City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.2) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 Orem issues. This was a good faith effort on the part of the City to actively address the growing 2 needs. 3 4 5 5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION – CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 6 7 CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst 8 9 ELECTED OFFICIALS Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David 10 Spencer, and Brent Sumner 11 12 APPOINTED STAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant 13 City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager; 14 Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation 15 Department Director; Bill Bell, Development Services 16 Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary 17 Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, 18 Library Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; 19 Jason Adamson, Risk Manager; Jason Bench, Planning 20 Division Manager; Kirby Snideman, Long Range Planner; 21 Ryan Clark, Economic Development Director; Kathi 22 Beckett, Economic Development Analyst; D. Jacob 23 Summers, City Prosecutor; Jonathan Ditto, Assistant City 24 Attorney; Kena Mathews, CDBG/CNS Programming; and 25 Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder 26 27 EXCUSED Councilman Sam Lentz 28 29 Preview Upcoming Agenda Items 30 Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items. Mayor Brunst reviewed the Upcoming 31 Events as listed in the agenda packet. 32 33 Agenda Review 34 The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda. 35 36 City Council New Business 37 While discussing the Moderate-Income Housing Study Mr. Snideman mentioned that the St. 38 Francis of Assisi Church had offered their location to hold a public outreach meeting. Mayor 39 Brunst said he was regularly contacted with noise complaints regarding parties or events at that 40 church, and asked what could be done to address the issue. Chief Giles said there were noise 41 ordinances in place, and he would speak with his officers regarding complaints at that location. 42 43 The City Council then adjourned at 5:55 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for their regular 44 meeting. 45
26 City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.3) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2 3 CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst 4 5 ELECTED OFFICIALS Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David 6 Spencer, and Brent Sumner 7 8 APPOINTED STAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant 9 City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager; 10 Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation 11 Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative 12 Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services 13 Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary 14 Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, 15 Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works 16 Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Kirby 17 Snideman, Long Range Planner; Steve Earl, Deputy City 18 Attorney; D. Jacob Summers, City Prosecutor; Jonathan 19 Ditto, Assistant City Attorney; Pete Wolfley, 20 Communications Specialist; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy 21 City Recorder 22 23 EXCUSED Councilman Sam Lentz 24 25 26 INVOCATION / 27 INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Conner Scoubes 28 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Brennan Hicken 29 30 31 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32 33 There were no minutes ready for approval. 34 35 36 MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL 37 38 Upcoming Events 39 Mayor Brunst reviewed the upcoming events, as listed in the agenda packet. 40 41 42 CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENTS 43 44 Appointments to Boards and Commissions 45 Mr. Davidson said Carl Cook currently served on the Planning Commission, and was eligible for 46 reappointment. He asked for the advice and consent of the Council to reappoint Carl Cook. 47 27
City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.4) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 Mr. Macdonald moved to give the Council’s advice and consent for the reappointment of Carl 2 Cook to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: 3 Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent 4 Sumner. The motion passed. 5 6 7 PERSONAL APPEARANCES 8 9 Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not 10 scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior 11 to the meeting, and comments were limited to three minutes or less. 12 13 Grant Holdaway said he had lived in the Orem/Vineyard area for 87 years, farming 160 acres of 14 land and running a nursery in Vineyard. He said Utah had been in draught conditions for many 15 years and he was concerned about the excessive use of water at the Lakeside Sports Park and 16 Vineyard Elementary; he felt they were overwatering and doing so during inadvisable times. Mr. 17 Holdaway mentioned his friend Denise Devynck who taught Permaculture Design classes to 18 teach landowners how to catch rainwater and passively flow it through gardens and farm land. 19 These systems once established would need no irrigation but exist only on rain. He asked the 20 City Council to consider visiting Ms. Devynck’s Food Forest Garden classroom and learn about 21 water conservation. He felt these principles could be taught to Orem residents to help preserve 22 this natural resource for future generations. 23 24 Chris Romrell said he lived south of the Wiggy Wash car wash, almost directly in line with the 25 blowers. He said he was pleased to learn that a sound study was being conducted, but when Mr. 26 Lentz forwarded the results of that study he found he had concerns. Mr. Romrell was concerned 27 that the measurement locations had only been for properties directly south, not east or west, 28 which he felt the broader field would give a better baseline of data. He referenced the Provo City 29 code stating that decibels at 65 or lower were acceptable, and said that they hoped to get the 30 sound into the ambient noise range. He said different wall materials and sizes would be factors in 31 how effective they were, and he hoped they would consider those different shapes before making 32 decisions. Mr. Romrell said his last concern was that average decibel readings were not the same 33 as peak decibel readings, and estimates were not the same as actual measured decibels; this study 34 seemed to focus on average estimates. 35 36 Ryan Brown said he lived east of the Wiggy Wash car wash, and he was a recording engineer. 37 He had done some of his own recordings, and had some of the same concerns Mr. Romrell had 38 when he read through the sound study findings. Estimates for how much noise the proposed wall 39 would reduce was about 3 decibels on average, an amount that only a highly trained ear would be 40 able to perceive. In his opinion, the wall would hardly make a difference. Mr. Brown was also 41 concerned that measurements were not taken at appropriate heights. He said he had spoken to an 42 acoustic engineer about designing silent blower systems, so he felt Wiggy Wash should explore 43 those options. He said there was a difference in the acceptable levels of noise in a commercial 44 area versus a residential area, and the current levels constituted a nuisance. 45 46 28 City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.5) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 SCHEDULED ITEMS 2 3 ORDINANCE – Enacting Article 25-13 of the Orem City Code pertaining to Small 4 Wireless Facilities 5 6 Mr. Earl presented information regarding the request to enact Article 25-13 of the Orem City 7 Code pertaining to Small Wireless Facilities to comply with state and federal laws. He said the 8 Utah Legislature had passed S.B. 189, which allowed for these small wireless facilities to be 9 installed in city rights of way. The purpose of these small wireless facilities was to enhance 5G 10 connections and data capacity for wireless users. He reviewed the definition of a small wireless 11 facility as compared to large wireless facilities (cell towers). 12 13 Mr. Earl said wireless providers would to enter into a Master License Agreement with the City, 14 and pay an administrative fee for the application process that would address fees, installation and 15 location standards, design and dimensions, insurance indemnification requirements, and other 16 conditions. The City would require a wireless service provider to pay a rate no more than the 17 greater of 3.5% of all gross revenue related to the providers use or $250 annual for each Site 18 License. 19 20 There was continued discussion between the City Council and staff regarding: 21 City rights of way and location options 22 Fee amounts and recurrence 23 Discretionary use and permitted use 24 Co-location options including maximum number of small wireless facilities in the same 25 location 26 Wireless provider proprietary fiber infrastructure 27 Potential of connection to UTOPIA fiber 28 Design standards 29 30 Mr. Earl said that the City Council had the discretion to deny the application for a small wireless 31 facility if it did not meet the criteria set in the Master License Agreement. In response to Mr. 32 Seastrand’s question, Mr. Earl said the agreement required that wireless providers document the 33 revenues of their site to ensure proper payment amounts. 34 35 Mr. Earl said Utah law allowed them to enact design standards, including options to integrate 36 into existing architecture like utility poles. Mayor Brunst had some concerns about the look of 37 the antenna when attached to light poles. He did not want current Washington- and Memphis- 38 style poles mixed around, looking vastly different. Mr. Earl and Mr. Davidson reassured him that 39 the designs would stay consistent with poles already in place, and the inclusion of the antenna 40 would not be a dramatic change in the poles’ look. 41 42 Mr. Macdonald moved, by ordinance, to enact Article 25-13 of the Orem City Code pertaining 43 to Small Wireless Facilities including the changes discussed. Mr. Spencer seconded. Those 44 voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, 45 and Brent Sumner. The motion passed. 46 47 29
City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.6) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 2 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – Baxter Gardens Rezone Request 3 ORDINANCE – Amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the Zoning Map of the City of Orem by 4 rezoning the property at 195 East 1600 North from the R8 zone to the PRD zone and 5 amending Appendix KK by adding the Baxter Gardens Concept Plan 6 7 Mr. Bench invited applicant Cindy Baxter Cox to come forward. He then reviewed the request to 8 rezone the property to a PRD. The intention was for three twin-home units to be built on the 9 property, which would constitute of density ration of 3.64 units per acre. The typical single- 10 family density was four units per acre, so this would not be considered high density. Mr. Bench 11 shared aerial maps and proposed concept plans. 12 13 Mrs. Lauret said she lived in this area and heard many of the concerns of the neighbors, 14 including the project’s density, heights, and fear of being forced to vacate and sell property. Mr. 15 Bench reiterated that the density was below that of the surrounding neighborhood and that 16 heights would have to match PRD and neighborhood standards. The proposal had a height of 30 17 feet, while typical single-family developments could go to 35 feet. Additionally, the City could 18 not compel anyone to give up their land for development. Ms. Cox said they had no intention of 19 taking over anyone else’s property; this rezone pertained only to the land left to the family trust 20 after the recent passing of her father. 21 22 The City Council had questions about how the project would be accessed, and the proposed cul- 23 de-sac. Mr. Bench said the property would need the partial cul-de-sac to allow residents and city 24 service vehicles access. The cul-de-sac could be completed in the future, when the Gowans’ 25 property was ready for that. Mr. Macdonald asked about the potential widening of 1600 North in 26 the future. Mr. Bench said the setbacks would be sufficient for 1600 North to widen. 27 28 There was continued discussion between the City Council and staff regarding: 29 PRD conditions and HOA requirements including landscaping 30 Selling vs. renting of units 31 Size and costs of units 32 Accessory apartments 33 The Baxter Family Trust and trustees 34 Northridge Elementary and property boundaries 35 36 Ms. Cox said the trustees’ felt this was the best use of this land, for them and the City. The 37 intention was to sell the units, not rent them. Mr. Bench added that HOA requirements were part 38 of the PRD, and should the rezone be approved the site plan would go through the process for 39 Planning Commission approval. 40 41 Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 42 43 Esther Baxter, a beneficiary of the Baxter Trust, said this had caused much contention within 44 their family. There had been too many hard situations and harsh words. She said other Baxter 45 children had wanted to buy their father’s home, but the cost had been too great. She felt this just 46 needed to be over. 30 City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.7) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 2 Doug Foster asked if there was any provision keeping the units from becoming rentals, which 3 was a main concern of the neighborhood. He felt single-family homes tended to be more stable 4 with tenants, whereas renting tenants were more transient. Mr. Seastrand said people could move 5 in and out of single-family homes too, so he was not sure he saw the big difference. Mr. Foster 6 said that was true, but he had seen too much over the years. 7 8 Floyd Gowans said he lived immediately west of the project property, and his brother Fred 9 Gowans owned the property to the northwest of him. He said to his knowledge not even one 10 neighbor was in support of the proposal. Mr. Gowans said that at his age it was not likely he 11 would be around much longer, and proposed that the City should purchase the property owned 12 by he and his brother, and then have the City grant to them a life estate. He said surely the 13 current price of the property would be lower than in the future. He was not sure about the legality 14 of building where there was not a road. Mr. Bench restated the proposal included a roadway with 15 a cul-de-sac. 16 17 A resident who failed to identify herself spoke about concerns that 1600 North would become an 18 area of high density. She was worried that if the zoning was changed now, in the future the units 19 could become rentals. Mr. Bench said rezoning the property to a family PRD would have 20 definitive requirements regarding density. It would only change if someone else went through the 21 process of rezoning. 22 23 Robert Farr said he appreciated that it was hard to feel supportive of a proposal that was still so 24 ambiguous. He asked if things could be required, like design and materials standards as well as 25 fencing. He was also concerned about an incomplete cul-de-sac, additional traffic, and 26 requirements for an HOA. 27 28 Shawn Baxter, a beneficiary of the Baxter Trust, said he was unclear on the purpose of the 29 rezone and the future and costs of the development project. He said he was kept out of the loop 30 and wanted to know more information about those things. Mayor Brunst said the City Council 31 did not know that information, and Mr. Baxter would need to privately discuss that with the other 32 members of the Baxter Trust. 33 34 Julene Reynolds Hansgen said she was concerned about the traffic issues the addition of these 35 units would cause, particularly around Timpanogos High School. She said they took pride in 36 their neighborhood and did not want multi-family housing there; they wanted it to stay single- 37 family units. She had previously spoken against this, and was still very much opposed to the 38 proposal. 39 40 Nancy Jeffries said she had lived in her home for 39 years and was also concerned about the 41 traffic. She said a developer named Michael Coles wanted to put four single-family homes on the 42 property, instead of multi-unit buildings. She said Mr. Coles had tried to speak to the Baxters, 43 but no progress was made. Ms. Jeffries said Mr. Coles could not be in attendance, but she wanted 44 to speak on his behalf. She was concerned that the Baxter trustees were just looking for the 45 maximum benefit of the investment, not the best interest of the neighborhood. She also wanted 46 the cul-de-sac to be finished, if the rezone were to go forward. 47 31
City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.8) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 Jared Wilkes said he lived near the proposed rezone, and felt the whole process had shown a lack 2 of interest in the community. The Baxter trustees did not live in the area, so they were not 3 invested in what happened there in the future. He felt they did not have the best interests of the 4 community at heart, and shared Ms. Jeffries concerns that this was about the money. Mr. Wilkes 5 said there was confusion about the public meetings for the neighborhood. Many opinions were 6 not expressed at the first meeting that would have been expressed if it had been clearer. He was 7 disappointed that there was not more outreach to the neighborhood. Mr. Wilkes said the 8 neighbors and the City wanted good standards to be maintained, and he was concerned about the 9 period during construction and preserving those standards. 10 11 Fred Gowans outlined the boundaries of his property, and referred to his concerns with the 12 proposed concept plan. He said he did not like the proposed changes, and was frustrated about 13 the potential threat to his property. Mayor Brunst said the current discussion was simply 14 regarding the zone change, and concept and site plans would be discussed only after that rezone 15 took place. 16 17 Ralph Zobell said he had lived in Orem for 30 years. He said many other property owners on 18 1600 North were concerned about this rezone potentially setting a precedent for the other four 19 lots. 20 21 Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing. 22 23 Mrs. Lauret said she was sensitive to the neighborhood anxieties. She felt that the City and the 24 Baxter trustees had worked together to find the best solutions to make this proposal win-win. The 25 PRD requirements would mitigate many of the neighbor’s concerns because the control 26 mechanisms were built in. 27 28 There was additional discussion about finishing the cul-de-sac, HOA and landscaping 29 requirements, and future owners or developers of the property. There were further questions 30 about the Baxter Trust and potential issues affecting the development of the property. 31 32 Ms. Cox said she had not realized that the family’s personal issues would be used as a deciding 33 factor in whether or not to approve the zone change. Her brother was the trustee, and there was 34 enough money to develop their land. She said the property had been for sale for a while, but most 35 of the requests were for a de-valued price and she did not feel anyone would want to sell their 36 property below what it was worth. Ms. Cox said that they did care what happened to this land, 37 even if they were not Orem residents. This proposal developed the empty lot with a tasteful 38 development that would enhance the neighborhood. In response to the concern over the 39 neighborhood meeting, Ms. Cox said it was held with proper notification and several neighbors 40 were in attendance. The second meeting referred to was the Planning Commission, making this 41 evening’s discussion the third meeting. 42 43 Mr. Stephens stated that it was not the City’s role to adjudicate the trust, but they had been 44 provided sufficient documentation showing that Ms. Cox and her brother had the authority to act 45 on behalf of the trust. 46 32 City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.9) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 Mr. Bench said the sidewalk on the east would connect to the park by Northridge Elementary. He 2 spoke more to the development of the cul-de-sac. There was concern about requiring the cul-de- 3 sac to be completed initially and then portions removed as redevelopment took place. Mr. 4 Davidson said that would not fairly distribute the responsibility and costs of that, which should 5 be shared. He also pointed out that a portion of the cul-de-sac was on the Gowan’s properties, 6 and they were not required to relinquish control of any of their property. 7 8 Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the Zoning Map of the 9 City of Orem by rezoning the property at 195 East 1600 North from the R8 zone to the PRD 10 zone and amend Appendix KK by adding the Baxter Gardens Concept Plan. Mr. Seastrand 11 seconded the motion, adding that the concept plan should be changed to include the sidewalk 12 discussed. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark 13 Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed. 14 15 16 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 17 ORDINANCE – Adopting the 2018 Orem City General Plan and appendices, which 18 updates the 2011 General Plan, bringing the General Plan into alignment with the master 19 plans that have been completed after 2011 20 21 Mr. Snideman reviewed the proposal to adopt the 2018 Orem City General Plan and Appendices 22 to include updates and new master plans that had been approved since the last General Plan 23 update was completed in 2011. He shared information from previous presentations, and 24 reminded the City Council that this would update the land use map. This allowed for the new 25 zoning and inclusion of future district plans. 26 27 Mayor Brunst asked where this information could be accessed by the public. He also asked if he 28 could be provided data showing the total land area in Orem that involved mixed use district. Mr. 29 Snideman said all the information regarding the 2018 General Plan was available on the City’s 30 webpage, and that he would look into the data request and provide that information to the Mayor 31 and Council. 32 33 Mayor Brunst then opened the public hearing. No one came forward to comment, so Mayor 34 Brunst closed the public hearing. 35 36 Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to adopt the 2018 Orem City General Plan and appendices, 37 which updated the 2011 General Plan, bringing the General Plan into alignment with the master 38 plans that have been completed after 2011. Mrs. Lauret seconded. Those voting aye: Richard F. 39 Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The 40 motion passed. 41 42 43 RESOLUTION – Fence Modification for Wiggy Wash Car Wash at 220 West Center Street 44 in the C2 Zone 45 46 Mr. Bench invited applicant Brent Wignall to come forward to answer questions. Mr. Bench then 47 reviewed the request, saying this had been scheduled for previous City Council meetings but had 33
City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.10) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 been continued to allow for Mr. Wignall to complete a sound study before consideration. Mr. 2 Bench said the previous proposal had been to include a 50 foot wide fence that was 10 feet high, 3 and after the sound study the proposal had expanded to consider a 100 foot wide fence that was 4 12 feet high. Orem City Code did not have a set decibel level number that needed to be met, but 5 the sound study was compared to the ordinances from seven cities and two counties in the area. 6 Provo City’s number was 65 decibels. 7 8 Mr. Wignall said that even though the sound study was not a legal requirement, he had 9 commissioned the sound study as part of a good faith effort to work with the neighbors. Now that 10 the results came back showing that his business was in acceptable range according to Provo 11 City’s specific requirement, the neighbors were still unhappy. Mr. Wignall said this was a locally 12 owned business, not a big corporation, and the cost of building either sized wall would be 13 significant. He had already paid top dollar for his property, and gone through the process of how 14 to build his business. He was frustrated at the thought of spending more for a wall that was not 15 required of him. He felt like the target kept moving, and he was frustrated trying to hit it. 16 17 There was continued discussion between the City Council and staff regarding: 18 Car wash tunnel length and speed 19 Alternate tunnel exit options 20 Setbacks and materials for the proposed wall 21 Costs of each wall proposal 22 Fan/equipment modifications 23 Orem vs. other entity’s code regarding sound 24 25 Mr. Bench showed examples of the wall built at the Quick Quack Car Wash in Spanish Fork to 26 mitigate the noise to neighbors. There was some discussion as to whether a wall would abate 27 enough noise to justify the costs. 28 29 Mr. Macdonald reminded them that the hours of Wiggy Wash were typically 7:00 a.m. through 30 9:00 p.m. He understood the frustrations of the neighbors and Mr. Wignall, and thanked Mr. 31 Wignall for his willingness to look at this issue. Mr. Spencer said the reality was that the wall 32 was not required, but they hoped to find a reasonable solution for all parties. 33 34 Mr. Wignall and Mr. Davidson discussed the reasoning behind the orientation of the car wash, in 35 particular the ingress and egress on Center Street. Mr. Davidson said the City Council needed to 36 identify the “target” so that Mr. Wignall and all that were involved knew what they were aiming 37 for. Mr. Wignall suggested the possibility of a match contribution from the City if the wall was 38 the solution moving forward. 39 40 Mr. Seastrand said his gut feeling was that even the proposals discussed tonight were not the 41 ultimate solution, and he suggested that further discussion and study take place before any kind 42 of vote. 43 44 Mayor Brunst moved to continue the discussion to the City Council Meeting scheduled for 45 October 9, 2018. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, 46 Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion 34 City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.11) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 passed. 2 3 4 ORDINANCE – Amending Chapter 11 of the Orem City Code to provide enhanced 5 administrative enforcement options for nuisance violations 6 7 Mr. Summers and Mr. Ditto reviewed the proposed changes to Chapter 11 of the Orem City 8 Code. Mr. Ditto specified that these changes were in regards to property nuisance. 9 10 Mr. Summers said the ordinance as it stood currently required the Neighborhood Preservation 11 Unit (NPU) officers to utilize the voluntary correction agreement, which tied officers’ hands 12 when trying to move forward. With the proposed changes, NPU officers could allow for the 13 deadline to pass and then move forward with an administrative order to do a forced abatement. 14 This allowed the City to come back and recoup some of the costs, and provided another avenue 15 NPU officers could use. 16 17 Mr. Ditto said that from their previous discussion they had changed some of the information 18 regarding the costs per day and the cap of a nuisance fee. Instead of imposing a cap, and daily 19 fees amounting to $100, they would remove the cap and charge $50 per day for as long as it took 20 for the nuisance to be addressed. Discussion continued on the fine amounts. 21 22 When asked who would be required to pay those fines, Mr. Summers said it would be the 23 “responsible persons” and the NPU officer would have discretion to assign that fee. If there was 24 no remedial action before the deadline, an administrative summons would be served. The 25 “responsible persons” would then go before an Administrative Law Judge who would hear the 26 evidence and issue an order. Mr. Summers said that most often, an administrative law judge 27 would be a city attorney from a different municipality who had the background to understand 28 municipal laws. This would provide due process through a neutral arbiter. 29 30 Mr. Ditto said this was a better solution than the status quo, as it would shorten the length of time 31 each process would take. Mr. Summers added that it would reduce the standard of proof in the 32 criminal justice system and be more administrative. 33 34 Mr. Summers said there were some costs associated with these changes. Mr. Davidson said some 35 money had been set aside for those costs, but in the short term the city would have to front the 36 costs to forcefully abate. Mr. Summers said that some cases would be more difficult than others, 37 and they would still have the criminal justice system as a possible solution. The hope was to give 38 the NPU officers more tools in how they could address property nuisance issues, and quicker 39 resolutions to those issues. 40 41 Mr. Sumner asked if this would address accessory apartments. Mr. Ditto said that was not 42 addressed in this change, as that was mostly a zoning issue, but that was something that could be 43 looked at in the future. Mr. Summers said the majority of Chapter 11 would remain unchanged. 44 45 Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend Chapter 11 of the Orem City Code to provide 46 enhanced administrative enforcement options for nuisance violations. Mrs. Lauret seconded the 35
City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.12) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings DRAFT 1 motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, 2 David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed. 3 4 5 COMMUNICATION ITEMS 6 7 The Monthly Financial Summary for June 2018 was included in the packets distributed to the 8 Council. 9 10 11 CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS 12 13 Mr. Davidson said the UVX line had begun its service, and UTA was encouraged with what they 14 were seeing so far. They expected ridership to increase as time went on. He said there had even 15 been comments about running a BRT line down State Street, which was positive feedback. This 16 had been over a decade in the making, and they were pleased with the response thus far. Mr. 17 Seastrand added that they had already seen slight improvement in the parking situation at UVU, 18 and hoped that would continue. 19 20 Mr. Bybee mentioned updating an interlocal agreement with Alpine School District regarding 21 fees and facility usage needs. They would continue to have discussions with Alpine School 22 District. 23 24 Mr. Davidson said a voter information pamphlet was required to address the two Orem questions 25 on the ballot for the upcoming General Election on November 6, 2018. For those interested in 26 expressing a “for” or “against” argument for either proposal, they needed to contact City 27 Recorder Jody Bates by September 4, 2018. 28 29 Mayor Brunst said the Utah County Commission opted not to include the ¼ cent tax issue on the 30 2018 ballot for timing and deadline reasons; it would likely be considered next year. 31 32 33 ADJOURNMENT 34 35 Mayor Brunst moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting 36 aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and 37 Brent Sumner. The motion passed. 38 39 The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. 40
36 City Council Minutes – August 28, 2018 (p.13) A complete video of the meeting can be found at www.orem.org/meetings Agenda Item No: 9.1
City Council Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: September 11, 2018 Submitted by: Jackie Lambert Submitting Department: City Manager' s Office Item Type: Discussion Item Agenda Section: MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
Subject: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Beautification Advisory Commission - Elaine Parker Senior Advisory Commission - Ernst Hlawatschek
Suggested Action: Applications for vacancies on boards and commissions for review and appointment
Presenter:
Background:
Potentially Affected Area:
Attachments: Elaine Parker_BAC.pdf
Ernst Hlawatschek_SrAC.pdf
37 Board, Commission & Committee Submitted On: Application July 12th, 2018 @ 11:18pm City of Orem
Personal Information
Full Name Elaine Parker
Full A ddress Orem UT
Phone Number
Boards & Commissions
What board or commission are Beautification Commission you applying for?
If a position on your preferred Yes board or commission isn't available, would you like to be considered for openings on other boards or commissions?
Summarize why you wish to I have lived in Orem for over 30 years and have observed that our city has done a great job on serve on a city commission and if maintaining roads and infastructure. We attract good businesses to our town and we always have there are areas of concern that plenty of water. Orem does a lot right. We need improvement on our over all feeling and you would like to see addressed aesthetics. I know we have a good master plan in place moving forward and I would love to serve by a city commission. on a committee to help implement the beautification of our city. I would love to see signage address. Business signage as well as people posting signs on lamp posts and telephone poles.
Please tell us a little about I'm a wife, mother and now grandmother. I am an advanced master gardener completing the yourself. A lso include a summary course through Utah State Extension Service. I served on my local neighbor in action committee of the special skills and before they were dissolved. We worked on improving the entrance to our neighborhood with a qualifications you have acquired sign and landscaping. I still to this day help maintain that area today. I would love to help beautify from employment, previous our city. appointments, previous volunteer work, or through other activities.
38 Signature Data First Name: Elaine Last Name: Parker Email Address:
Signed at: 07/12/2018 11:11PM
39 Board, Commission & Committee Submitted On: Application August 28th, 2018 @ 12:41pm City of Orem
Personal Information
Full Name Ernst Hlawatschek
Full A ddress Orem UT
Phone Number
Boards & Commissions
What board or commission are Senior Citizen Advisory Commission you applying for?
If a position on your preferred No board or commission isn't available, would you like to be considered for openings on other boards or commissions?
Summarize why you wish to I enjoy coming to the senior center and am willing to serve. serve on a city commission and if there are areas of concern that you would like to see addressed by a city commission.
Please tell us a little about My wife and I have lived in Orem since 1958. We raised our children here and worked here until yourself. A lso include a summary 1972 when I became self-employed as a contractor in building. I served in the Air Force from of the special skills and 1959 - 1965. My wife and I are both from Germany. We have been coming to the senior center qualifications you have acquired for more than 20 years and have volunteered in one way or another through-out that time. I from employment, previous think improvements can always be made and I am willing to serve on the commission to see if appointments, previous there is anything I can help with. volunteer work, or through other activities.
40 Signature Data First Name: Ernst Last Name: Hlawatschek Email Address:
Signed at: 08/28/2018 12:32PM
41 Agenda Item No: 11.1
City Council Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: September 11, 2018 Submitted by: Gary Giles Submitting Department: Police Item Type: Resolution Agenda Section: SCHEDULED ITEMS
Subject: RESOLUTION - Authorizing the execution of an amended Interlocal Cooperative Agreement by and between the Board of Education, Alpine School District and the City of Orem providing for School Resource Officers in certain Alpine District Schools
Suggested Action: Staff recommends that the updated Interlocal Agreement - a revision of the Interlocal Agreement for SROs with Alpine School District adding one additional SRO to the Junior High Schools - be approved.
Presenter: Chief Gary Giles
Background: The Police Department currently has four School Resource Officers, one officer in each of the High Schools in Orem including Polaris/Summit High School. With the addition of one additional officer for the three junior high schools in the City, it becomes necessary to update the existing Interlocal Agreement with Alpine School District to reflect the updated staffing and funding.
Potentially Affected Area:
Attachments: RES--SRO Interlocal Agreement_September 2018.docx
42 D R A F T RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDED INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF OREM PROVIDING FOR SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS IN CERTAIN ALPINE DISTRICT SCHOOLS
WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended, public agencies including political subdivisions of the State of Utah as therein defined, are authorized to enter into written agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action with regard to police protection; and WHEREAS both of the parties to this agreement are public agencies as defined in the Interlocal Cooperation Act; and WHEREAS both of the parties to this agreement share a common interest related to police protection and the ability to appropriately respond to certain emergency situations, which may require the action of Police Department Officers; and WHEREAS the City and Alpine School District share the common goal of preventing crime on school properties; and WHEREAS the Orem City Council issued Resolution R-2016-0025 on August 23, 2016 authorizing the Mayor to enter into Interlocal Agreement A-2016-0178 (the “Agreement”) with Alpine School District to provide School Resource Officers (SRO) to the senior high schools located within the city’s boundaries; and WHEREAS the City and Alpine School District have determined that it would be advantageous to amend the Agreement to expand these SRO services into the three junior high schools within the city’s boundaries; and WHEREAS the City and Alpine School District believe that allowing the Orem Police Department to be present on senior and junior high school campuses within the city and at certain extracurricular events will promote the common goal of crime prevention and public safety; and WHEREAS the presence of Orem Police Department Officers on senior and junior high school campuses of the Alpine School District is in the best interests of the residents of the City of Orem. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OREM, UTAH, as follows: 1. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Amended Interlocal Cooperation 43 Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, for the purpose of Page 1 of 12 D R A F T allowing Orem Police Department Officers to be present on senior and junior high school campuses of the Alpine School District in the City of Orem and at certain extracurricular events. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. PASSED and APPROVED this 11th day of September 2018.
Richard F. Brunst, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
JoD’Ann Bates, City Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER AYE NAY ABSTAIN
Mayor Richard F. Brunst □ □ □ Debby Lauret □ □ □ Sam Lentz □ □ □ Tom Macdonald □ □ □ Mark Seastrand □ □ □ David Spencer □ □ □ Brent Sumner □ □ □
44
Page 2 of 12 D R A F T EXHIBIT A
AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (School Resource Officers)
This Agreement is executed in duplicate this ____ day of September, 2018, by and between the City of Orem, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah, with its principal offices located at 56 North State Street, Orem, Utah 84057, (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and the Board of Education, Alpine School District, a corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah, with its principal offices located at 575 North 100 East, American Fork, Utah 84003 (hereinafter referred to as “Alpine”).
WHEREAS, Alpine was created for the purpose of educating, training, developing, and ensuring the academic excellence of the youth of its district; and
WHEREAS, Alpine has established a reputation for excellence in the quality of its schools and the resulting level of achievement by its students; and
WHEREAS, juvenile crime and school violence continues to escalate nationally and in the State of Utah and without appropriate intervention, youthful offenders are more likely to repeat and even increase their level of criminal activity; and
WHEREAS, youth can sometimes be a disruptive influence on others as their involvement in gang and criminal activity is carried onto the school campus; and
WHEREAS, the resulting cost to both victims and the criminal justice system becomes an increasing burden to the community; and
WHEREAS, Alpine and the City are mutually supportive of efforts to engage in activities which promote the prevention and detection of crime and the early intervention of youthful offenders; and
WHEREAS, the City and Alpine have entered into a partnership that will proactively and aggressively address the issues of youth violence and gang activity in the community and criminal activity that may affect the learning environment; and
WHEREAS Utah Code § 53A-11-1604 provides that Alpine may contract with the City to provide school resource officer services at the school after Alpine School District Board review and approval of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Alpine and the City agree to establish appropriate policies regarding the services of the 45 Orem officers, which policies shall be approved by the Alpine and the City respectively; and
Page 3 of 12 D R A F T
WHEREAS, this Agreement has been approved by resolutions passed by the City and Alpine.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and Alpine agree as follows:
1. Purpose and Goals: The goal of the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program is the reduction and prevention of school-related violence and crime committed by or against juveniles and young adults. The SRO Program aims to create and maintain safe, secure, and orderly learning environments for students, teachers, and staff. For these purposes, a full-time law enforcement officer will be placed in each of the four Alpine School District High Schools located in the City of Orem (Polaris High School, Mountain View High School, Orem High School, and Timpanogos High School) and one full- time law enforcement officer will provide services to the three junior high school located in the City of Orem (Canyon View Junior High School, Lakeridge Junior High School and Orem Junior High School). The officer will be designated as the school’s law enforcement unit with the following goals: A. Reduce incidents of school violence. B. Reduce criminal offenses committed by or against juveniles and young adults. C. Establish rapport with the students, parents, faculty, staff, administrator, and others in relation to the school environment. D. Help create and provide a safe environment for students, faculty, staff, and all persons involved with the Alpine School District. 2. Term
2.1. Initial Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall begin on the date of execution and end on June 30, 2021. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party.
2.2. Extensions. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed for one (1) year periods after the initial three (3) year term expires if no new agreement is completed. The one (1) year period shall run from July 1 of one year until June 30 of the following year, and shall continue until either party gives the other party written notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement. In the case of an automatic extension, the payment due to the City shall be at a rate 2.5 percent higher than the previous year to account for increased pay and benefit costs.
3. City Obligations: The City agrees to the following:
3.1. The City will place a full-time police officer in each of the high schools located within the City of Orem and will provide one full time officer who will provide SRO services to the three junior high schools located within the City of Orem. These police officers (herein after referred to as 46 “Officer” or “Officers”) shall have prior experience working with youth related crime and shall Page 4 of 12 D R A F T be familiar with gang related issues. They shall at all times remain employees of the City under the direct supervision and control of the Chief of Police of the City of Orem. However, daily schoolwork duties may be suggested by the school administration.
3.1.1. Appointment and Removal of the SRO: When a SRO position becomes available, notice will be given to all sworn employees. Interested officers shall submit a letter of interest which includes a description of their training and qualifications that are relevant to the position. Interested and qualified officers may be interviewed and a final selection, based on training, experience, and personality (how well the officer would fit in with the student population of a particular school) will be made by the Chief of Police. School administration will be consulted prior to final selection and may be involved in the selection process. The Chief of Police will determine the extent of the school administration’s involvement. After an Officer is appointed, he/she may be removed from a school or reassigned if the Chief of Police, after consultation with the school administration, determines that such removal or reassignment is necessary. The Chief of Police will accept and consider feedback from the school administration about the Officer’s performance, but the final decision to remove or reassign any Officer shall remain with the Chief of Police.
3.1.2. Officers Duties and Responsibilities
3.1.2.1. It is the shared understanding of Alpine, the City, and the Officer that the Officer’s duties and responsibilities are to: A. Protect the lives and property of the citizens and public school students and maintain a safe school; B. Provide for and maintain a safe, health, and productive learning environment and improve school climate; C. Act as a positive role model to students; D. Work to create a cooperative, proactive, and problem-solving partnership between Alpine, school administration, and the Officer; E. Enforce Federal, State, and Local criminal laws and ordinances; F. Act as a liaison between the high school and the City of Orem Police Department; G. Investigate criminal activity committed on, adjacent to, or otherwise related to school property or functions; H. Counsel students in special situations, such as students suspected of engaging in criminal misconduct, when requested by school administration, a designee, or by the parents of a student; I. Emphasize the use of restorative approaches to address negative behavior; J. Support educational opportunities for students; K. Answer questions about Utah criminal or juvenile laws; L. Assist other law enforcement officers with outside investigations concerning students attending the school(s); 47
Page 5 of 12 D R A F T M. Provide security for special school events or functions at the request of Alpine if agreed to by the City; N. Provide law enforcement and safety related in-service training to school faculty and administrators; O. Provide input on school security issues; P. Be on-call to help at other schools in attendance area during regular school hours; Q. Respond to emergencies or other law enforcement needs as required by the Chief of Police; R. Assist school administration and faculty in formulating criminal justice programs if implemented in the assigned school; S. Help formulate educational crime prevention programs designed to reduce the opportunity for crimes to occur; T. At the request of Alpine, teach a vocational law enforcement class; U. Be a visible, active law enforcement figure dealing with the school’s law enforcement matters, including a criminal offense that is a minor violation of the law but would not violate the law if the offense was committed by an adult. Officer shall confer with school administration to resolve those types of offenses; V. Officers shall NOT enforce school regulations or policies which do not rise to the level of a crime. Infractions of school rules should be handled at the school level. Officers should be available to the school for advice, assistance, and consultation but are not responsible for the enforcement of school regulations or policies. School administrators should handle issues that are the exclusive concern of the school officials and do not constitute a violation of the law.
3.1.3. Work Schedule: Each officer shall typically work from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The officer shall be at the school all days that students are in attendance, except for vacation days, sick days, and holidays officially recognized by the City of Orem. The Officer’s schedule may be altered as directed by the Chief of Police or as necessitated by the Officer’s workload.
3.1.4. Sick Days, Vacation, or Other Unavailability: On days when the Officer is on sick leave, vacation, or otherwise unable to be at the assigned high school, a replacement Officer, generally shall not be in attendance, unless otherwise directed by the Chief of Police. The taking of sick leave or vacation days shall be in accordance with the Employee Handbook of the City of Orem. The scheduling of vacation leave will be done in consultation with the affected high school principal when possible.
3.1.5. Report of Criminal Activity: A. Juvenile Violations. The charging of juvenile offenses shall be in accordance with the Police Department policies. When the Officer charges a juvenile for criminal conduct, the Officer shall forward to the Juvenile Court System all reports and citations for action. 48
Page 6 of 12 D R A F T B. Adult Violations. The charging of adult offenses shall be in accordance with the Police Department policies. When the Officer charges an adult for criminal conduct, the Officer shall forward to the appropriate agency all reports and citations for action. C. School Notification. Each Officer shall notify the principal, or in his/her absence, another pre-designated official, of arrest, referral, citation, charge, or any investigation on the part of the Officer arising out of any incident on school property. The Officer shall make reports, when requested, to the principal regarding the Officer’s activities.
3.1.6. Specialized Equipment: The City shall equip each Officer with vehicles, uniforms, and specialized police and computer equipment.
3.1.7. After School and Extra-curricular Activities: In addition to the placement of an Officer in each of the four high schools and an officer in the three junior high schools, upon request of Alpine, the City shall also provide an Officer(s) for attendance at extra-curricular and/or after school activities such as dances and athletic events. The City shall charge and Alpine shall pay the City the appropriate overtime amount designated within this Agreement. The hourly rate to be paid by Alpine to the City under this subsection shall increase by two and on-half percent (2.5%) each year after the first year of this Agreement. The City shall bill Alpine for the time spent by the Officers pursuant to this subsection and Alpine shall pay the amounts billed within thirty (30) days of the date of billing. The City shall not be required to provide an Officer(s) pursuant to this subsection in the event that no Officers are available to attend the event for which the request is made.
4. Alpine Obligations:
4.1. Alpine shall provide the following to each Officer in each high school and the three junior high schools: A. Private office space. Access to the office space shall be limited to the Officer and other personnel designated by either Alpine or the Chief of Police. B. Private mailbox for non-emergency correspondence or other similar device in which the Officer can receive private or confidential information. C. Keys to the school building. D. Computer terminal in order to access school district records to obtain information on student identification, attendance, and discipline matters; i. Alpine shall include the designation of the Officer as the school’s law enforcement unit in its annual notification of rights to parents and students under the section concerning the disclosure of information to school officials with a legitimate educational interest in the records so that parents and students will know that information from education records may be disclosed for the purpose of maintaining a safe school. ii. The City agrees that the Officer, in the course of the Officer’s work under this 49 Agreement, will only access and utilize information available on the school’s Page 7 of 12 D R A F T computer for legitimate law enforcement purposes as identified in section 3.1.2 and as further provided for in Section 8 of this Agreement E. School discipline policies, which define student behavior. These policies are for information purposes only and shall not be enforced by the Officer unless it rises to the level of a criminal violation. F. Clerical assistance as may be needed.
4.2. Alpine shall pay all administrative costs attendant to having the Officers in each school. These costs shall include, but not limited to, telephone, facsimile transmission, and photocopy costs.
4.3. Alpine shall comply with all Utah Privacy Laws in connection with the reporting, investigating, or charging of any offenses either committed on high school or junior high grounds or involving individuals associated with the high school or junior high.
4.4. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, Alpine shall at all times remain responsible for providing for the safety and security of students, teachers, employees, and other persons in Alpine’s schools. Although the Officers may, at times, assist in providing security in the respective schools, nothing herein shall make the City or the Officers primarily responsible for providing security for or in Alpine’s schools.
5. Funding. Funding is aligned with the fiscal year of the City of Orem.
5.1. Alpine Obligations: Alpine shall pay to the City of Orem the following amounts for the stated years for officers placed in the four High Schools:
Fiscal Year 2018-19: $289,477.33 Fiscal Year 2019-20: $295,518.33 Fiscal Year 2020-21: $301,710.33
5.2. City Obligations: Commencing July 1, 2018, and throughout the remainder of this Agreement, the City shall issue to Alpine ten (10) billing statements, listing the amount owed to the City.
5.3. The Chief of Police and the Alpine Business Administrator shall review the compensation figures contained in Subsections 5.1 and 5.2 above on an annual basis and may adjust such figures to reflect the City’s actual costs based on the compensation (including benefits) that is paid to the Officers in each particular year.
6. Joint Obligations of the City and Alpine. The Officer, and the principal, or designee, at the school where the Officer will be working, will jointly complete the SRO training described in Utah Code § 53A-11-1603. 50
Page 8 of 12 D R A F T 7. Respect for Student’s Rights. 7.1. An Officer may conduct or participate in a search of a student’s person, possessions, or locker only where there is probable cause to believe that the search will turn up evidence that the child has committed or is committing a criminal offense. 7.1.1. It is recommended that in addition to having probable cause, the Officer should follow Utah state law and Orem City Police Department policy and procedures when conducting searches of persons and property which may require a search warrant. 7.1.2. The Officer shall inform school administration prior to conducting a probable cause search where practicable. 7.1.3. The Officer shall not ask school officials to search a student’s person, possessions, or locker in an effort to circumvent the student’s protections. 7.2. A school official may conduct a search of a student’s person, possessions, or locker where there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school, and the search is justified in scope given such suspicion. 7.2.1. Absent a real and immediate threat to the student, teacher, the Officer, or public safety, a school official shall not ask the Officer to be present or participate in such a search. 7.3. The Officer may question a student about criminal conduct that could expose the child to court- involvement or arrest. 7.3.1. If the student is 14 years and older, the student will be informed of his or her Miranda rights before questioning. 7.3.2. If the student is under the age of 14, the student will be informed of his or her Miranda rights only in the presence of the student’s parent or guardian before questioning. 7.3.3. The Officer shall inform school administrators prior to questioning the student on school grounds where practicable. 7.3.4. The Officer shall not ask a school official to question a student in an effort to circumvent these protections. 7.3.5. Other conversations between Officer and students will be on the premise of building relationships to help develop a healthy learning environment and promote pro-social behaviors. 7.4. If an exigent circumstance or immediate threat exists, a school official or Officer may question a student about criminal conduct or conduct a search of a student’s person or possessions. 7.5. Strip searches of student by either school officials or Officers are prohibited. 7.6. Officer shall not use physical force or restraints on a student, including handcuffs, Tasers, mace, or other physical or chemical restraints unless a student’s actions pose a threat, or the student is subject to arrest.
8. Access to Education Records. 8.1. School officials shall allow the Officer to inspect and copy any public records, including directory information, maintained by the school to the extent allowed by law. 51
Page 9 of 12 D R A F T 8.2. If some information in a student’s record is needed in an emergency to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals, school officials shall disclose to the Officer that information that is needed to respond to the emergency situation based on (i) the seriousness of the threat to health or safety of an individual; (ii) the need of the information to meet the emergency situation; and (iii) the extent to which time is of the essence. 8.3. If the Officer needs confidential student record information, but no emergency situation exists, the information may be disclosed only as allowed by applicable law including FERPA (Family Education Rights Privacy Act). 8.4. Law Enforcement Unit Records. Law enforcement unit records created by the Orem City Police Department for a law enforcement purpose which the Orem City Police Department maintains are not subject to FERPA. The Orem City Police Department may share law enforcement unit records with Alpine to the extent permitted under the Government Access Management Act (GRAMA) or other applicable law. Once law enforcement unit records are provided to Alpine and maintained by Alpine, the records may become student education records protected by FERPA.
9. Indemnification: The City shall indemnify and hold Alpine and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against all claims, suits, damages, and losses arising out of or resulting from the City’s performance of or failure to perform this Agreement, including any claims, suits, damages, and losses arising out of or resulting from the actions of the Officer unless the claims, suits, damages or losses are a direct result of a specific directive from a school official. Alpine shall indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, employees, gents, and volunteers harmless from and against all claims, suits, damages, and losses arising out of or resulting from Alpine’s performance of or failure to perform this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall alter either the City’s or the District’s rights under the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Utah Code Ann. 63G-7-101et seq.
10. Interlocal Cooperation Act. The following terms are included in this Agreement to comply with the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act:
10.1. No Separate Entity. This Agreement does not establish a separate legal or administrative entity.
10.2. No Separate Budget. There shall not be a separate budget to carry out the terms of this Agreement, but each party shall fund and pay for its respective responsibilities pursuant to this Agreement.
10.3. Filing. The City and Alpine shall each file a copy of this Agreement with the keeper of the records for their respective entities.
52
Page 10 of 12 D R A F T 10.4. Joint Board. The parties hereby establish a joint board to administer this cooperative under taking. Each party shall designate its board representative in writing to the other party. Either party may change its representative at any time.
11. Lawful Agreement. The parties represent that each of them has lawfully entered into this Agreement, having complied with all relevant statutes, ordinances, resolutions, bylaws, and other legal requirements applicable to their operation.
12. Utah Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of Utah.
13. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that either party should be required to retain an attorney because of the default or breach of the other or to pursue any other remedy provided by law, then the non-breaching or non-defaulting party shall be entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fees, whether or not the matter is actually litigated.
14. Interpretation of Agreement. The invalidity of any portion of this Agreement shall not prevent the remainder from being carried into effect. Whenever the context of any provision shall require it, the singular number shall be held to include the plural number, and vice versa, and the use of any gender shall include any other and all genders. The paragraph and section headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and do not constitute a party of the provisions hereof.
15. Amendments. No oral modifications or amendments to this Agreement shall be effective, but this Agreement may be modified or amended by written agreement of the parties.
16. Development of Policy. The Director and the Board may create and develop policy in harmony with this Agreement but not governed by this Agreement. Such additional policy shall be agreed upon by both the Director and the Board.
17. No Presumption. Should any provision of this Agreement require judicial interpretation, the Court interpreting or construing the same shall not apply a presumption that the terms hereof shall be more strictly construed against one party, by reason of the rule of construction that a document is to be construed more strictly against the person who himself or through his agents prepared the same, it being acknowledged that all parties have participated in the preparation hereof.
18. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, administrators, and assigns of each of the parties hereto.
19. Notices. All notices, demands, and other communications required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given if delivered by hand or by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage paid, to the parties at their addresses first above written, or at such other addresses as may be designated by notice given hereunder. 53
Page 11 of 12 D R A F T 20. Assignment. The parties to this Agreement shall not assign this Agreement, or any part hereof, without the prior written consent of all other parties to this Agreement.
SIGNED and ENTERED INTO this ____ day of ______, 2018.
CITY OF OREM
______By Richard F. Brunst, Mayor
ATTEST:
______Jo’DAnn Bates, City Recorder
______Approved as to Form: Orem City Attorney
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
______Title: ATTEST:
______Business Administrator
______Approved as to Form: Alpine District Attorney
54
Page 12 of 12 CITY OF OREM BUDGET REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JULY 2018
Percent of Year Expired: 8%
% % Current Monthly Year-To-Date To Date To Date Fund Appropriation Total Total Encumbrances Balance FY 2019 FY 2018 Notes 10 GENERAL FUND Revenues 52,091,824 2,779,948 2,779,948 5% Appr. Surplus - Current #DIV/0! Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 3,293,798 3,293,798 3,293,798 100% Std. Interfund Transactions 5,275,308 5,275,308 5,275,308 100% Total Resources 60,660,930 11,349,054 11,349,054 49,311,876 19% 17% Expenditures 60,660,930 9,585,159 9,585,159 2,483,036 48,592,735 20% 18%
20 ROAD FUND Revenues 3,130,000 Appr. Surplus - Current 424,000 424,000 424,000 100% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 1,862,049 1,862,049 1,862,049 100% Total Resources 5,416,049 2,286,049 2,286,049 3,130,000 42% 40% Expenditures 5,416,049 866,157 866,157 1,134,748 3,415,144 37% 39%
21 CARE TAX FUND Revenues 2,075,000 7,932 7,932 0% Appr. Surplus - Current 100,000 100,000 100,000 100% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 3,002,456 3,002,456 3,002,456 100% Total Resources 5,177,456 3,110,388 3,110,388 2,067,068 60% 49% 1 Expenditures 5,177,456 932,511 932,511 12,975 4,231,970 18% 25%
30 DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues 5,706,412 586,154 586,154 10% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 6,603 6,603 6,603 100% Total Resources 5,713,015 592,757 592,757 5,120,258 10% 11% Expenditures 5,713,015 45,851 45,851 5,667,164 1% 3%
45 CIP FUND Revenues 270,000 25,572 25,572 9% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 11,591,434 11,591,434 11,591,434 100% Total Resources 11,861,434 11,617,006 11,617,006 244,428 98% 98% Expenditures 11,861,434 37,135 37,135 669,721 11,154,578 6% 4%
51 WATER FUND Revenues 18,581,062 3,549,790 3,549,790 19% Appr. Surplus - Current Year 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 100% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 10,973,466 10,973,466 10,973,466 100% Total Resources 30,554,528 15,523,256 15,523,256 15,031,272 51% 41% 2 Expenditures 30,554,528 3,814,677 3,814,677 3,302,771 23,437,080 23% 22%
52 WATER RECLAMATION FUND Revenues 10,603,694 969,617 969,617 9% Appr. Surplus - Current Year 1,005,000 1,005,000 1,005,000 100% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 4,121,693 4,121,693 4,121,693 100% Total Resources 15,730,387 6,096,310 6,096,310 9,634,077 39% 29% 2 Expenditures 15,730,387 1,994,059 1,994,059 939,446 12,796,882 19% 25%
55 STORM WATER FUND Revenues 4,638,195 483,639 483,639 10% Appr. Surplus - Current Year 600,000 600,000 600,000 100% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 3,010,281 3,010,281 3,010,281 100% Total Resources 8,248,476 4,093,920 4,093,920 4,154,556 50% 42% 2 Expenditures 8,248,476 1,067,664 1,067,664 761,086 6,419,726 22% 17%
56 RECREATION FUND Revenues 2,063,500 579,770 579,770 28% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 2,061 2,061 2,061 100% Total Resources 2,065,561 581,831 581,831 1,483,730 28% 30% Expenditures 2,065,561 294,452 294,452 299,458 1,471,651 29% 30%
57 SOLID WASTE FUND Revenues 3,794,980 325,390 325,390 9% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 248,577 248,577 248,577 100% Total Resources 4,043,557 573,967 573,967 3,469,590 14% 17% 55 Expenditures 4,043,557 623,279 623,279 3,420,278 15% 14% CITY OF OREM BUDGET REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JULY 2018
Percent of Year Expired: 8%
% % Current Monthly Year-To-Date To Date To Date Fund Appropriation Total Total Encumbrances Balance FY 2019 FY 2018 Notes
58 STREET LIGHTING FUND Revenues 1,733,000 866,964 866,964 50% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 108,170 108,170 108,170 100% Total Resources 1,841,170 975,134 975,134 866,036 53% 62% 3 Expenditures 1,841,170 457,675 457,675 400,907 982,588 47% 38%
61 FLEET MAINTENANCE FUND Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 1,421 1,421 1,421 100% Std. Interfund Transactions 784,000 784,000 784,000 100% Total Resources 785,421 785,421 785,421 100% 100% Expenditures 785,421 201,140 201,140 2,208 582,073 26% 28%
62 PURCHASING/WAREHOUSING FUND Revenues 15 15 100% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 227 227 227 100% Std. Interfund Transactions 375,000 375,000 375,000 100% Total Resources 375,227 375,242 375,242 -15 100% 100% Expenditures 375,227 107,914 107,914 7,774 259,539 31% 28%
63 SELF INSURANCE FUND Revenues 555,000 46,406 46,406 8% Std. Interfund Transactions 1,235,000 1,235,000 1,235,000 100% Total Resources 1,790,000 1,281,406 1,281,406 508,594 72% 72% Expenditures 1,790,000 1,099,265 1,099,265 800 689,935 61% 61%
64 INFORMATION TECH FUND Revenues 1,356 1,356 100% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 253,755 253,755 253,755 100% Std. Interfund Transactions 2,380,000 2,380,000 2,380,000 100% Total Resources 2,633,755 2,635,111 2,635,111 -1,356 100% 100% Expenditures 2,633,755 186,978 186,978 300,754 2,146,023 19% 18%
74 CDBG FUND Revenues 1,157,917 6,109 6,109 1% Appr. Surplus - Prior Year 55,087 55,087 55,087 100% Total Resources 1,213,004 61,196 61,196 5% 11% Expenditures 1,213,004 114,723 114,723 10,346 1,087,935 10% 12%
CITY TOTAL RESOURCES 153,635,045 58,327,803 58,327,803 94,155,434 38% 32%
CITY TOTAL EXPENDITURES 153,635,045 20,783,986 20,783,986 9,624,369 123,226,690 20% 19%
NOTES TO THE BUDGET REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JULY 2018: 1) The current year appropriation of surplus revenues is significantly higher than the prior year due to the additional sales tax revenues the City received.
2) The current year revenues for these funds will be higher for most of the fiscal year due to significantly higher appropriations of surplus when compared to the prior fiscal year.
3) The appropriation of surplus from the prior year is significantly lower than the previous year due to the use of capital project funds in FY 2018 which caused the carryover to be about $516,000 lower.
Note: In earlier parts of a fiscal year, expenditures may be greater than the collected revenues in a fund. The City has accumulated sufficient reserves to service all obligations during such periods and does not need to issue tax anticipation notes or obtain funds in any similar manner. If you have questions about this report, please contact Richard Manning (229-7037) or Brandon Nelson (229-7010). 56