city of orem - oremcityexe.orem.org/minutes/ccmin/2001-2050/2012/2012-05-22… · web viewcity of...

CITY OF OREMCITY COUNCIL MEETING

56 North State Street Orem, UtahMay 22, 2012

3:30 P.M. WORK SESSION

CONDUCTING Mayor James Evans

ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner

APPOINTED STAFF Bruce Chesnut, City Manager; Jamie Davidson, Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Charlene Mackay, CNS Manager; Donna Weaver, City Recorder; and Rachelle Conner, Deputy City Recorder

DISCUSSION – CARE Tax AllocationsCharlene Mackay, CNS Manager, summarized the proposals the City Council had discussed during the last work session.

Mayor Evans thanked Ms. Mackay for all the work she has put into this process. He asked whether the Council had any questions or comments on those proposed allocations.

Mrs. Street noted the applicants can ask for thirty-five percent of their qualifying expenses, and the City Council has to determine how much money they are going to give the organizations based on the amount of money that is available to allocate and the amount on historical “buckets.” There is a lot that goes in to making that determination such as how large of a presence they have in Orem and how they use the funds. She had thought it would be helpful to her to have some way of saying how she came to her determination for funding and apply some consistency to that process. She said she feels they are not quite there yet. In future years, she would like to see the City Council discuss applying some more logic to the process. They could possibly put together an advisory committee similar to the CBDG Advisory Commission. She would like to see the City Council work toward this for the future to allow more predictability and consistency in how they are applying the formulas to the CARE Tax allocations.

Mrs. McCandless said she is comfortable with the Mini Grant and the Facilities allocations as proposed. She said Clear Horizons Academy asked for $12,120; however, at the last meeting the Council found they were not eligible for funding. She has since heard that they are working to become eligible. She asked the status on that.

Mr. Chesnut indicated that is correct. They are working to partner with the Hale Center Theater to make this work. In order to fund that request, the Council would have to dip further into the money set aside for property acquisition.

City Council Minutes – May 22, 2012 (p.1)

Mrs. McCandless said some of the CARE applicants in the past have asked to change their application after the City Council had received it. She stated she has some concerns with doing that as an overall policy, because it makes it more difficult if the application is changing while the City Council is trying to figure out the funding. However, she looks at this situation where they are first time applicants who are just learning the process. The City Council has gone back and looked at applications again in the past. Clear Horizons is trying to partner with Hale Center Theater, which is a cultural arts organization, and she would be comfortable discussing that further. Mrs. McCandless then commented that in a discussion in 2010, the Council had talked about the three major organizations in Orem the Timpanogos Storytelling Festival, the Hale Center Theater, and the SCERA. During that year, the City funded the SCERA and Hale the same percentage of their application, which was seventy percent. Mayor Washburn had called them a three-legged stool and said they were going to fund them an equal percentage of their application. Mrs. McCandless noted she still feels the same way now as she did in 2010. She said she is not trying to pit SCERA and Hale against each other. Both are extremely valuable and both are outstanding in their own spheres of what they do. She would like the City Council to calculate that percentage and if they feel comfortable with that same approach that they had in 2010, and apply the money that way.

Mr. Sumner echoed what Mrs. Street said about forming a committee or evaluation method for this process, and the City Council needs to do this in a timely manner. This is a difficult decision and he has really stressed over this. Two years ago, Brigham Young University came and presented their point system, and that is how he went through and made his proposal for funding.

Mr. Andersen apologized for being late. He asked whether they had discussed with the attorney the deadline for spending the CARE funds.

Greg Stephens, City Attorney, replied that he has assigned one of his attorneys to research the legislative sessions; however, they have not completed that yet.

Mayor Evans stated it would be beneficial to have a committee to review the applications and present a recommendation for the City Council to make a final decision. Mayor Evans then commented that he sees the carryover for the arts a little differently than the carryover for the roads. The State will not let a city go under the specified amount of reserves, and they cannot go over that amount. The CARE funding is to provide for the residents as they go along. He personally does not have a problem with not holding a lot of money for property acquisition as they get to the end of the program. He expressed his opinion that the City Council should use the money as they deem appropriate.

Mrs. Black commented that they will need to be cautious when making a decision about forming a separate commission. She would be fine with having such a group make a recommendation for Mini Grants but not necessarily the Facilities or Major Grants. Mrs. Black then said that under Mayor Washburn’s wise leadership they determined at the beginning of this process to divide the funds into three different categories or buckets in order to give a good balanced approach to increasing the arts in the community. That was a wise decision, and as they have gone along, they have kept within the bucket for Facilities and Mini Grants. The buckets they have drawn reserves from and tried to increase at different times is the bucket for Major Grants. That is where they have drawn down their reserves. This year it sounds like they will draw all of the


reserves out that they have accumulated those first couple of years when they had a little more tax money coming in. She said she is fine with that; however, they need to understand that there is a limit to this money. It is a finite amount and they do the best they can with it and keeping within the balanced approach. She stated she is all right with going up in those allocations. If the proposal that is currently on the table is approved, the SCERA will be receiving $600,000, which is more than they have ever received and is more than any other organization. They have received the highest amount of funding each year. The Hale will also be receiving a significant increase from the previous year’s allocation. Mrs. Black then gave an example of receiving $250 from her husband’s grandparents. The grandparent’s only requirement was that they invest the money wisely in something that would produce benefits for their family. They decided to replace the keys on their old piano. She was able to teach piano lessons and bring in extra money for their family. She expressed her hope that the organizations are using the CARE funds in the best sustainable way to allow them to succeed in the future.

Mr. Seastrand expressed appreciation for what has been said. He likes the concept of having the larger organizations take the smaller organizations under their wings to make it work for both entities. He had mentioned this in the last meeting, and he felt it could apply to a number of the organizations. He said he is not sure where they are to make this go forward, but he interested in seeing where it can go.

Mr. Chesnut indicated the Hale Theater is willing to work out the logistics with Clear Horizon if the City Council is willing to fund its program.

Mr. Seastrand then asked whether this would be done with a contractual agreement with Hale Center Theater that indicates a portion of the funds would go to this program. He also questioned how much the City Council would be funding this program.

Mayor Evans said the Council would have to decide how much they wanted to fund for this program. He was already planning to recommend they use additional money from the reserves to bring up the amount they are allocating to the Hale Center Theater. He is fine with the other proposed allocations but wanted to increase the Hale’s amount. Today is the first he has heard about Clear Horizon working with the Hale, so if they did that, the Council would add additional funds for that program.

Mr. Chesnut said he spoke with Clear Horizons right before this meeting and was told about the collaboration with the Hale. As of Friday, he knew they were trying to work on different options. This has happened really rapidly, but they are trying to get it all worked out. Mr. Chesnut advised that this would be a programming effort with Clear Horizon through the Hale Center Theater. It is not a program the Hale has specifically put in their application, so if the City Council wanted to increase the Hale’s allocation with other contingency money, they would consider that separately from the Clear Horizon application.

Mayor Evans said both of the amounts would go as a sum addition to Hale Center Theater. Mr. Chesnut agreed.


Mrs. McCandless asked if they funded this higher than a Mini Grant whether they would have to do all of the reporting required with the Major Grants and who would be responsible for the reporting.

Mr. Stephens said it would be the responsibility of the Hale.

Mr. Sumner asked where the additional funds for Clear Horizon would come from. Mayor Evans indicated it would come from the money that had been set aside for property acquisition. He said he knows the Council had previously set aside the money for housing specific, and they have also set aside money for recreation property acquisition.

Mr. Chesnut stated that as they discuss the recreation component of the CARE Tax, he has spoken with Karl Hirst, Recreation Director, and they are making a priority list. The City Council will see a lot of good things happen with the money they have allocated to recreation. The Recreation Advisory Commission is committed to making things happen fast to benefit the kids in the community.

Mrs. Street said she is in favor of going in and allocating the entire amount of the money that was set aside for property acquisition for 720 South because the City Council has never adopted a formal plan for that area. That is not to say that they have stopped looking at that area. She would like to have input from the citizenry in formulating a plan that the City Council can look at adopting. She reiterated she is in favor of spending all of the money.

Mrs. Black cautioned that if they spend all of the money this year, they will have no room to maneuver next year. The Major Grant applicants will need to understand that this is their big year.

Mr. Andersen asked if the house on 720 South is considered a sports area or just an arts district area.

Mr. Seastrand indicated it was purchased from the arts facilities bucket.

Mr. Andersen then said he had previously brought up the contract the City signed back in 1983 with the SCERA, in which the City agreed not to provide cultural arts. He said it appears to him that it still says that, and in building the Center for Story, the City is ignoring that contract. He said he does not feel comfortable with that, so he would like the City Attorney to provide something in writing that will make him comfortable with it. He noted he thinks the City is violating the contract. Mr. Andersen then said they may need to discuss this in a closed-door meeting because it is talking about potential lawsuits for contract violations.

Mr. Chesnut responded that the attorneys have evaluated the 1983 agreement, and there are many components that are no longer valid. Staff has met with the SCERA Board, and they agree they need to move forward and rewrite that agreement. There is a specific summary that outlines the components of the agreement that are no longer valid, and staff would be happy to provide that to Mr. Andersen.


Mr. Andersen said this contract has been around since 1983, and it seems to him that if a contact is no longer good, it should be rewritten and both parties ought to agree to the rewriting.

Mayor Evans clarified that they have had a meeting with the SCERA Board, and they all agreed to get back together to revise this agreement. There have been many changes that have taken place over the years, such as the pool, the park, etc. This was not one-sided, and both parties have agreed to meet to look at this.Mr. Andersen said the contract is still there, and it says what it says. Mr. Chesnut agreed. Mr. Chesnut indicated there are a lot of things that have changed on both sides.

Mayor Evans noted there are actually a number of things in the contract that the SCERA is supposed to do but that that the City is doing, so they are in violation of their side of the contract. There are issues on both sides that need to be looked at, and both parties are willing to do that. There is a written summary the attorneys put together regarding the contract, and they will make sure Mr. Andersen gets a copy right away.

Mrs. McCandless echoed her support of having a group look at the 720 South area as an arts district. The Orem Arts Council has been doing that already. She noted there was a Cultural Arts Feasibility Study done at the time the CARE Tax was first approved. Some of the ideas were great; however, the dollar amount took the Council’s breath away. The cost was about $40 million. Mrs. McCandless recommended they set aside some of the property acquisition money to make resources available to the Orem Arts Council or a citizen’s committee to look at that area to plan. She expressed her opinion that it is important to spend that money. She is not comfortable allowing it to sit there because they are going to run out of time. They are getting to the end of this CARE Tax round. She said they do not have to use all of the $55,000 for this, but it would be good to set aside some money for that purpose.

Mayor Evans noted they do that with Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG). They are using some planning money to plan a pedestrian bridge over I-15 to come from the Intermodal Hub and Utah Valley University. He recommended they set aside $20,000 from that money to plan for the 720 South area and take the remaining $35,708 and add that to the Hale Center Theater, knowing that they will take $12,000 of that to use for the Clear Horizon program.

Mrs. Black said she agrees with setting aside money to pay for a plan for an arts district. She said the City actually has an additional $100,000 in money they had set aside for property acquisition in a different year. Ms. Mackay said $152,655 was allocated in the year 2006-07. In 2007-08 there was another $100,000 allocated. It is her understanding that neither of those allocations have been attached to a specific purchase. It was merely set aside for potential purchases in that area. There is a total of $155,708 that has not been allocated at this time.

Mr. Sumner remarked that everyone needs to understand if they drain the well this year, the money could be pretty tight next year. However, he said he has no problem spending the money. He cautioned that if they hold money out for a task force, the City should use the good resources they have within the community. The last study they did for the arts district was done by a lady from California that did not even know the area. The most valuable resources to help determine


what is needed in the community are sitting in this room. The Orem Arts Council and others should be used rather than hiring an outside firm to look at it.

Mr. Seastrand added that the Orem Arts Council has been pretty good with defining a go-forward plan. They have not prioritized it in terms of delineating a cost, but they have identified the projects they would like to see done. The 720 South project is on there as well as other projects. He agreed that the Orem Arts Council should be a part of the discussion.

Mrs. Black asked whether $20,000 is enough or if they should go more than that. Mayor Evans said it sounds like they have $100,000 they could draw from, even if they took the $55,708 this year. He said he thinks they need to keep the recreation money they have set aside for property, because they know they need recreation property. However, they need to spend the money as they are going along because these are taxes to help the City provide for the arts and people in the community.

Mrs. Black asked if Mayor Evans is recommending they reallocate the $55,708 to the Major Grant category. Mayor Evans said he was, and then they have the other $100,000 to use on the arts district as they would with the Orem Arts Council to try to move that plan ahead. Mr. Chesnut clarified that the money is not going to the Orem Arts Council. It will be spent by the City. Mayor Evans concurred.

Mrs. Street asked if they have a go-forward plan from the advisory group whether they can spend the remaining $100,000 without waiting for the next CARE granting round. She was told that they could.

Mayor Evans asked whether anyone had a recommendation for dividing the $55,708.

Mrs. Black recommended that they take $12,000 for the Clear Horizons program. The Council agreed that would be fine.

Mrs. Black then stated the percentage for Hale is lower than SCERA, so most of the remaining funds should go to them.

Mr. Andersen said he was walking through the Heritage Museum, and he does not know who is paying for that, but it looks like there is $175,00 they are putting into the renovation. He questioned who is paying for that.

Mr. Seastrand replied that they had a donor who paid for that.

Mr. Andersen said that is something they have not had before, and if they are spending some of their funds for that, there is a value they are giving the City.

Mrs. Street advised that she does not have all of the details, but there was an additional contract signed between the City and the SCERA in 2002. It was a ten-year contract that addressed a list of things the SCERA did for the City and maintaining the Heritage Museum was one of those things. This is addressed with a separate funding source. She said it is time for that contract to be


reviewed. That is separate from the CARE Tax, and she wanted to make sure Mr. Andersen understood that they run the Heritage Museum with a separate funding source.

Mr. Seastrand said there is an element of labor involved with the renovation, but he is not sure it would qualify for CARE Tax. He suggested they take $10,000 from the remaining funds to help the museum get up and running.

Mrs. Street noted they need to be careful if that is not part of what their application is.Mayor Evans remarked that if the City gave the SCERA more money to do what is on their application, SCERA can use their funds to do the renovation work.

Mr. Seastrand said he wants to recognize that the SCERA upgrading that museum is a nice programming addition.

Mrs. Black suggested taking $33,708 for the Hale and $10,000 for the SCERA.

Mr. Sumner noted he supports that recommendation. Mayor Evans agreed.

Ms. Mackay confirmed that the proposal is for $610,000 go to the SCERA and $455,708 for the Hale, with $12,000 of that earmarked for Clear Horizon’s program.

Mr. Seastrand said he would like to specify that $10,000 go toward the museum. Ms. Mackay advised it would have to go for the operation of the museum.

Mr. Seastrand then ask to clarify that they still have $100,000 in the facility bucket. Mrs. Black said that is correct.

Mr. Chesnut said he would like to get input as to the type of committee the Council would like to form to look at the arts district area.

Mr. Seastrand advised that forming a committee for the remaining CARE Tax year does not get the City where he would like to see them. He would love to expand the role of the committee to work with the Orem Arts Council and others to formulate a plan and proposal that is fairly detailed and specific on initiating the CARE Tax renewal process. They need to start on that sooner rather than later. The City cannot fund any materials toward that, but questioned whether the City could sponsor a commission to move that process forward.

Mr. Chesnut indicated legal staff would have to look to see if it is possible.

Mr. Seastrand advised that part of what they need to do is have a clearer picture of how the CARE Tax funds would be spent if it were renewed. That would give the voters more clarity in terms of what they are voting for.

Mrs. Street said that is an excellent suggestion, and she agrees with where he is going with that. What she envisions is that they empower a citizen committee or an expanded Arts Council with input from the community, because there are lots of different things that go into the arts. There is actually an economic development element to cultural arts. West Valley City had their financial


advisor do an economic impact study for them on developing the Hale Center Theater in West Valley City. They used a funding mechanism based on the increased economic income for the area. If Orem can say they have a plan as to what they want to see, staff can work with the financial advisors to formulate a plan to take to the residents to show what the City will do with the funds if the CARE Tax is renewed. She sees a lot of value in bringing people in from the community to serve on this committee. They could use the study from 2006 as a starting point. They need people from recreation on this committee as well.Mayor Evans indicated that process is exactly what the Alpine School District has done to get their last few bonds passed. Ahead of time they have the local community councils put together a list of ideas, and the school board then works to sort the list out. Before they even go out for a bond, they hold education meetings with a list of things the bond would pay for. They also give an accountability report of how previous funding has been used. What Mrs. Street has described is a good formula, because that is what has worked for the school district in this area.

Mr. Chesnut said the go-forward plan is up to the City Council. He expressed his opinion that it would be wise to have things identified before the next election as to what the CARE money would be used for.

DISCUSSION – FY 2012-2013 BudgetMr. Chesnut said this work session is to go over questions the City Council might have on the tentative budget. He has received questions about the fees and charges in the Development Services area, and Mr. Sainsbury was prepared to answer those questions.

Mr. Sainsbury stated that he has received many questions about the fees he is proposing in his department. The intent of the fee increase is to have the developer pay their own way rather than the City subsidizing them. Mr. Sainsbury then reviewed the staff cost for various development items.

Mr. Seastrand questioned whether there are any meetings that can be eliminated from the process to save staff time and money.

Mr. Sainsbury said they had an independent group come and analyze Development Services and look at different processes. Orem’s department was the only department in Utah County that got an A+. No one else even got an A. Orem received an A+ for speed and process. Orem processes everything in three months. He indicated Orem’s development fees are much lower than any other community.

Mr. Seastrand thanked Mr. Sainsbury for that information. He said when he talks to the developers he does get comments about the professionalism of the staff and the fairness of the process.

Mrs. Black said it is very helpful and encouraging to see where Orem is with its fees in terms of what other cities charge.

Mr. Andersen asked how close are they to break even. Mr. Sainsbury said they are very close to covering their costs.


Mr. Andersen said he is wondering about the whole department.

Mrs. Street clarified that the Development Service Department is not necessarily a revenue generating department. She said she is not sure they expect Development Services to bring in enough revenue to cover all of their expenses, because that is not what they do.

Mr. Seastrand questioned Mr. Andersen whether he has some expectation for that department to be profitable. Mr. Andersen said he was asking how close it would be. The fees are going up to try to catch up with the costs, so he wanted to know how close in total they are.Mr. Chesnut asked Mr. Andersen to keep in mind that there are a lot of services the department offers a lot of support services to the public that do not have a fee, yet those services incur an expense for the City. The budget shows exactly what it costs to run that department as well as the amount they bring in.

Mr. Manning explained that they bring in roughly $1.25 million, and the department costs $2.6 million.

Mr. Sainsbury noted that his staff is in charge of four commissions and that is not revenue producing. One of their biggest clients is the City of Orem. When Public Works needs a road designed, the Engineers in his department do it, and they do not charge Public Works. They also spend a lot of time with residents either on the phone or walk ins to talk about the costs involved with development and construction. They are a service department.

Mrs. McCandless noted that when she served as the liaison to the Library Advisory Commission several years ago, they had talked about the fee for nonresident library cards not covering the actual cost. She asked whether the proposed increase would cover that cost.

Mrs. Wallace indicated that it costs $126 per household to run the library. This $100 fee for a nonresident household is still a good neighbor policy. They are always looking to find just the right balance in terms of what the market can handle. The library must care about the bottom line revenue that is coming in. Provo Library charges $100 per year, so this brings Orem equal to them. Provo’s cost per household is actually much higher, because they are still paying for the library at Academy Square.

Mrs. McCandless then noted that the reservation fee for the City Center Stage is $250 for a four-hour block. That seems high in comparison to the fee charged for the pavilions and the hosting center at Mt. Timpanogos Park.

Mrs. Wallace explained that the stage has a state-of-the-art sound and lighting system, which will have a significant cost if it has to be repaired or replaced. They are paying for the equipment as well as the facility.

Mr. Chesnut indicated he has also had some questions from the Councilmembers concerning the employee compensation.

Mr. Sumner, noting the proposal is for a two-percent raise for the employees, asked how that affects the benefits.


Mr. Manning explained that the benefits which are related to pay are the retirement benefits and Medicare. The salary would go up two percent, which would increase the retirement benefit and Medicare; however, not all of the employees qualify for a 401(k) anymore. The 457, which the City has in lieu of Social Security, would also go up.

Mrs. Black stated the City is required by State law to offer a certain amount of retirement for the Public Safety Officers. Mr. Manning said that is correct. They are told by the State Retirement System how much the City will pay, and the City does not have a say in those costs.

Mayor Evans indicated the City uses the Hay System, and they also do baseline comparisons with other cities. It is important for people to know that there are different processes the City uses to determine the employee wages.

Mr. Manning reviewed a survey of what other cities are doing in terms of employee compensation this year. The survey was compiled by the city managers throughout the state. The results are as follows:

13.4 percent are doing nothing with compensation this year 34 percent are doing a cost of living (COLA) only

o Average giving a 2.5 percent 30 percent are doing a merit only

o Average giving 2.9 percent 15 percent are doing a combination of merit and COLA

o Average of 5.1 percent Not all employees would be getting a 5.1 percent raise

9 percent did not know what they were going to do

Mr. Chesnut said 2008 was the last time the employees received any increase. The City has great employees who do a lot of work for the community. He expressed appreciation to the employees for everything they do. The City has a great work force, and they offer a great product to the residents.

Mr. Chesnut then advised that the first open house is scheduled for Wednesday, May 23rd at 6:00 p.m. They reached out to the community through a direct mailer on the newsletter inviting residents to come. They delivered handouts to a lot of elementary children to take home to their families. They have put it on Facebook, the Mayor’s blog, Twitter, the City’s website, and YouTube inviting people to come.

Mayor Evans questioned the method they are going to use to gather feedback from the residents. Mr. Chesnut indicated there will be a specific station for comments, and staff will prepare those for the Council after the last open house, which will be on June 7, 2012. The City Council will receive those comments prior to the budget public hearing on June 12, 2012. He indicated the City Council will adopt the final budget on June 19, 2012.

Mr. Andersen said he has never been to one of these. He asked if this has been done in the past.


Mr. Chesnut indicated that the City has held many different kinds of open houses. They have not had one specifically on the budget that he knows of. They have been planning these open houses for several months now in order to get information about the budget out to the residents of Orem.

Mr. Andersen said he was the only one who voted against the Truth in Taxation thing, and he wondered how the residents would be able to ask him questions about it.

Mr. Chesnut said the residents can ask him questions any time they want. This is not a public forum for the Council to take charge. Staff will be there giving information. The attorneys get nervous when more than three Councilmembers are there at the same time because of the Open Meetings Act. They need to schedule themselves so there are not more than three of them there at any one time. The forum for the Council is during the public hearings, which are on June 12 th

and June 19th. This open house is to provide information to the public on what the process is and everything that is going on with the budget and in the community. The public can ask the Councilmembers questions by calling or emailing them.

Mr. Andersen requested clarification that he will not be part of the dialogue. Mr. Chesnut said that is correct, and Mr. Andersen will not be making a presentation at the open house. There will be stations set up with different topics where the public can come and ask questions of staff.

Mrs. Street stated that she is seeing this open house as an information fair. There will not be a place for the Councilmembers to sit, talk, field questions, or make speeches. They can wander around and speak with people who come talk to them. This is not a forum where there is any voting or consensus for the City Council to speak as a body. She said she is not sure why there would be a problem with the Councilmembers being there to mingle with the crowd even if all seven are there. The intent is not to be there as a body, but to be there as individuals to meet with constituents.

Mr. Stephens said that is correct; however, he would prefer to avoid any appearance of impropriety. They are safer if there are no more than three Councilmembers there at the same time. The Open Meetings Act has specific exceptions for social gatherings and chance meetings, and neither qualify in this instance. They are in a difficult area where they might have a quorum present and someone could make an argument that they did not follow all of the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. There is nothing secretive about these open houses. They have invited the public, and they are not making any formal decisions. In those regards he does not have concern. The Open Meeting Act requires a recording of the meeting and minutes when there is a quorum, and logistically that will not work in an open house setting.

Mrs. Black noted that they can split the time. There is the six o’clock hour and the seven o’clock hour.

Mayor Evans advised that they will work it out amongst the Councilmembers to make sure they do not have too many Councilmembers there at the same time. Mayor Evans then stated there has been some discussion about the process and timing of these open houses and how early the City should talk about these things. The City met with the Taxpayers Association last week and asked them what other communities do with Truth in Taxation. Their response was that Orem is


doing exactly what it ought to. The City released the tentative budget, it is holding open houses to receive feedback, and will hold the public hearings before the Council votes on the budget. Mayor Evans said he wants the public to know that this is a great process. The City is not behind an eight ball because they did not have these meetings months ago.

Mr. Seastrand asked how many other cities are going through this process. Mr. Chesnut indicated that Mr. Van Tassell with the Tax Payers Association said his August is going to full with the various Truth in Taxation hearings he will be going to. Mr. Chesnut said there are quite a few cities proposing tax increases, but he is not sure how many.

5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION



APPOINTED STAFF Bruce Chesnut, City Manager; Jamie Davidson, Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director; Mike Larsen, Public Safety Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Donna Weaver, City Recorder; and Rachelle Conner, Deputy City Recorder

REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMSThe Council and staff reviewed the agenda items.

CITY COUNCIL/STAFF NEW BUSINESS

Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director, briefed those present on the status of the community gardens.

The Council and staff then discussed the Summerfest Parade and transportation options.

The Council adjourned at 5:55 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.

6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION




APPOINTED STAFF Bruce Chesnut, City Manager; Jamie Davidson, Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director; Mike Larsen, Public Safety Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Louise Wallace, Library Director; Charlene Mackay, CNS Manager; Donna Weaver, City Recorder; and Rachelle Conner, Deputy City Recorder

INVOCATION / INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Colton Stanger

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Kason Max

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Work Session of May 1, 2012, and the City Council Meeting of May 8, 2012Mr. Seastrand moved to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2012, work session of the Orem City Council and the City Council meeting of May 8, 2012. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL

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

Mayor Evans indicated the Summerfest magazine should have arrived in the residents’ mailboxes that day.

He also indicated the City will be holding open houses to provide information to residents on various topics, including UTOPIA, the budget, Center for Story, etc.

Upcoming Agenda ItemsThe Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming agenda items listed in the agenda packet.

Appointments to Boards and CommissionsMayor Evans recommended Paul Crossett be appointed to serve on the Recreation Advisory Commission.

Mrs. Street moved to appoint Paul Crossett to serve as a member of the Recreation Advisory Commission. Mr. Andersen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.


Recognition of New Neighborhoods in Action OfficersNo new Neighborhood in Action officers were recognized.

PRESENTATION – Historic Preservation Advisory Commission – Park FamilyJay Buckley, Historic Preservation Advisory Commission member, introduced other members of the commission--Lon Bowen, Cory Jensen, Jon Baxter, Colleen Ferguson. He also recognized Jason Bench and Lori Merritt as the City staff representatives.The Historic Preservation Advisory Commission presented the Park Family with a framed pictorial tribute of historic properties the Park family has owned in the city.

Mrs. Park gave a brief history of the Park Family and their participation in the community.

Mrs. Black commented that she grew up in Provo, and her family would go to the Park’s Café once a month. She said it was a fun treat for her.

REPORT – Summerfest Advisory Committee Reed Price, chair, thanked the other committee member--Gayla Muir, Arts in the Park; Traci Hartman, baby contest; Nancy Hale, parade student marshals, children games/crafts, and 5-k run; Annette Harkness, volunteer appreciation dinner and children parade; Jim and Debbie Lauret, grand parade; Diane Asay, entertainment; Teresa Horn, boutique; and Kelly Anderson, booklet and hospitality tent. He thanked staff members Chris Tschirki, Jill Winder, Kent Allen, Laura Bascom and Jim Orr.

Mr. Price said Summerfest will be held June 8 and 9, 2012, and the theme for the parade this year is “Legacy of Service.” The Jerry Washburn family has been chosen as the Grand Marshals for the parade, to honor his legacy of service to the residents of Orem. The student marshals will be Heather Jagerson and Brandon Ruiz from Canyon View Junior High School, Samantha Stout and Carlos Garcia from Lake Junior High School, Zachary Bradley and Amber Fratcher from Oak Canyon Junior High, and Annabelle Corrales and Alex Larez from Orem Junior High. He then reviewed the activities that will be a part of the Summerfest celebration.

Mr. Seastrand advised that this is a great community activity. It seems to kick off the summer. He thanked Mr. Reed for his work in organizing this.

Mrs. Black asked Mr. Price to express the Council’s appreciation to the commission members for their work in putting this together.

Mayor Evans thanked Mr. Price for everything he does for the community.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on the agenda.

Clixie Larsen, resident, read a letter she had written on behalf of the Center for Story. The letter expressed her support for the City to fund the Center for Story.


Jenny Brooks, resident, expressed concern with the lack of response the residents have received regarding the safety issues on her street. She said she lives on Hidden Hollow Drive. Her husband met with the City a couple of weeks ago, and she would like to see some implementation of the ideas that were discussed in that meeting. She had heard before she moved to Orem that the City Council tends to be obstructionists or naysayers. She had hoped that it would not be the case; however, she has yet to see that it is not. She expressed her hope that the Council will move forward soon to address the neighbors’ concerns.

Mr. Chesnut indicated staff had met with the neighbors. The Development Services Department has been looking at the proposed options and will getting back to the neighbors soon.

Mr. Sainsbury said some of the items must come to the City Council for approval before they can be implemented. There is a process they need to go through, but the City Council will be seeing it shortly. Staff is still working on it, and they are going as fast as they can through the process.

Michael Brooks, Hidden Hollow resident, said some of the items that came out of the meeting were lowering the speed limit to 20 miles per hour, flashing sign indicating the vehicle speeds, and increased enforcement. The neighbors’ frustration is that they have not heard anything. Some neighbors have been putting up their own signs. He asked for a quick resolution to their concerns.

Melodee Andersen, resident, declared that many residents want the City Council to put opinion questions on the November ballot. The first questions would ask if the City of Orem shall raise taxes and the second question would ask if the City of Orem should build the Center for Story. Last year, Aaron Campbell ran a poll of 250 registered voters in the City of Orem, and 70 percent said the Center for Story should not be built. She asked the City Council to let the voters decide. Mrs. Andersen then expressed her opinion that the property tax increase was to cover the mistakes the City has made with UTOPIA. Staff said Orem has lower taxes than twenty-one cities in the area; however, with the proposed tax increase Orem will become the third highest. Mrs. Andersen stated that letting the residents vote on these issues will be proof of whether voters agree with the City Council or not. She asked for a response from the City as soon as possible.

Elaine Andelin, resident, said when she and her husband built their home they put in wiring for street lights. That was when they were forced to start paying the City for citywide street lighting. She told her husband and neighbors that the bond would not end, and the City would find more reasons to build more taxes around this issue. She had some nice lighting planned for her home, but now the street light shines right into her bedroom window. They have had to deal with the City’s insistence of taking over something that should be a private issue. Golf courses are just paying pennies for water compared to what the residents are paying, and the residents are being taxed again. She said stories are wonderful, but family members can tell them. It is not Orem City’s to give. She said let private enterprise step back in where they should be. When she grew up, there were wonderful church sports leagues. The cities have practically destroyed church leagues by taking over those programs. She asked the City not to provide the residents with Internet, but allow them the choice of what they do with their own homes, to not raise the taxes over and over, and to be open about what the taxes are for. Tell the residents what they are


making, what the salaries are for, and what the increases have been over the past five years. Ms. Andelin stated that Orem fest is a fun thing, but asked what had happened to the neighborhood parties. She expressed her opinion that government has grown so much in a state where they should understand the proper role of government.

CONSENT ITEMS

There were no consent items.SCHEDULED ITEMS

6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of the City of Orem, Utah, by Changing the Zone on Approximately 10.86 acres from R12 to the PD-11 zone for Property Located Generally at 1430 South Sandhill Road, Amending Section 22-11-23 of the City Council by Enacting the PD-11 Zoning Text, and Amending the Appendix by Adopting Appendix X

Stanford Sainsbury presented an applicant request that the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of the City of Orem, Utah, by changing the zone on approximately 10.86 acres from R12 to PD-11 for property located generally at 1430 South Sandhill Road, amend Section 22-11-23 of the Orem City Code by enacting the PD-11 zoning text, and amend the Appendix by adopting Appendix X.

Mr. Sainsbury stated one of the property owners called staff that day and asked that her parcel not be included in the rezone. That parcel is not a part of the application this evening. He suggested the City Council add language to the ordinance if they choose to approve the resolution that would exclude that property from the PD-11 zone.

This proposal came before the City Council in November of 2011 but was continued by the Council. Since that time, the applicant has made some changes to the plans and configuration of the proposal

The applicant has been working with the City and neighbors for several years to develop the subject property. Earlier renditions included property owned by Leroy and Larry Peterson. They are no longer part of the development. The owners of the property in the proposed development are Alexis Gevorgian and the owners of the three homes at the corner of 1430 South and Sandhill Road. The request is to change the zone from R12 to the PD-11 zone to develop townhome units at a density of 13.9 units per acre. The subject property has historically been the location for agricultural uses.

The proposed development contains 151 units on approximately 10.86 acres for a density of 13.9 units per acre. The proposed density has a maximum of 15 units per gross acre. The density of the proposal is 10 units less per acre than the density of Pinnacle Canyon View (24 units/acre) to the north. The remainder of the R12 property, owned by the applicant and Leroy and Larry Petersen, will remain as the R12 zone.


Site changes include: relocating the clubhouse and pool facility, locating the larger units to the south boundary, straightening out the south boundary, and increasing the landscaping percentage and the number of parking stalls.

The applicant has squared off the south boundary with the adjacent landowner and picked up additional acreage. This has caused the number of units to increase but reduce the density to 13.9 units per acre. The proposed acreage and density reviewed by the City Council in November 2011 was 140 units on 9.54 acres or 14.67 units per acre.

The community center which includes a pool and clubhouse facility has been moved to the southeast and is now adjacent to the south boundary of the project. This reduces the effective density adjacent to the undeveloped R12 property to the south. The south boundary will be the location of the two-story units.

Access for this development will be located on 1430 South which will cause traffic to head north or south on Sandhill Road or east on 1430 South to the 400 West and University intersection. This proposal does not provide a connection to the south single-family homes with exception to Sandhill Road.

Parking was first proposed at 2.75 per unit but has now increased to 2.78 stalls per unit. Overall there will be 420 total parking stalls. Landscaping has also increased from 32 percent to 38 percent or an additional 1.12 acres from 3.05 acres to 4.13 acres.

Transportation ImpactsTwo different concept plans were presented to the Planning Commission at different meetings. The first plan included proposed street connections to the neighborhood area to the south, to Sandhill Road, and to 1430 South. The latest concept plan does not have street connections to the south, or to Sandhill Road. It's only two access points are onto 1430 South.

The concept plan also proposes to widen 1430 South and will provide curb, gutter, and a landscaped park strip and sidewalk on the south side of the road. The widened road will be able to accommodate a center turn lane. Going from a two-lane road to a three-lane road will increase the capacity of the road by twenty to thirty percent.

The latest concept plan proposal has 140 townhouse units. It is expected that the traffic generation would therefore be around 1400 vehicles per day (700 entering and 700 exiting the project each day). Most of these vehicle trips will be spread out through 16 hours of the day. In the AM Peak Hour, the traffic may be around 100 - 110 vehicles leaving the site, and just a few entering the site. In the PM Peak Hour, there will be around 100 – 110 entering the site, and about half that amount leaving the site.

Three intersections in the area were analyzed to determine if projected traffic impacts from the rezone concept plan would negatively impact existing traffic conditions:

1. 1430 South at Sandhill Road, 2. Sandhill Road at University Parkway, and 3. 400 West at University Parkway.


It is anticipated that intersection #1 will have an intersection delay increase of 0.4 seconds, intersection #2 an intersection delay increase of 0.3 seconds, and intersection #3 an intersection delay increase of 0.8 seconds. These delay values are under the assumption that 60 percent of the project traffic will use the University Avenue / 400 West Intersection, 35 percent would use the University Parkway and Sandhill Road intersection, and the remaining 5 percent of the project traffic would have an origin or destination south on Sandhill Road (south of 1430 South). Since the intersection delay increases were so small, no other traffic distribution assumptions were analyzed.

The Sandhill Road at University Parkway intersection, and the University Parkway at I-15 interchange, are currently being improved. The new intersection will be the first Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) in Utah Valley. The traffic impacts created by the proposed rezone plan are very minimal. To see a visualization of how the new interchange and adjoining intersection will function, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ss7XdgLCHI

Notices were mailed out to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the perimeter of the R12 property. Typical distance for notification is 300 feet, but this was expanded due to the impact the development may have in the area.

ArchitectureTwo styles of townhomes are proposed. The first has three stories and is 38 feet high. These units will have 3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths, and a 2-car garage. Exterior elements include a balcony, and facade relief, and a covered porch. The second style of townhome units are 2-story and have 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 2-car garage, balcony and covered porch. These units are 31 feet high and will have cement fiberboard siding. A clubhouse with pool facilities will also be included as an amenity for the residents.

Landscaping38.4 percent of the development will be landscaped and include one tree (deciduous or coniferous) and eight evergreen shrubs for every unit. Landscaping then is required at 151 trees and 1,208 evergreen shrubs.

ParkingEach townhome unit contains a 2-car garage in addition to this 0.78 parking stalls required for each unit as guest parking for a total of 420 stalls to serve guests and residents. Within a short distance of the applicant’s project, there are several high-density developments. Pinnacle Apartments has 288 units with parking at 2.25 stalls per unit for a total of 648 stalls. Parkway Condominiums, in the Student Housing (SH) overlay zone, has 107 units with 4 occupants per unit. Parking is calculated at 0.8 stalls per occupant which requires 342 stalls and 429 have been provided. Finally, Lake Ridge Condominiums has 96 units at 2.5 stalls per units for a total of 240 parking spaces.

Advantages: Provides additional housing opportunities There is a market demand for townhome units Townhomes have historically been well maintained in the city This is the type of development that attracts young families to the neighborhood


Ground is developed, which for the most part is underutilized The south side of 1430 South will be completed with asphalt, curb, and gutter The proposed concept plan provides an undeveloped buffer to the existing

R8 development to the south Because of individual ownership, a home owners association will be created to preserve

the quality of the development. Buffer (undeveloped) still in place between existing residential to the south and subject

property

Disadvantages: The applicant was not able to purchase five lots along Sandhill Road so the owners

(although 3 of the 5 lots will be rezoned) may not develop their property in the near future, or ever

As with any development, traffic will increase along Sandhill Road and 1430 South as outlined in the Transportation Impacts section of this agenda summary

The neighbors desire the property to develop as single-family homes at lower densities

**Mr. Andersen left the meeting at 6:55 p.m.

Alexis Gevorgian, applicant, advised that last time they met with the City Council there were some residents who had concerns about the proposal. This project has come a long way since its inception five years ago. They have had several meetings and feel this proposal works, fits, and is the best possible land use for the area. In order to address the concerns of the neighbors, they have:

Increased the landscaping to add more buffer No access from the development to the south Stepped the zoning to phase the density within the project Lowered the height of the buildings Incorporated a perimeter road around the project that will add an additional buffer

Mr. Gevorgian said they have held four community meetings, four meetings with the engineers, two Planning Commission meetings, and now they are back before the City Council. The Planning Commission originally denied the previous proposal; however, they unanimously approved this new application. He said he has reached out to the neighbors, and one particular family, and in his opinion has addressed all of the issues.

Mr. Gevorgian indicated they completed a traffic analysis on the project and compared the proposed application with that of a single-family dwelling development. The traffic study showed a diminimus impact with the PD-11 zone. The traffic has been the biggest concern of the neighbors. The developers have worked directly with the City’s traffic engineer, and the firm he hired has done work for the City, so there is no bias there. The total impact at the intersection of most concern is .2 seconds. Furthermore, that entire intersection is being improved, which will further improve the traffic circulation. This development will not be constructed until that intersection is completed.

Mr. Gevorgian said there is also a concern with the development turning into student housing. He said they took the census data and developed a chart that shows that rental housing, which


students occupy, is most common when there are three rooms. Less than 5 percent will be renters. This project is designed for young families that will otherwise be leaving Orem. Only 3.4 percent of the entire housing stock in Orem are townhomes, and most of them were built in the 1970s and 1980s.

Mr. Georgian added that a portion of their property abuts Sandhill Road. He said they will not be building any units on that parcel and offered to construct a monument for the City. He noted they will also be adding flower pots with all of the lighting that surrounds the perimeter of the project, which will further improve the area. They will dedicate the land to the City for the monument and will provide all of the easements as well as the utilities.

Mr. Seastrand asked the density for the units along the front north side. Mr. Gevorgian indicated the density was thirteen to sixteen units per acre.

When Mr. Seastrand stated the overall project density is fourteen units per acre, Mr. Gevorgian said that was correct.

Mr. Seastrand then questioned how many single-family homes can be built on one acre. Mr. Sainsbury noted there could be three.

Mr. Sumner said there is some concern about the units becoming rentals. He asked whether they can do something with the homeowners association (HOA) agreement that prohibits rentals. Mr. Gevorgian indicated the HOA and CC&Rs will limit the overcrowding of townhomes, and the violators can be cited and evicted. The developers have offered to allow someone from the neighborhood to serve on the HOA board. People do not generally realize that when there are CC&Rs in place, things can be better enforced.

Mr. Stephens clarified that the City does not have the authority to enforce CC&Rs, nor can the City get involved with dictating the terms of the CC&Rs beyond what they would normally do in an ordinance.

Mr. Gevorgian stated for the record that he is voluntarily committed to doing this on his own.

Mrs. Street asked the applicant to elaborate on the statement concerning overcrowding. The City ordinance states that no more than three unrelated individuals can live together in a dwelling. She wondered if that is the same guideline the developer is planning to use and whether he is planning private code enforcement. Mr. Gevorgian replied that absolutely they will be.

**Mayor Evans called for a break at 7:23 p.m.

**The meeting resumed at 7:31 p.m.

Mayor Evans indicated for the record that Mr. Andersen has asked to recuse himself from this vote. The City Attorney has told Mr. Andersen that it was not necessary, but Mr. Andersen does not wish to participate in the vote.

Mayor Evans opened the public hearing.


Roy Peterson, resident, stated that he has lived on Sandhill Road for many years. The traffic is already congested, and it is difficult to pull out of his driveway. Sometimes he has to wait for twenty cars to drive by before he can pull out. He said he is against adding more density to the area.

Marion Baxter, resident, said she lives south of the proposed project. She is approaching the City Council with a can-do attitude. She has tried to change her focus with this development to determine what it is that she is for. She recognizes they are all property owners in this area and respects that Mr. Gevorgian is also a property owner. If they are going to undertake an increase of density, they need to have a valid sustainable mix. The current proposal has a majority of three-story attached townhomes in strings of five. There is one strip of two-story townhomes, and they both have stairs. She asked why this development does not have more of a mixed design where more ages and stages of life can live. She said she is willing to be on board with the type of development which integrates the entire area into an accessible, useable, workable, community that will sustain a range of age groups and resources. She said she does not want to see the property developed in a single, cookie-cutter design.

Larry Peterson, resident, said he is the property owner to the north and south of this application. The proposed site plan shows potential roads when Mr. Gevorgian develops his property. Those roads will cause an impact to the neighbors. Mr. Peterson indicated he pulled his property out of this development because he had asked Mr. Gevorgian to include some of what the neighbors wanted in his development, such as R8. Mr. Gevorgian would not agree to do that, because he gets more money the other way. Mr. Peterson recommended the City Council not approve this application without some R8 included.

Jay Shepherd, property owner, stated that he used to live in the neighborhood. His wife still owns property in this area, and he is speaking on her behalf. He is on a homeowner’s board for a development near Mountain View High School. He owns thirty units behind Park’s Sportsman, and he is an advisor to that board. The main thing they battle with is rentals. He has sold real estate in this area for the past fifteen to twenty years. He looked on the Multi Listing Service before this meeting, and there were forty units for sale from $170,000. Some of those have been for sale for two years. There is a big probably of these proposed units being rentals. To try to control rentals in a project like this is nearly impossible and an association cannot do it. He said he does not think this project will be built if it is approved because he is not sure the market is here for this type of development.

Linda Viertel, resident, agreed there is a very valid concern that these units will turn into student housing. The enforcement will be a tremendous project. Utah Valley University does not have dorms, and the students need housing. Once this project is built, the developer will go back to California. He is not a part of the community, but the neighbors are and will be left to deal with the problems. She then questioned if there would be a fence between the development and the Peterson property, or if there was just a road.

Val Lindsay, resident, said his property looks down on all of the condominiums and the developments. When he purchased his property, WordPerfect owned this property and he envisioned all of the landscaping and beautiful things he thought would be there. That is quite a


contrast to what is there now. He agreed with Mr. Peterson concerning the traffic. The Sandhill Road reconstruction had to be done for some reason. Everyone said there would be no problems, but there are problems. He expressed concern that the property would not be taken care of and that the development would turn into student housing. He said he would not vote for this.

Tyler Harvey, resident, noted this area is already at its limit. He is not in favor of the project. There are too many people and not enough services to provide for them.

Roger Zundell, realtor, said there is a need for this type of housing in Orem. The problem is not that a developer has come to town and wants to develop his land. The problem is that the university has expanded. They have gone from relatively small to 33,000 students with a projected student body of 40,000 plus. That has created the problem. The City Council has to look at the land around the university to decide what the highest and best use is. The highest and best use for the land around the university is to serve the university in some capacity. If not, when those 40,000 students come in, those students will live in another part of town, which means more traffic in the area and more problems. There are already problems with students living in existing areas. This project will keep worse things from being developed on the property as the problem continue to grow.

Douglas Viertel, resident, said he has lived in this neighborhood for thirty-five years. When Mr. Gevorgian purchased this property five years ago, he purchase it with the current zoning. Mr. Gevorgian could develop this property with forty single-family homes, and the neighbors would not be here opposing the development. A month ago, the Cypress Grove application came before the City Council. It was in a better location, but the City Council turned it down. College Terrace near Utah Valley University started out being a hotel but quickly became student housing because of the location so close to Utah Valley University. This development will be the same way. When a church wanted to come in and build its tent structure, the City Attorney expressed concern that the City could be sued if they did not let them come in. The City designated specific areas for these types of structures about a month later because they did not want them anywhere else. Mr. Viertel then indicated that in the 84057 area, north Orem, in the price range between $0 and $225,000, there are 209 homes that are for sale. There are 80 homes in foreclosure. In 84058, south Orem, in that same range, there are 160 homes for sale and 62 are in foreclosure. In northwest Provo, 200 homes are for sale and 57 are in foreclosure. That is a lot of homes that are for sale. When Mr. Gevorgian purchased this property with the current zoning, he had the opportunity to put in 40 homes. The neighbors would not worry about that nor the impact to the area. Mr. Viertel said the one thing that gets him about the site plan is that there is no barrier because the Peterson property, which has no homes, is being used as the buffer. The City Council has to look at the whole situation and say this might be a good project but not in this area. Mr. Viertel then questioned the purpose of Mr. Gevorgian offering to put in the monument sign.

Lawrence Benson, resident, expressed appreciation to the City Council for taking the time to listen to the residents. He gave Mr. Gevorgian credit for trying to address the concerns; however, the developer is just trying to make money on this development. No one wants to deprive him of that opportunity, but the neighbors have an investment in their properties as well. They want to preserve a good community and neighborhood, and they feel this proposal would be a detriment.


Vicki Newell, realtor, said she graduated from Orem High School, and she loves Orem City. When people call her looking for properties, she asks what they are looking for. She has not sold a home in Orem for five years. The houses in Orem are old, and people want to by new. The homes for sale in Saratoga Springs have three to four offers on them because they are new. People are also looking for townhomes where they do not have to do yard work. Lifestyles are changing, and people are wanting the HOAs. HOAs are a good thing, and they structure the neighborhood. These units will not turn into student housing, because the HOA will oversee that. If there are too many rentals in a project, they will lose their FHA financing. FHA requires that a certain amount of property has to be owned and lived in by the owner and not be rentals. This development will not turn into student housing for that reason. It is meant for young families who do not want yard work, want a swimming pool, and a tot lot.

Mark Henry, Lehi resident, said he operates a business in Orem, and he is not a realtor. His clients want to live in Orem, but they cannot find any place to live because they do not want to live in an older home. They cannot afford to renovate a dilapidated home. This is a buyer’s market, and he is closing on more homes in Juab County this month than in Orem. This project would benefit the City of Orem in so many ways. Right now he would not consider moving to Orem; however, if this project were built, he would seriously consider it. There is great growth for opportunity here. Commerce needs to move, and the time is right now. Utah Valley University is not going to go anywhere, and if this project is not built, a new City Council might vote to put a new high-density student housing project in at that time. It is a wise decision to let this project go forward. It would not benefit the community if this project were to lose its FHA status. The HOA members and the board would have to dictate the rentals compared to the owner occupied units. This can work. He said he sees it work all of the time. This is a great project for the area.

Lee Baxter, resident, said the United States had a ten percent growth in the decade ending 2010. The State of Utah had thirty percent growth, and Utah County had a forty percent growth. These are very large numbers, and everyone has felt an impact from that. The proposal that is being made tonight is to increase the density by several hundred percent, and the neighbors are asked to believe that they will not notice it. He has noticed forty percent, and he hates to think of what hundreds will be like. Mr. Baxter said he spends a lot of his professional life trying to turn engineering reports into something that can be understood. He noted he likes the traffic study that was done; however, he is disturbed by some of the things he reads in the study and how some of the things are presented. The first is the intersection at 400 West. The traffic study shows this single development will consume fifty-seven percent of the remaining capacity of the 400 West intersection. What has not been mentioned is that every single north/south movement in that intersection is already at failure. The east/west movement is not at failure, and there is fifty times more traffic that goes east/west. That intersection is managed so traffic never backs up on the interstate, which is appropriate. This morning that intersection was opened, and it has the shortest projected life of any intersection along the I-15 corridor in Utah with the existing land use. The developers are proposing an increase the land use on that parcel of several hundred percent. By the time that development is finished, that intersection will be back at failure. These are numbers are found in the traffic study. Mr. Baxter stated that his underlying issue really has to do with the zoning. When the Orem City Municipal Code talks about zoning, it says the purpose of zoning is to promote the safety and general welfare of the community and to implement the adopted Master Plan for the orderly and controlled growth of the city. The


adopted Master Plan shows this area to be low-density residential and that is what he would like to advocate.

Douglas Viertel, clarified that the homes the gentleman said he closed on in Juab County were not townhomes. They were single-family homes and were not next to Utah Valley University. They can make those comparisons, but they are not townhomes near Utah Valley University.

Jay Shepherd said the figure to maintain FHA status is fifty percent. They could rent forty-nine percent of the units and still maintain that status. He indicated that he is in the process of renewing his license so he has a bunch of classes he is taking. People are talking about what is going to happen in the Utah County market. The banks have been holding onto properties so they do not flood the market. There is going to be a number of houses dumped on the market in the next six months. Those houses will be sold at some fairly reasonable prices and some of them are right here. He noted his son-in-law tried to sell a condominium in Saratoga Springs. It took him approximately six months, and he had to lower the price. There is a lot of available housing in Orem, and there is going to be more.

Mr. Zundell said that, at the risk of sounding pompous, there is no one in the room that knows more about real estate than he does. The market is hot, and there is a need for new housing. All of the rumors about what is coming on the market does not really affect this conversation other than to guarantee he could sell those houses in the price range they are talking about within a reasonable amount of time. They are not going to get distressed, and they are not going to become rentals because of economic reasons.

Mayor Evans closed the public hearing.

Mrs. McCandless asked the applicants if there are garages, or if the units will have carports. Mr. Gevorgian said all of units will have garages on the rear of the buildings.

Mrs. McCandless then inquired about whether there will be dumpsters or individual garbage cans. Mr. Gevorgian said there will be dumpsters behind architectural enclosures.

Mrs. McCandless questioned how much the HOA fees would be. Mr. Gevorgian estimated they would be $125, and he would have to subsidize that during the first three phases. He stated that he is willing to do that, because David Stroud has added a condition that the amenities be completed during the first phase.

Mrs. McCandless wondered if they have made sure the development would fit on the property as proposed. She said she was not insulting the developers, but the City Council had such a situation with a development on 800 North, and she did not want that to happen again. Mr. Gevorgian said they have drawn the development to scale, and it does fit.

Mr. Sumner noted that Mr. Gevorgian had a whole list of amenities and asked if all of those would be included or if the developer could back out of them. Mr. Gevorgian stated that this is what he is committing to, and the City Council can make that a condition of the approval.


Mr. Sumner then questioned how wide the road would be out in front of the structures. Mr. Gevorgian said they are widening the road to City standard and they are putting curb and gutter in. Within their own development, they have basically two way traffic. They put a perimeter road around the entire property so they can further buffer the southern neighbors.

Mrs. Black said one of the residents had expressed concern that one of the perimeter roads would be a future access to the homes to the south. Mr. Gevorgian said that road is to provide access to the garages.

Mr. Sainsbury clarified that it is a private access to the garage areas. It will never be a public street. This development is self-contained.

Mrs. Black then questioned whether this development could change from what is being proposed tonight.

Mr. Sainsbury explained that whatever is approved this evening was what must be built. It would not matter who the developer was. Any changes would have to go back through the public process. It can remain raw ground as it is, but as they go through the process for approvals, it would have to match the ordinance.

Mr. Seastrand questioned if the PD-11 requirements would expire at some point and revert to the R12 zone. Mr. Sainsbury said it would not. Once the PD-11 was applied, the property would have to developed as such.

Mr. Gevorgian said it is not easy being a developer. They started this project 5 years ago and had 200 people opposed to this project. They are now down to 11 who are not happy with it. It is not easy to make everyone happy. The Planning Commission determined that this proposal is so far removed from the people who are complaining about this project that they will not feel the impact. At the end of the day, the neighbors will see that the project they are presenting and delivering will be an addition to the community. The traffic studies were done based on instructions from the City Engineer and how he wanted it done. The assumptions in Orem are a higher standard than other cities use. That assumption incorporates the possibility of the units being rentals, which he does not believe will happen. At the end of the day, there is a diminimus impact to the area.

Mayor Evans commented that he had discussions with the administration at UVU. They talked about housing for the professors as the university continues to grow. When recruiting faculty, many of them want to live in close proximity to the school. He can see this development being used by professors if it were approved.

Mr. Sumner said he was in a meeting last week, and the university is looking at increasing the faculty and staff by 300-400 by the end of the decade.

Mrs. Street thanked the developer for the thorough job he has done with his presentation, staff for their report and for working with the developer, and the neighbors for being involved in the process and giving the Council their comments. She indicated the City Council hears development applications outside of this area as well, and the concerns are similar. Mrs. Street


declared that it is time as a community to embrace its “UVUness.” Orem was not a college town 50 years ago, but it is now, and in 50 years it will still be a university town. Once the college obtains university status, they have it. As a community Orem has much to gain from this. Mrs. Street said she always gets a little concerned when people start talking about students in a derogatory way. Everyone present has been a student before and they hope that they will have students in their families. The average age of a student at UVU is 30 years old. What a student is in this community is not necessarily the mental image they have of the “Animal House” movie students in the 1970s and 1980s. Orem and Provo are home to 80,000 students, out of the 500,000 people that live in Utah County. According to Val Peterson, UVU is projected to add another 10,000 students in the next 7 years. It is currently the largest university in the state in terms of enrollment, and it is the 4th highest open enrollment university in the nation. This is a unique opportunity for the City to embrace fully. The landscape has changed and will continue to change, just as surely as people get wrinkles and gray hair. Mrs. Street reaffirmed that some of the things she heard this evening concern her. The comments actually build a case for why the City should be embracing the highest intensity land use they can possibly get from the remaining half mile radius around the university because that is considered the walkable area. Transit or Pedestrian Oriented Development is used in land use planning with a goal to get it as densely developed as possible so people can walk and have fewer automobile impacts on the community. Density should not be something they focus on. They should decide what design they want in the community and build it. The university is the one thing that is not going anywhere, and the Council needs to look at what land use makes the most sense in that area. The developer has been very conservative, and the impact that he could be asking for in terms of the number of units is actually very conservative. The townhome product that has been proposed is a needed housing product in this community. There is a greater need for the rental product in the community than there is for the home ownership product right now. They have more control with how they set up the HOA and bylaws than the City does in trying to control it.

Mr. Sumner said a lot has been said about these becoming rental units; however, if they are single-family homes there is nothing to stop them from becoming rentals as well. He said that is why he asked the question in the beginning concerning the HOA. He said he lives on 800 West, and he works at UVU. He loves walking to school, and he is looking to downsize. He is looking at something like this that is close to the university as well. That will not determine his vote, but he does put a lot of faith in the Planning Commission. They should get a lot of credit for doing their due diligence.

Mrs. McCandless thanked the applicant for his presentation. She also thanked the neighbors. She said the Sandhill Road neighbors should have their own engraved seats in the Council Chambers due to the amount of time they have spent at these meetings. Mrs. McCandless then gave a history of her neighborhood, which included the construction of a hospital, Cortland Ridge Apartments, an assisted living facility, twenty-five twinhomes, and Tuscan Villas which has hundreds of units. She said as she looked at this proposal, she tried to think what she could compare it to. She picked the Tuscan Villas and looked at the demographics. Her accountant lives there as do retired families, families with children, single parents with children, single professionals, and students; however, the largest demographic is young families. This housing complex is not next to Utah Valley University, but it is next to the freeway, commercial, and single-family homes. Mrs. McCandless gave another example of a development on 800 East and 1000 North that the neighbors wanted to keep as single-family dwellings and the developer


wanted as twinhomes. The City Council kept the zoning as single-family, and the property remained undeveloped. The developer came back several years later and said he had tried everything to make a single-family subdivision out of this, but he could not. The City Council approved a PRD, and they are very nice and contribute to the neighborhood. Mrs. McCandless said she agreed with Mr. Sumner about the Planning Commission and their recommendations. She appreciated their input. Mrs. McCandless read from the General Plan in reference to PD zones, saying she considered what special circumstances this property has that make it so other types of zoning do not work. She looked at the surrounding zoning, and there is really not a zone in the community for the type of use that has two sides with high-density residential, and one side commercial. She said she walked along 1430 South and tried to envision how the project would look. She did not consider at where the developer is from, and she did not look at how long he has been working on this project. She took in the proximity to transit, a grocery store (within walking distance), and the freeway. She noted she is comfortable with CC&Rs. She stated density can be deceiving, and the design is something the City Council should feel comfortable with if they are going to approve it.

Mrs. Black said it has been interesting listening to the comments. This application is important to everyone involved. She appreciates the applicant shifting the density on the property and downsizing. She said many people have told her that they want to live in Orem, but they cannot find this kind of housing. There is a need for townhomes for young families. The design is attractive, and the developer has made a lot of effort to address the concerns of the neighbors. She said she likes that the only access is on the one street.

Mr. Seastrand thanked the developer for trying to mitigate the concerns of the neighborhoods. He said he has been opposed to the project. His concern continues to be that, in City’s attempt to have a mix of housing options, this area already has its share of high-density housing mixed with single-family dwellings. He said he is not opposed to student housing. He and his wife lived in student housing close to Brigham Young University. He recognizes that a lot of the homes can be purchased by young families that are going to school, and it is unknown if they would continue to live there after graduation. They are seeing single-family homes being converted to student housing in some neighborhoods and that does cause a lot of the concern. Mr. Seastrand said his issues are not with the student but with the impact on the neighborhood. The neighbors are trying to preserve their community and sense of belonging. There are a lot of unknowns about this request that cause concern to him. He would like to see what the other property owners have planned for their property. He said he is not sure this proposal needs to be approved at this point.

Mayor Evans stated as he has looked at the area and has spoken with UVU President Holland, Val Peterson, and Val Hale, and he does not see this proposal as student housing. There is a need for a need this kind of development in the community. He expressed his opinion that it could be a good buffer between the neighbors there now and what is to the north of the development.

Mrs. Street moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of the City of Orem, Utah, by changing the zone on approximately 10.86 acres from R12 to PD-11 for property located generally at 1430 South Sandhill Road, amend Section 22-11-23 of the Orem City Code by enacting the PD-11 zoning text, and amend the Appendix by adopting Appendix X. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion.


Mr. Stephens asked if the motion included the stipulation that existing properties in the PD-11 zone that are not included in the PD-11 development should continue to operate under the standards of the R12 zone. Mrs. Street indicated she was happy to have that as part of her motion.

Mayor Evans then questioned whether they should address anything with the CC&Rs in the motion. Mr. Stephens advised that he would be more comfortable not including any language regarding the CC&Rs.

Mrs. Black asked if they can address concerns with a development agreement. Mr. Sainsbury said he is not sure what they would add to the development agreement that is not addressed by the PD-11 text and the appendix.

Mayor Evans called for a vote. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Karen A. McCandless, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Mark Seastrand. The motion carried with a majority vote of 5 to 1.

**Mr. Andersen returned to the meeting at 9:36 p.m.

6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE – Amending Section 22-11-17(B) Of The Orem City Code by Adding Standard Land Use Code 7214 Legitimate Theater as a Permitted Use in the PD-5 Zone

Mr. Sainsbury presented an applicant request that the City Council, by ordinance, add SLU Code 7214 Legitimate Theater as a permitted use in the PD-5 zone.

The intended purpose of the PD-5 zone was to limit the uses allowed in the zone and promote commercial activities that are conducive in close proximity to residential zones while protecting the character and quality of adjacent residential uses. The PD-5 zone is located from 400 West to 200 East along University Parkway.

Motion Picture Theaters is a permitted use in the PD-5 zone but a Legitimate Theater (live plays, etc.) is not currently permitted. The applicant requests legitimate theater be added as a permitted use for the purpose of operating a haunted house in the fall and other activities relating to live theater throughout the year. The location will also have a small retail area for related novelties. After reviewing the proposed ordinance, staff has listed advantages and disadvantages concerning the proposed request.

Advantages: A legitimate theater business would have minimal impact to the surrounding businesses

or adjacent residential zones; Adding legitimate theaters as a permitted use in the PD-5 zone allows an option for

owners and operators of commercial spaces to lease space adding vitality to the University Parkway corridor; and

Close proximity to UVU and BYU students increases the viability along the corridor.


Disadvantage: University Parkway is a valuable retail corridor. This is a use that would generate

minimal sales tax.

The proposed amendment to Section 22-11-17(B) is outlined below:

B. Permitted Uses. The uses listed below shall be permitted within the PD-5 zone. Standard Land

Use Code Category1510 Hotels, tourist courts, and motels5260 Home Improvement Centers5392 General Stores53XX All General Merchandise Retail Category, (except 5395, Flea Market)

NEC*54XX All Food Retail Category (except 5420, Farmers Market)5511 Motor vehicles (new and used)56XX All Apparel & Accessories Category57XX All Furniture, Home Furnishings and Equipment Category5810 Restaurants5910 Drug and proprietary5931 Antiques5932 Gold and Silver594X Books, Stationary, and Office Supplies Category (except 5949, Video

Rental)5951 Sporting goods5952 Bicycles5953 Toys5970 Computer goods and services5996 Optical goods61XX All Financial, Insurance and Real Estate, Services Category,(except

6161, Pawn Shops)6220 Photographic Services Category6230 Beauty and Barber Category6331 Duplicating, Mailing and Stenographic, Category NEC6350 News Syndicates Category6360 Employment Services Category6392 Business and Management Consulting Services6396 Photo finishing65XX All Professional Services Category

(except 6515, Veterinarian Services, Kennels & Runs)711X Cultural Activities Category7212 Motion Picture Theaters7214 Legitimate Theater

Mr. Seastrand asked if there are any design criteria to this, such as a seated theater. Mr. Sainsbury said he thinks they want to do different types of uses. There will be some type of spook alley in the fall season, and they want to run a mystery play once a month at other times. The land use is similar to that of a movie theater.

James Bernard, applicant, confirmed that he wants to do a haunted house in September and October and a mystery theater on Saturday nights at other times of the year. Castle of Chaos is


the name of the company, and this will be their third city. This is a great location for them with the college students, and there will not be a residential impact.

Mrs. Street asked where this would be located. Mr. Bernard stated it would be between Joanne’s and the old FYE store.

Mrs. Street then questioned if the parking requirements are different for this use, and Mr. Sainsbury said they are not.

The applicant then showed design concepts for his facility.

Mrs. Black asked whether the ticket prices include sales tax. Mr. Bernard explained that they do collect sales tax. Last year they brought in $700,000 during their two months of operation. They feel that, of the three locations, this will be their best one.

Mr. Seastrand questioned if the spook alley is really scary to go through. Mr. Bernard said they have set it up so the first area is 3D and is not very scary. The next is the haunted mansion, and that is a little scarier. Then there is the asylum which is scary, and the last portion is darker and very scary.

Mayor Evans opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Mayor Evans closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Black wondered whether they would be doing the mystery theater year round. Mr. Bernard said the haunted house would be the first thing they construct and then they would run the mystery theater starting in November.

Mrs. McCandless moved, by ordinance, to add SLU Code 7214 Legitimate Theater as a permitted use in the PD-5 zone. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

ORDINANCE – Approving the Amounts to be Awarded to the CARE Grant Recipients for the 2012 CARE Granting Round

Charlene Mackay, CNS Manager, presented a staff recommendation that the City Council, by ordinance, approve the amounts to be awarded to CARE grant recipients for the 2012 granting round.On November 8, 2005, a majority of City of Orem voters voted in favor of enacting a local sales and use tax of 0.1% as a means of enhancing financial support for recreational and cultural facilities, and cultural organizations within the City of Orem. Known as the Cultural Arts and Recreation Enrichment tax (CARE), the Orem City Council enacted the tax by ordinance on November 22, 2005. The tax went into effect April 1, 2006, and is currently authorized for a period of eight years.

On December 9, 2008, the City Council amended the CARE Program policies and procedures, establishing eligibility requirements and an application process for this competitive granting


program. Three categories of grants were established, including Recreational and Cultural Facilities, available for publicly-owned or operated facilities; Cultural Arts Major Grants, of $5,000 or more for operating costs of nonprofit cultural arts organizations; and, Cultural Arts Mini Grants, of up to $4,999 for operating costs of nonprofit cultural arts organizations.

Applications for this CARE granting round were due on March 14, 2012. The City Council then met in a series of public meetings in April and May to hear from applicants and to consider their grant requests.

Utah law requires that the entire amount of revenues and interest collected as a result of the imposition of the tax be distributed in a manner consistent with Utah Code Ann. 59-12-1403, which allows for granting to one or more facilities or organizations. Utah law also requires the City to provide for that distribution by ordinance.

Ms. Mackay reviewed the proposed allocations as follows:Mini Grants Roots of Freedom - $4,999 Chauntenettes - $4,999 Orem Chorale - $4,999 Utah Valley Civic Ballet - $4,799 Colonial Heritage Foundation - $4,999 Utah Film Center - $1,000 Utah Storytelling Guild Story Camp - $4,999 Resonance Story Theater - $4,999 Wasatch Ballet Conservatory - $0 (no funding of scholarships) Utah Lyric Opera Society - $4,999 Latinos in Action - $4,999 Utah Baroque Ensemble - $4,999 The Provo Orem Word - $700 (live teen reading event) Institute for Young Dramatic Voices - $2,500

Facilities Recreation Commitment - $500,000 Center for Story Commitment - $300,000 SCERA Shell Handrails - $33,500

Major Grants Utah Regional Ballet - $40,000 Clear Horizons Academy - partnering with Hale Center Theater Hale Center Foundation- $455,708 ($12,000 will be used for Clear Horizons Program) Utah Valley Symphony - $8,000 SCERA - $610,000 ($10,000 will be used for operations of Heritage Museum)

Total - $2,028,198 – This includes $27,000 for the administration of the grant.

The funding will be as follows:


$1,630,000 new tax funding $245,543 reserved funding $152,655 reallocation of funding set aside in 2006-2007 for property acquisition on 720

South

Ms. Mackay indicated the City Council has also discussed the need for strategic planning regarding an arts district and other arts facilities. There is a possibility that funding from 2007-2008 could be reallocated in the future for that.

Mayor Evans opened the meeting for public comments.

Jim Murphy, Hale Center Theater, thanked the City Council for the support they have given them throughout the years. He said they are excited about the partnership they hope to establish with Clear Horizons. He commended the City for their willingness to see things come together and to allow this partnership between two great organizations that serve the people in Orem. He said that with the CARE Tax coming up for renewal next year, it is time for the organizations that have received CARE funding to come together and present a united front to the people of Orem as they go to get this renewed. The time for any discussion regarding any of the initiatives that are receiving funding is over. That train has left the station in regards to the Center for Story. It is time they all work very hard on behalf of one another to make sure that all of the arts organizations and the Recreation Department are fully aware that in order to get this passed in 2013 they need to come together as one. They need to work together with no discourse.

Mayor Evans thanked Mr. Murphy for his comments. The City loves what this tax has done for the arts, and they hope to continue to build upon that.

Mr. Seastrand questioned if they need to amend the applications due to the additional funds given to the HALE for working with Clear Horizons and the additional funding to SCERA for the museum. Ms. Mackay stated it will be addressed in the contracts.

Mrs. McCandless moved, by ordinance, to approve the amounts to be awarded to CARE grant recipients for the 2012 granting round. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

ORDINANCE – Amending Article 13 of the Orem City Code to Prohibit the Use of Amusement Attractions at All Parks and Recreation Areas

Karl Hirst, Recreation Director, presented a staff recommendation that the City Council, by ordinance, amend Article 13-1 of the Orem City Code relating to amusement attractions at all parks and recreation areas.

The City of Orem is responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. The use of amusement attractions in the City’s parks and recreation areas can cause damage to City-owned property and puts the people that use the attractions and the other park and recreation area users at risk. Furthermore, the inability of organizations and individuals, that rent or utilize amusement attractions, to obtain insurance coverage for participants using these


attractions may expose the City to additional liability. In an effort to provide the best and safest experience for all individuals that use parks and recreation areas, the Recreation Director has determined that the use of amusement attractions in parks and recreation areas should be prohibited unless the amusement attractions are used during a City-sponsored event or activity.

For the purposes of the ordinance, “Amusement Attractions” shall mean any temporary attractions or apparatuses on City-owned property that are not permanent fixtures that are commonly operated at fairs, fundraisers, and private parties including but not limited to inflatable structures, bounce houses, astro jumps, jumpers, moonwalks, dunk tanks, and climbing walls.

Mrs. Black wondered whether the City is covered if they have these types of structures at City-sponsored functions. Mr. Hirst said the ordinance does allow the City to accept the liability for the events they are hosting.

Mr. Seastrand asked how someone renting the item and using it in the park makes the City liable for injuries.

Mikel Birch, Risk Manager, said the City would be liable as the property owner and for allowing it on the property.

Mr. Seastrand asked what protection the City has at the skate park. Mr. Hirst said the City is self-insured, and they have made a decision to accept that risk.

Mayor Evans opened the meeting for public comment.

Daniel Pugmire, Partyland events coordinator, expressed concern that the wording in the ordinance states that the attractions are not limited to inflatable structures, bounce houses, astro jumps, etc. He asked if tents would be included in this ordinance as a temporary structure. He said he is on the committee for the Colonial Heritage Festival, and they set up many tents. He would not want this ordinance to cancel out some of these options. He said he is concerned about this ordinance for Partyland; however, he does understand the need for the insurance.

Mr. Stephens advised that is a good point. He suggested adding the word amusement to the ordinance to read: temporary amusement attractions or apparatus. Mr. Stephens said he would not regard a tent as being an amusement attraction.

Mr. Andersen moved, by ordinance, to amend Article 13-1 of the Orem City Code relating to amusement attractions at all parks and recreation areas with the amendment proposed by Mr. Stephens. Mrs. McCandless seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

COMMUNICATION ITEMS

There were no comments on the communication items.


CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS

There were no information items.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Seastrand moved to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. McCandless seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner.

The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m.

Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder

Approved: June 12, 2012


city of orem - oremcityexe.orem.org/minutes/ccmin/2001-2050/2012/2012-05-22… · web viewcity of...

Documents