city council meeting january 24, 2017 - utah · city council meeting . 56 north state street orem,...

City Council Minutes – January 24, 2017 (p.1)

CITY OF OREM CITY COUNCIL MEETING

56 North State Street Orem, Utah January 24, 2017

3:00 P.M. WORK SESSION – PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom

Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner

APPOINTED STAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant

City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Neal Winterton, Water Division Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Donna Weaver, City Recorder

DISCUSSION – Southwest Orem Neighborhood Association

Dave Busath referred the Council to a handout, saying the purpose of the Southwest Orem Neighborhood Association (SWONA) was to:

• Preserve/help adjudicate changes of Residential Zones • Preserve residential character for families raising children and teens • Respond appropriately to growth of UVU and Orem City businesses

SWONA’s stance on UVU growth was that it needed to level off. The current full and part time Orem campus student body was approximately 27,000 students. Mr. Busath stated the neighborhood and development pressures were intense. The infrastructure burden on the City of 100,000 was too high in regards to traffic, jobs, utilities, emergency response and apartments. He referred to a neighborhood in Provo near BYU that no longer had single-family residences and called it a “student ghetto,” something they did not want in Orem. Orem needed to remain a place where people had yards that could be fenced for children and pets. Crime tended to accompany the loss of residential areas. SWONA was concerned with illegal rentals. Mr. Busath explained that residential zones at the time constituted approximately seventy-five percent of Orem’s surface area. They were fairly inclusive and smoothly bounded, with few peninsulas or outlets. As a committee, they wanted the following zone change principles to be taken into consideration:


• R zones should not be converted if: o They created inclusions, peninsulas, or inlets o They depleted overall R zone surface area to less than fifty percent o They were opposed by residents in the bordering districts

• SW Orem conversions must meet the following high standards:

o Buffers, landscaping, and traffic impacts that enhance value o Barriers for school zone protections o Appropriate heights for separation distance rule o Sufficient promise of income potential and an investment requirement to assure high

maintenance

Mr. Busath reviewed three case studies that concerned SWONA. 1. PEG/Palos Verdes

• All homes (but one) already purchased • Peninsular shape of the R zone • PEG proposed five-story apartments • Opposition from an adjacent district • Line of sight in proximity to very tall buildings • 400 West traffic was dangerous and excessive • College student “dorms” threatened teenage student safety

SWONA’s stance:

• Construct high walls for junior high security • The building should only be three to four stories with less than 100 cars for visitors

only • Additional traffic lights on 400 West • The Planning Commission should account of the neighborhood deposition together

with the rezoning application.

2. ICO / 800 West – Neighborhood northeast of the Institute building on campus. • Various topographical issues • Line of site issues with the library on campus

SWONA would support a rezone if:

• There was a good buffer • Density grading was acceptable • Line of site wasn’t too problematic • The area was rezoned all at once, not piecemeal • A buffer was created with a new UCAST campus, and three-story buildings were

constructed that were denser with only 1,100 students. • The road to the neighborhood was blocked off.

Sunset Heights East District stance:

• All rezoned with one PD Zone only


• Land swap: housing was placed in the current institute parking lot • Large buffer: Institute Parking and UCAS • Limit of three stories west of 800 West; two stories east of 800 West • Parking was limited to visitor parking • Roads were replaced with driveway entrances • Use room occupancies common among dorms: two students/room; four students/bath,

and make them affordable for students SWONA was supportive of the above conditions because of the “hollow” geometry. Mr. Busath said the neighborhood would file opinion simultaneously with the rezone application.

3. JRS – Cherry Hill (dignity care for the elderly) The owner of the Cherry Hill property wanted to convert his Orem Estate for dignity care for elderly. SWONA was of the opinion that while the ambiance of an elderly center would be nice, the area in question was a pure residential neighborhood. The PD zone in the center of Cherry Hills constituted an inclusion, and distracted from the unity of the neighborhood environment. As such, SWONA opposed such a change. Mr. Busath said SWONA was there to stay because of the university. They would continue to stand up for residential zones, because the amount of growth being proposed was unacceptable. SWONA would cooperate with the seven neighborhoods and their districts to

1. identify and alleviate illegal rentals in NIA districts 2. preserve a residential environment for raising families 3. help in the development of Neighborhood Plans 4. get neighborhood district input and consensus to help inform rezoning questions.

Mr. Lentz asked if the Cherry Hill project would take down the existing mansion. Mr. Busath answered in the negative. A meeting attendee said it would also include the construction of new buildings. Mayor Brunst invited comments from residents. Allen Parish said he lived close to three homes UVU recently purchased. While the homes provided a good buffer now, they had no idea how long before the university would demolish those homes to make way for the construction of a new building. Mr. Allen was also concerned with access and traffic along 400 West. Ervin Steele said some members of the Council had misconceptions. The Steele family’s development proposals were because of their family. Their father provided them with property so they could build close together. They did give UVU and the LDS Church an opportunity to purchase the property now owned by ICO, but neither entity had interest in the property. The Steeles wanted to relocate their entire family and ICO was the first company to make that possible. They wanted to do something that would not be intrusive on the neighbors, and wanted ICO to maintain ownership. Mayor Brunst said both ICO and the Steeles would maintain ownership of the subject property.


Mr. Steele said his family would have a very little say in the project. Gary Tibbets said he lived just up the street from the Parishes, and he was concerned about the encroachment into their neighborhood from illegal neighbors. Marsha Parish said she was promised there would never be an entrance to UVU from 400 West. She said they lied to them. Jan Collard stated her address as 400 West 1000 South. She said she was told there were never any intentions of her property being purchased to be used as a buffer zone for 400 West. She said she had never been invited to any SWONA meetings that dealt with the neighborhood. When they purchased their property, 960 South was changed to a private road with a public access. Cameron Mart, the Vice President at UVU, said they held a series of meetings with neighbors and he saluted the recommendations that came forward. He said there were questions he wanted to answer. First, UVU had over 600 free stalls on campus. At their worst peak, there were still 300 stalls open; as of today there were 450 open stalls. Second, the three home buffer would be rentals in the near future, with the help of a management company. He said he could not forecast what a future administration would do with the properties in question. Lastly, how the developments for housing went would impact how the university decided to use those properties.

DISCUSSION – Parks Master Plan

Mr. Bybee turned the time over to Suzy Becker, Lisa and Mark Vlassic with ZBPF, for the presentation outlined below. It was stated that the Orem Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan was intended to capture the vision and needs of the existing community, while providing policy guidance for allocating resources during the next 10 years and beyond. The overall scope of the plan included:

• Community Participation o Coordination with City Council (two meetings) and Staff (on-going) o Plan Advisory Committee (three meetings) o Project Web Page o Public Meetings (Scoping in November 2016, Open House in Spring 2017) o Stakeholder Interviews

• Community Needs and Preference Survey (ongoing) • Briefings and public hearing presentations • Inventory and evaluation of existing and proposed facilities • Needs assessment and analysis • Facility acquisition, construction & management costs • Operation & management plan • Goals, objectives and policy development • Plan development and adoption

The Draft Plan Outline included an introduction and sections to address parks and open space, recreation facilities, trails, acquisition and construction costs, goals and policies, and preliminary demographics.


• Population Summary – Existing City o 97, 714; Existing Population (2016) o 101,664 (+3,950); Projected Population (2026)/Ten-year Planning Horizon o 123,600 (+21,936); Projected Population (2060)/Buildout

• Total Growth Projected – Existing City o 3,950 + 21,936 = 25,886

• Population Summary – Southwest Annexation Area o 50; Existing Population (2016) o 1,452 (+1,402); Projected Population (2026)/Ten-year Planning Horizon o 2,419 (+967); Projected Population (2060)/Buildout o Average Household Size; 3.2 and declining

Demographics summary:

• Orem was one of the more mature communities in the County. • Approximately fifteen percent of projected growth would take place in the Southwest

Annexation Area. • Bulk of future growth would occur as infill and redevelopment in the existing City. • As the population matured and the community filled in, a balanced, diverse and adaptable

range of park and recreation facilities was required to meet changing needs, in particular those of the fast-rising retirement age cohort.

Mr. Macdonald asked if the park needs changed with an aging community. Mr. Vlassic answered affirmatively; he said it impacted the types of parks that were needed, with less emphasis on large sports fields and more on trails. The level of service pertaining to parks as it related to population growth was reviewed. Mr. Vlassic said the key question was whether or not the plan met the future needs and desires of the City. He said they were working with the Planning Department to ensure a comprehensive approach to parks. He presented a chart which compared parks level of service in acres per 1,000 residents, as compared to nine other cities. Mr. Bybee said some parks that might not be considered were the ones by Orem Community Hospital, as well as the Cemetery property. Lakeside Sports Park included some property that was in Vineyard. The golf course was considered a specialty use. Mr. Vlassic said Provo had a different way to calculate their park space. When transitional open space or special uses were considered, it complicated the discussion. Mr. Bybee said in Lehi there was much more negativity about park space. Mayor Brunst said he would be interested in seeing what other communities had done with uses of their parks to accommodate the various age groups. Mrs. Lauret stated the community meetings had been productive, and that the Beautification Committee had also weighed in on matters. Most of the discussion centered on enhancing parks to benefit the junior population, as well as trail improvements for seniors who utilized them for walking.


Suzy Becker discussed the impact fees analysis for parks and recreation. As per code, two documents were required—an Impact Fee Facilities Plan and an Impact Fee Analysis. She detailed the components to each document, and explained that impact fees were charged by household or family size. Mayor Brunst observed that as the population grew there would be additional needs for new park space, perhaps as much as sixty-five acres. Mrs. Lauret asked how the apartment complexes factored when calculating fees. Ms. Becker said they would be counted as multifamily.

DISCUSSION – BRT/TOD Study Mr. Bybee introduced Mr. Packer to present the overall vision for the study. Mr. Packer said the study was commissioned by UTA last year. It was meant to determine the long term impacts of the BRT as well as ways in which it could have been better utilized. Mayor Brunst noted that a significant amount of new business occurred along mass transit lines. Project timeline was presented:

• Q4 2016 – Project Kick-Off • Q4 2016 – Q1 2017 – Data gathering of existing conditions, economic conditions, market

analysis of key locations, highest and best use analyses, LMI housing analysis, etc. • Q1-Q3-2017 – Existing conditions for bike and pedestrian improvements, maps of

recommended bike improvements, analysis of TOD sites, financial modeling, fiscal impacts, etc.

• Q3-Q4-2017 – Redevelopment potential, conceptual plans, funding strategies, etc. The steering and executive committees were asked to consider the following questions as part of the study:

• What end results do you want for your community? • Identify key areas in the study zone where you would like to see redevelopment. • What is your long-term vision for bike and pedestrian access throughout the zone? • Where do you see the greatest need for housing, and, what type of housing? • Who are the key entities/individuals you want involved in this study?

A sample map was presented showing market value of different parcels throughout the City. The map also indicated where stations were located. Mr. Packer presented the following information:

• Impacts on Achievable Rental Rates in Competitive Cities – One year Following Completion of Construction of BRT Lines (within 200 Yards of a BRT Station) o Retail/Office rental rate gains were reported from 2.0 to 6.0 percent, separate from

overall market escalations o Higher gains correlated to closer proximity to stations o Increases in ridership over standard bus lines were influential in the amount of rent

escalations


o Ridership on surveyed lines showed increases from twenty to nearly sixty percent in the year following completion of construction. Increases in several markets continued well beyond the initial year.

o 6.0 percent rental rate increases were most associated with reports of significant escalations in ridership

• Impacts on Achievable Rental Rates in Competitive Cities – One year Following Completion of Construction of BRT Lines (Within 200 Yards of a BRT Station)

o Some evidence in the market for reduced vacancy rates and greater investor interest for properties within 200 yards of a BRT station. Brokers and developers indicated that capitalization rates (first-year rates of return) were lower (resulting in higher values) at areas with BRT stations, than prior to construction, or, as compared to other areas without BRT amenities

A chart showing Orem/Provo BRT/TOD hypothetical retail analyses both before and after BRT improvements were made was reviewed.

• Developer and Broker Comments Regarding Impact of BRT on Values: o Retailers were most interested being located near the “mass congregation” of people

that occurred at stops, as compared to along the line o Office owners (not including service commercial users) saw BRT as a marketing

point o Service commercial users (quasi-office) saw benefits from accessibility issues for

their customers o Numerous businesses required new space to be located in areas that provided ready

access to mass transit – social mantras, etc. o Retail sales per square foot were shown to have increased for consumer goods stores,

fast-food restaurants, and discount stores o Little, if any, value increase for properties beyond 200 yards from a station o Residential rents showed valuation increases for low and moderate-end

units/developments upwards of five to eight percent o Increases of three to five percent noted for higher-end apartments o No concrete indication of suburban residential uses along a BRT line that were able

to cut back on provided parking o While parking needs showed some slight decreases at various complexes, developers

still indicated that they would need to provide full parking capacity for long-term valuation purposes

o Increase in residential rents was enough to justify more dense construction on a cost basis, assuming the market was supportive

o Mixed-use development near BRT stops was still largely dependent upon available financing for this use type

o Population densities in the immediate area that could support retail use o A right-mix that did not overbuild retail o Parking ratios that services retail, did not encroach on residential uses, and did not

require significantly higher construction costs o Fiscal Impacts to Cities for BRT Development o Potential property tax increases from increased rents and lower capitalization rates

(i.e., higher overall values) o Possible increase in sales tax revenues from certain retail types


o Potential for lowered vacancy rates, resulting in more sales tax revenue and higher overall values (property taxes)

Mrs. Lauret asked if uses in a student population were considered, and Mr. Packer said they had. Provo and Orem were unique with two large universities connected.

DISCUSSION – Orem North / Sharon Park Neighborhood Plan Mr. Kirkham introduced Mr. Addison Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins said he was the student Project Manager who represented approximately twenty BYU students that volunteered to help with the neighborhood plan.

• Those involved in the Orem North/Sharon Park Neighborhood Plan included: o Sixteen members of advisory committee o Sixty-four residents who attended the neighborhood meetings o Seventy-seven residents who participated in survey o City staff

• Sources of resident input: o Three neighborhood meetings o Four advisory Council Meetings o Forty-nine issue cards o Charrette activity

• Public Survey: o Seventy-seven surveys collected o Open ended questions, all multiple choice

• Concerns of the neighborhood: o Safety and aesthetics at Sharon Park and City Center Park o Congestions and safety along State Street

Mr. Goodrich stated that when he drove down 100 North he could not make a left turn onto State Street. He was concerned because he had watched people try to take that left turn anyway. In the survey, residents expressed a desire for increased safety along State Street.

• Additional neighborhood concerns: o Renter houses falling into disrepair o Drugs and crime in the neighborhoods o Maintaining the low density nature of the neighborhoods

The Plan was included in-depth research findings and analysis, and introduction, demographics, land use, transportation studies in various areas throughout the City and more code enforcement. Mr. Addison stated that three drafts of the plan were created, and hundreds of hours of writing and editing took place to complete the project. Several slides containing images within the plan were briefly presented and discussed.


There was subsequent discussion regarding speed limits on various streets throughout the City. Mr. Goodrich explained that when the speed limit was raised on 800 East, the 85th percentile for most of the corridor did not change. The percentile indicated that eight-five percent of the public drove at the appropriate speed. Staff was in the process of helping the Transportation Commission formulate a recommendation for the Council based on this information. Chief Giles said his officers looked for what was dangerous. Mr. Lentz asked if someone replaced an older single family home with a new one if they would be impacted by the impact fees. Mr. Davidson said yes, if the property was subdivided. However, if the property remained a single family home then it would likely not be impacted by impact fees. Mr. Kirkham expressed appreciation for the phenomenal work the BYU group, noting they were on par with paid professionals. 5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION – PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom

Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner


City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Neal Winterton, Water Division Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Donna Weaver, City Recorder

Preview Upcoming Agenda Items

Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.

Agenda Review The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.

City Council New Business There was no City Council New Business. The Council adjourned at 5:57 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.


6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom

Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer (attended electronically), and Brent Sumner


City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Brandon Nelson, Finance Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; Pete Wolfley, Communications Specialist; and Donna Weaver, City Recorder

*** Councilmember Spencer joined the meeting electronically.*** INVOCATION / INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Allen Parish PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Troop 568 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the January 10, 2017, City Council Meeting and January 11, 2017, Joint City Council/ASD Meeting minutes. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL Mayor Brunst noted the passing or Orin Woodbury on January 20, 2017. He said Mr. Woodbury was the patriarch of the family and had been the one who had the vision to construct the University Mall.

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


Appointments to Boards and Commissions Mr. Lentz moved to appoint Andrew Watson and Emily Davenport to the Beautification Advisory Commission, to reappoint Chelsea Jolley and Steve Smith and to appoint Danny Miller to the Recreation Advisory Commission. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

WALTER C. OREM AWARD – John and Joyce Ottens Mayor Brunst presented the Walter C. Orem award to John and Joyce Ottens, recognizing them for the work they do at the Orem Senior Center. He invited them to shake hands with the Council. Gena Bertelsen, Senior Citizen Center, expressed appreciation for the Ottens’ support and presented them with a wooden bowl filled with well wishes from the senior members. PERSONAL APPEARANCES Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior to the meeting, and comments were limited to three minutes or less. Jan Collard, Glade Collard, and Ken Roberts tag-teamed on the same topic.

• Jan Collard said she lived across from Lakeridge Junior High School. She reviewed her history in the area. When they first moved in, they were able to have large animal rights, but she said she felt the City had done everything to block them from having their horses and building a barn. She asserted that a neighbor who was not able to sell his property had led other neighbors to believe he had two developers prepared to buy out the entire neighborhood for a high-density project. Some of the neighbors acted on the claim and purchased other homes. His big project fell through. UVU purchased the family compound. The result was that the neighborhood was isolated and surrounded by UVU.

• Glade Collard said Pegg Development told the neighbors that the entire neighborhood had to be onboard in order to proceed, while also claiming the college needed “college living” and assuring everyone that if the housing was close enough to the university that students would leave their cars at home. He reviewed what had happened at a recent meeting with Woodbury, especially plans for a new student housing development which would send traffic to Campus Drive.

• Ken Roberts said students would take the path of least resistance. He expressed concern that students would not use campus streets. When Woodbury was approached about closing 1000 South, the representative said the street would remain open, but there would be signage for “no student access.” For twenty years they had had a no student access sign and a parking permit area; they were not adhered to nor enforced. Pegg planned to put the clubhouse, swimming pool, and other amenities twenty feet from the bedroom windows. Vacant homes were not being maintained, and Pegg was supposed to do the care, but they have not. He encouraged the Council to drive through the neighborhood and see for themselves. The empty homes were also a draw for illegal activities.


CONSENT ITEMS Mr. Seastrand moved to reschedule the March 14, 2017, City Council Meeting to March 7, 2017. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. SCHEDULED ITEMS At the invitation of the Mayor, Mr. Clark reviewed the current economic status of Orem. Mrs. Lauret said she understood that Macy’s at the mall would be closing. Mr. Clark said Macy’s had recently released its closure schedule, and the University mall store was not on the list.

6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – 1600 North Surplus Property RESOLUTION – Declaring Property Located Generally at 411 West 1600 North in the City of Orem as Surplus Property

Mr. Clark then presented a recommendation to declare 0.361 acres of property located generally at 411 West 1600 North in the City of Orem as surplus. He indicated that, in 2015, the City of Orem purchased property on the south side of the 400 West and 1600 North three-way intersection. The City then constructed a new south leg for the intersection and installed the necessary street improvements. A 0.361 acre parcel was left over from the project and was no longer needed by the City. The parcel was located on the south side of 1600 North and west of the new south leg of the intersection. The property was purchased with federal funds provided through Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG). The proceeds of the sale of the property would be returned to MAG. To ensure an open and fair process, the City’s purchasing agent would sell the property on the open market. Mr. Clark noted that the Rite Aid stem might also sell its parcel. If it was combined with this piece, it could be developed. Should that happen, Rite Aid would no longer have access via 1600 North. Part of the City’s terms in selling the property would be for no 1600 North access or onto the south leg near the intersection. Mrs. Lauret asked what uses could be made of the surplus property, and Mr. Clark reviewed a number of options, including a boutique shop or a Swig or Bean & Burrito-type store. It could also be combined with an adjacent property. Mr. Macdonald asked about the value of the property, and Mr. Clark said they would sell it at market value, based upon the 2015 appraisal which would be the minimum bid. Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so he closed the public hearing.


Mr. Macdonald moved, by resolution, to declare property located generally at 411 West 1600 North in the City of Orem as surplus property. Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. COMMUNICATION ITEMS The monthly financial summary for December 2016 was provided to the Council. CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS There were no City Manager Information Items. ADJOURN TO CLOSED-DOOR MEETING – Pursuant to Section 52-4-205(1)(c), Pending Litigation Mr. Macdonald moved to adjourn to closed-door meeting to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Section 52-4-205(1)(c). Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. CLOSED-DOOR SESSION A closed-door session was held at 6:40 p.m. in room #107 to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Utah Code Section 52-4-205(1)(c). Those in attendance were: Mayor Richard F. Brunst, Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner; staff members Jamie Davidson, Brenn Bybee, Greg Stephens, and Donna Weaver. The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder Approved: February 28, 2017

city council meeting january 24, 2017 - utah · city council meeting . 56 north state street orem,...

Documents