city of orem - oremcityexe.orem.org/.../2001-2050/2012/2012-10-23.ccmin.docx · web viewcity of...

CITY OF OREMCITY COUNCIL MEETING

56 North State Street Orem, UtahOctober 23, 2012

5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION

CONDUCTING Mayor James Evans

ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner

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

EXCUSED Councilmembers Karen McCandless and Mary Street

REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS

The Council and staff reviewed the agenda items.

CITY COUNCIL/STAFF NEW BUSINESS

City Manager ChesnutBruce Chesnut, City Manager, updated those present on the condition of Don McCandless, the husband of Councilmember Karen McCandless. Mr. McCandless had two strokes caused from blood clots, and he is currently in a coma at the Utah Valley Regional Medical Center. Mrs. McCandless has been updating her Facebook with his status.

Councilmember SeastrandMr. Seastrand expressed appreciation to Public Safety for their fire open house. He noted everyone looked like they were having a great time. Public Safety Director Mike Larsen indicated they had 6,000 attend this year, which is up from last year.

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

6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION

CONDUCTING Mayor James Evans

ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner

City Council Minutes – October 23, 2012 (p.1)

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

EXCUSED Councilmembers Karen McCandless and Mary Street

INVOCATION / INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Travis Ward

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Taylor Oldroyd

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Meeting of October 9, 2012Mr. Seastrand moved to approve the minutes of the October 9, 2012, meeting of the Orem City Council as amended. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, 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 noted there is a Veteran’s Day program scheduled for November 12, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. at the Orem City Cemetery. On November 19, 2012, the City will hold their Lights on Celebration.

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

Appointments to Boards and CommissionsMayor Evans recommended Darla Baker and Gamaliel Cancino be appointed to serve on the Beautification Advisory Commission.

Mrs. Black moved to appoint Darla Baker and Gamaliel Cancino to serve as members of the Beautification Advisory Commission. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

Mayor Evans recommended Kelly Kirkpatrick be appointed to serve on the Heritage Advisory Commission.


Mr. Seastrand moved to appoint Kelly Kirkpatrick to serve as a member of the Heritage Advisory Commission. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

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

PRESENTATION – Skate Park Tobacco Free SignsAlex Jensen, Outrage--Anti-Tobacco Youth Committee, presented Recreation Director Karl Hirst with some smoke free signs for the Orem Skate Park.

PROCLAMATION – Extra Mile Day – November 1, 2012Mrs. Black read a proclamation for Extra Mile Day on November 1, 2012.

Mrs. Black moved to proclaim November 1, 2012, as Extra Mile Day. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

PRESENTATION – Parade Float Awards Amy Tuttle, Miss Orem, presented the Mayor with the awards the City won for the parade float this year. The awards included:

President’s Award –Brigham Young University Parade Best in Parade – Orem Summerfest Parade Grand Marshal - Provo Parade

CONSENT ITEMS

There were no consent items.

SCHEDULED ITEMS

6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGRESOLUTION – Amending the Orem General Plan by Changing the Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on Property Located Generally at 84 South 400 West ORDINANCE – Amending Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of the City of Orem, Utah, by Rezoning Property Located Generally at 84 South 400 West From the R8 Zone to the C1 Zone

Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director, presented an applicant request that the City Council change the Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Community Commercial (CC) and rezone property located generally at 84 South 400 West from the R8 (Residential) zone to C1 (Commercial) zone.Stonehenge of Orem owns the home located generally at 84 South 400 West and currently rents the home to an employee of Stonehenge. If approved, the applicant will remove the existing home and


construct a parking lot to support a proposed office building as outlined on the proposed concept plan.

The applicant requests the City Council change the Orem General Plan from LDR to CC and rezone the property from R8 to the C1 zone.

The property directly north of the subject property has a General Plan Designation of Community Commercial (zoned C1), and the property south has a residential designation of Low Density Residential (zoned R8)

Staff recommends the City Attorney’s Office prepare a development agreement that ensures the removal of all existing structures.

As part of the General Plan process, City staff held a neighborhood meeting on September 12, 2012, with no major concerns expressed by those in attendance.

Advantages: Allowing the redevelopment of a dilapidated parcel will improve the overall

neighborhood; and Adding additional parking for the existing and future office building will mitigate

potential parking issues related to the Stonehenge development.

Disadvantage: None determined

Mrs. Black noted that the Planning Commission approved this unanimously, and there were no objections from the neighbors. Mr. Sainsbury said that was correct.

Mr. Sumner asked whether the additional parking fits all of the requirements for both facilities.

Mr. Sainsbury said they have enough parking for their current facility. When they build their new structure, they will only be able to build it according to how much parking they have. Mr. Sainsbury indicated the applicants have signed a development agreement, and they have agreed to either keep renting it out as a residential unit, or tear it down when they are ready to build the new building.

Will Peterson, applicant, introduced himself. He said Mr. Sainsbury had covered all of the necessary information.

Mayor Evans opened the public hearing.

Wayne Burr, resident, stated that one of his neighbors was concerned because there is a home on the other side of the chapel. This neighbor had wondered if the zone change would affect her property.

Mayor Evans stated it would not change her zone.

Mayor Evans then closed the public hearing.


Mrs. Black moved, by resolution, to amend the Orem General Plan by changing the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on property located generally at 84 South 400 West. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

Mrs. Black 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 rezoning property located generally at 84 South 400 West From the R8 Zone to the C1 Zone. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

RESOLUTION - Approving a Fence Modification to Maintain an Existing Chain Link With Slats Fence Instead of Installing a Masonry Wall Located Generally at 84 South 400 West

Mr. Sainsbury presented an applicant request that the City Council, by resolution, approve a fence modification to maintain an existing chain link fence on property located generally at 84 South 400 West.

The applicant requests a fence modification to maintain the existing chain link fence with slats on the south property line between the LDS Church property and the property located at 84 South 400 West. The City Council granted a fence modification on September 23, 2008, for the fence between Stonehenge of Orem and the LDS Church. The applicant is requesting to match the previously approved modification of chain link with slats.

Since the church property is zoned R8, a seven-foot masonry wall would be required by Orem City Code if a modification is not granted.

Section 22-14-19(F) of the Orem City Code outlines the criteria for the City Council to grant a fence modification which states:

In all commercial, manufacturing or professional office zones, except the PC3 zone, the City Council may modify the height of the fence and/or approve a fence constructed of materials other than masonry if it makes the following findings:

The proposed fence provides an adequate buffer for the adjoining residential zone. The appearance of the fence will not detract from uses in the residential zone. The proposed fence will shield the residential use from noise, storage, traffic, or any

other characteristic of commercial or professional office uses that are incompatible with residential uses.

The applicant considers the chain link fence with slats as an adequate buffer between the church property and the property at 84 South 400 West Street.

After reviewing the proposed fence modification request staff has listed advantages and disadvantages concerning the proposed request.


Advantages: The proposed chain link fence with slats provides an adequate buffer for the adjacent

residential zone since it is adjacent to the parking lot area of the church; and The appearance of the chain link fence with slats will not detract from uses in the

residential zone in that the church is currently surrounded by the chain link fence with slats;

Disadvantage:

None determined

Mr. Seastrand asked if the fence would be the same as that of the LDS Church. Mr. Sainsbury advised that it would be.

Mr. Seastrand moved, by resolution, to approve a fence modification to maintain an existing chain link fence on property located generally at 84 South 400 West. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE - Amending Standard Land Use Code 0301 Fireworks Stands From a Not Permitted Use to a Permitted Use in the Highway Services Zone and Amending Section 22-14-18(B) of the Orem City Code Temporary Sites for Permitted Uses of the Orem City Code Pertaining to Temporary Sites in the PD-4 and PD-12 Zones

Mr. Sainsbury presented a request that the City Council, by ordinance, amend SLU Code 0301 Fireworks Stands from a not permitted use to a permitted use in the Highway Services zone and amend Section 22-14-18(B) of the Orem City Code Temporary Sites for Permitted Uses pertaining to temporary sites in the PD-4 and PD-12 zones.

Temporary site plans are currently permitted in the Highway Services (HS) zone. In order to operate a temporary site plan, the use must be a permitted use in the zone. However, Fireworks Stands SLU Code 0301 is not currently listed as a permitted use in the HS zone. Therefore, staff requests the City Council allow fireworks stands as a permitted use in the HS zone.

In addition, staff has had several requests to locate temporary sites in the PD-4 (SE corner of 800 North 800 East - Harmons) and PD-12 (SW corner of University Parkway and Main Street) zones. Currently, the ordinance does not allow temporary sites within these zones. Both zones are commercial and would benefit from the same advantages afforded to other commercial zones in the city.

Advantages: Allowing the same temporary site plan opportunities as other commercial zones in the

city; and The proposed amendments would have minimal impact to the surrounding businesses.

Disadvantage: None determined


The proposed amendments are outlined below:

SLU R5 R6 R6.5 R7.5 R8 R12 R20 OS5/ROS PO C1 C2 C3 HS M1 M2 CM BP

0301 Fireworks Stands N N N N N N N N N N P P P P P N N

22-14-18. Temporary Sites for Permitted Uses.

B. Temporary sites shall be restricted to the C1, C2, C3, PD-4, PD-5, PD-12, PD-22, HS, M1, and M2 zones. The use on the temporary site must be a use that is a permitted use in the zone.

Mrs. Black asked if Barber Brothers has indicated what kind of stand they want there. Mr. Sainsbury said one of the businesses in that zone would like to put up a temporary stand next year, but he was not sure what kind.

Mrs. Black wondered what the time regulations are for the temporary uses. Mr. Sainsbury stated they can have it for 120 days. Sometimes a business will put up temporary garden shops for the summer. There are specific regulations for some uses, such as fireworks stands, that might limit the time they can sell.

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

Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to amend SLU Code 0301 Fireworks Stands from a not permitted use to a permitted use in the Highway Services zone and amend Section 22-14-18(B) of the Orem City Code Temporary Sites for Permitted Uses pertaining to temporary sites in the PD-4and PD-12 zones. Mr. Andersen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

ORDINANCE – Approving the Recreation Advisory Commission’s Recommendations for Use of CARE Tax Funds

Karl Hirst, Director of Recreation, recognized members of the Recreation Advisory Commission--Kurt Albach, Donna Brocco, Paul Crossett, Lori Anne Eldridge, Bill Hoops, Randy Park, Phil Patten, Steve Shallenberger, and Brent Sumner as the City Council liaison. Mr. Hirst advised the chair was going to attend to give the Recreation Advisory Commission annual report; however, she is ill tonight, so the report will be rescheduled. Mr. Hirst introduced Chad Barth, Senior Center programmer.

Mr. Hirst advised that the Recreation Advisory Commission has gone through a public process with Recreation staff, meeting with other communities, holding open houses specific to recreation, holding open houses that were citywide, meeting with cosponsor groups, and meeting with hundreds of other people. They took all of their information and paired it down to a strategic plan. The City Council will receive a copy later that night, and it will be brought to them at a later date for adoption.


Mr. Hirst presented a Recreation Advisory Commission recommendation that the City Council, by ordinance, approve the CARE project recommendations approved and submitted by the Orem Recreation Advisory Commission.

During each of the previous six CARE funding periods, the City Council has approved $500,000 in funding be set aside for future recreation facilities. These funds currently totaling $3 million are, by law, required to be expended for recreation facilities owned by the City and cannot be spent in any other manner. The recommendation from the Recreation Advisory Commission was that this money be spent to acquire property to expand the current sports fields in Orem. Over the last six years, a number of options have been looked at and a bid was made to purchase Williams Farm out of bankruptcy. None of these efforts have been successful in securing additional property.

Mr. Hirst indicated they had nearly 200 people sign up during their open houses, and staff compiled a list of all of the suggestions and recommendations. He said it was a fun and very beneficial process to go through. Staff also attended the City’s open houses this summer and talked with another 100+ people about what they would like to see happen with recreation in the city. Mr. Hirst indicated that they spoke with cosponsor groups, which included:

Orem Youth Baseball Orem Timpanogos Aquatic Club (OTAC) Utah Valley Football League Orem Youth Soccer Ranger’s Soccer Celtic Storm

Staff worked will all of those groups and took the information back to the Recreation Advisory Commission. The commission filtered the recommendations down to come up with the priority list.

With the current funding sequence coming to an end, and with construction timelines being in excess of a year, the Recreation Advisory Commission is recommending the current CARE funds be spent on the following projects:

$20,000 - construct a dog park in one of the current Orem City parks

Mr. Hirst suggested they construct this in the northwest corner of Scera Park, which is an underused area of the park

$300,000 - improve the infields and backstops on the two west fields at City Center Park and provide shade and protective structures over the spectator areas at all of the ball fields in Orem

Mr. Andersen asked if they are putting drainage structures under these fields.

Mr. Hirst indicated that he met with a group that does this. They thought it would work to use different materials rather that drain pipes.

Mr. Seastrand asked whether the shade covers are made from permanent materials or if they would need to be replaced.


Mr. Hirst said they will be using the same type of material that they have at the pool, and the life cycle is probably ten to twelve years.

Mrs. Black questioned if the replacement would be at a lesser cost because the infrastructure would already be in place.

Mr. Hirst indicated it would be cheaper because they would just have to replace the fabric covers.

$200,000 - to be expended toward one of the following three projects: 1) light the two east softball fields at the Orem Elementary fields; 2) light two soccer fields at Lakeside Sports Park, or; 3) use the funds to partially pay to resolve the parking issues at Lakeside Sports Park

Mrs. Black asked which of the three projects is the priority.

Mr. Hirst said the City Manager’s priority is the parking at Lakeside Park. Mr. Hirst stated that his priority is lighting the Orem Elementary ball fields. All three of these items are needs, not wants. He said he is a realist, and the biggest problem is the parking.

Approx. $3.3 million (remaining funds) - remodel the existing indoor pool and locker rooms at the Orem Fitness Center - The remodel could include a water slide, fountains, zero-entry child-play area, warm pool area for water aerobics and swim lessons, modern windows and natural light, stadium seating for swim meets, and updated locker room facilities.

The current $3 million in funding will obviously not cover the entire proposed project cost estimates. The project cost estimates include future funds in 2013 (full year) and 2014 (nine months). In order to start the remodel project at this time, money can be loaned from reserves in the Recreation and the General fund and repaid by future CARE funds.

Mr. Seastrand wondered whether they would be expanding the entire Fitness Center and adding another pool or just adding some facilities to the existing pool structure.

Mr. Hirst said they will open up the square footage they already have. He anticipated that they will go to the northwest. They will shield the competitive pool from it, but add a fun area to the northwest side.

Mr. Sumner thanked Mr. Hirst, his staff, and the Recreation Advisory Commission for putting this together. Mr. Sumner stated the Recreation Advisory Commission did their due diligence in making these recommendations and noted they agonized over the decision. It all comes down to not having enough money for the recreation needs. It was a challenging decision to make. He expressed his opinion that they came up with an excellent proposal.

Advantages: New or remodeled recreation facilities

Disadvantages:


Reduced opportunities to purchase additional property to meet the growing need for sports fields in Orem

Mayor Evans opened the meeting for public comment.

Bob Wright, resident, said he is in favor of all recreation. He has been involved in sports his whole life, and he is in favor of all of the recreation activities that are going on for the youth. However, in regards to the funding, the City already has a recreation bond of $1.9 million. He recommended that the City use the CARE money to pay off that bond and hold off on these improvements until money is available without borrowing any money again. The Recreation Center has already been remodeled several times.

Mr. Chesnut clarified that CARE money set aside for recreation can only be used for the Recreation facilities that are owned by the City and cannot be used to pay off the bond. The funds being proposed are only for the existing rounds of CARE money and does not pertain to the future CARE possibilities. He noted that Mr. Hirst had indicated they might use some recreation reserve money until the distribution of the 2014 CARE funds are made in order to complete the projects.

Chris Nichols, resident, expressed his opinion that the $200,000 should be used to address the parking problems at Lakeside Park. It is a huge problem and a safety issue. He said his daughter plays soccer, and he is surprised there have not been more accidents due to the parking situation down there.

Mayor Evans closed the meeting for public comment.

Mr. Seastrand said part of this proposal is for the remaining CARE rounds. There is an assumption that the recreation allocation will be given that same amount in the remaining rounds. He questioned what would happen if the allocation were reduced.

Mr. Hirst indicated that the CARE Tax was for an eight-year period and, so far, Recreation has received $500,000 each year. They are anticipating that there could be some reduction for the remaining allocations, so the amount Recreation is asking for is $3.8 million. The last round is a nine month allocation rather than one year.

Mr. Seastrand said they are making a decision tonight that affects future CARE funding. He asked what the backup plan would be if they did not receive the desired funding.

Mr. Hirst said one solution would be to not start the large project until they had the funds in hand. One downside to that is that the residents voted for this tax, and they would love to see what the money was being used for. Staff could also use more recreation reserves than they anticipate if they started the project and did not receive the full funding. The City runs the Fitness Center at break even and the outdoor pool at a small profit. It takes a long time to build up the reserves, so he is very cautious about using them.

Mr. Chesnut stated that if they move forward with the expenditure of the money, many of the small projects will start soon. The Recreation Center has to go through a process of advertising, design, and construction, which will not be completed by the next allocation of CARE funds.


There will be seven full years of allocation before any construction begins on this project, so staff will know how much money is in the “bucket” for this project. That will just leave the partial year’s allocation left.Mr. Seastrand clarified that the potential at risk is only about $300,000, and Mr. Chesnut agreed.

Mr. Andersen said the proposal on how to spend the money is about $1 million more than they have right now. He proposed that they take care of the sports fields first and not borrow any money. The money can be used to fix the fields, lighting, sports shack, restrooms, and equipment shed. They can also expand the fields at 740 South. The money could also be set aside to pick up more of the homes on 740 South as they become available. He does not know how that is determined as to when they become available. Mr. Andersen has watched Brigham Young University do this by picking up pieces of property all around them. He said he thinks that is an eventual goal. That would also expand that field. He said if they are going to have to borrow money and look to an unfunded remodel on the Fitness Center, they should go back and look at some of these sports fields instead of shorting those people as much as they are already shorting them. He suggested they spend the money there. Mr. Andersen said he did not vote for this in the first place; however, that is where the City said they would spend it. If they cannot give them $3 million in new fields, the City should at least improve the ones they have.

Mr. Hirst clarified that they have $3 million, and the request if for $3.8 million. There is an $800,000 difference. They anticipate a CARE funding source this spring, and it will take them that long to design the project. They will then be about $300,000 short. It will take about one year for construction, so to cover that $300,000 during the construction process they would take the money from the reserves until the next CARE funding. They are short $800,000 today; however, there is an anticipated revenue stream to cover that with the 2013 and 2014 CARE allocations.

Mr. Chesnut said this priority list was compiled by the Recreation Advisory Commission. For many years, they were anticipating using the money to buy property to build projects. They went through this public process to determine priorities, and these proposals are what came from the Recreation Advisory Commission and residents as to what they want to do now. The City continues to look for opportunities for open space for soccer and baseball fields with joint ventures with schools and churches.

Mr. Hirst stated the first six years of the CARE allocations were for the main purpose of purchasing property on recommendation of the Recreation Advisory Commission. This is their new recommendation because they are realizing the difficulty in finding property.

Mr. Chesnut said it is important to realize that this is not the City Manager’s recommendation nor the Director of Recreation’s recommendation. This is coming from the Recreation Advisory Commission.

Mr. Sumner responded to Mr. Andersen’s comments, stating that they had five City open houses and three Recreation open houses. Mr. Sumner said he was there from start to finish at all of the Recreation open houses, and he did not see Mr. Andersen at any of them to propose these recommendations. As he can see by Mr. Hirst’s list, there are 200 recommendations. If Mr. Andersen wanted to see his ideas go through, he should have discussed them there, or at least


discussed it with the City Council. Mr. Andersen was also not on the tour bus, where Mr. Sumner spent a day of his vacation time, to go around and tour various facilities to see where the City could improve Orem’s facilities. Like Mr. Hirst, Mr. Sumner said he played on the same ball diamonds fifty years ago that are being improved as part of this proposal. They are making progress, and they are not just throwing money away.

Mrs. Black said she is having a hard time understanding Mr. Andersen’s comments about this not applying to fields, because she sees field improvements throughout this entire recommendation. She said she feels the proposal from the Recreation Advisory Commission—which is a citizen’s advisory commission—should be given highest priority. It included suggestions received from the public open houses. Mrs. Black noted that she feels good about the recommendations they have made.

Mr. Andersen responded that he was outside of every one of the open houses. He was told he could not be inside because he was putting out petitions for the residents to vote on the tax increase.

Mayor Evans clarified that Mr. Sumner was talking about the Recreation open houses where they were taking all of the input.

Mr. Andersen agreed that he was not at those. He said he has since talked to other people who do not agree with this proposal.

Mr. Sumner asked if those people were at the open houses.

Mr. Andersen responded that he did not know if they were or not. He added that he does know that $3 million was set aside for the sports fields, and the City is not going to improve the fields when they could.

Mrs. Black asked Mr. Andersen if he does not see this proposal as improving the sports fields. Mr. Andersen stated yes, but he thinks they can go further.

Mr. Seastrand explained that he was at the original CARE Tax allocation meeting, so he understands what they are talking about in terms of allocation buckets. To put some clarity on it, when the original CARE Tax request came in for the first round of funding, the recreation group asked for about $16 million worth of projects. The challenge was that the amount was almost the entire projected revenue for the entire CARE Tax period. As part of the discussion, the Council about what an appropriate number would be for them to go back to the recreation group with and to ask them to come up with a priority for their $16 million in requests. That is where the bucket of $500,000 a year came from. It was allocated with the understanding that the Recreation Advisory Commission would look at their available options and would come to the City Council with their recommendations on what the highest and best use of those funds would be to improve recreation program facilities that support the overall city. Mr. Seastrand said it is his understanding that for the first six years, the highest priority was to find replacement fields for the fields that were in jeopardy, such as the cemetery fields and fields that are on private property around Orem Community Hospital. He said as they are coming to the end of this CARE Tax cycle, there has been discussion about whether the CARE funding can be rolled over or how


far in the future they can hold the money. The Council’s discussion was that they should probably have decisions made as to how the funds would be spent before the end of the CARE Tax. That is part of the reason the Recreation Advisory Commission has come back saying they are unable to find vacant space to purchase, so this is their next set of priorities that utilize that anticipated funding for the CARE Tax.Mayor Evans commented that if the City Council cannot trust the Recreation Advisory Commission for their feedback and recommendations, then they should not even have that group. He said he thinks the City has received some great recommendations that they need to strongly consider tonight based on the process the input was received.

Mr. Sumner moved, by ordinance, to approve the CARE project recommendations approved and submitted by the Orem Recreation Advisory Commission with the recommendation to fix the parking at Lakeside Park and include the recommended language changes. Mrs. Black seconded the motion.

Mr. Seastrand said there are many possibilities for future CARE tax revenues. He expressed appreciation for the Recreation Advisory Commission for some great recommendations for the current funds. He said he respects the process that was used to identify the priorities, which included obtaining public input. He also agreed that safety is a big issue at the soccer fields in terms of the parking. Staff has tried to address some of the issues with changes to the scheduling, and they have done a pretty good job in mitigating that. He asked what this proposal would include for parking.

Mr. Chesnut noted the City had some property on the east side that they graded to add more parking spaces. They have also been negotiating with a property owner to the south. They are not, at this time, looking at removing any of the existing fields for this purpose.

Mr. Seastrand asked whether this would be actual paved parking or just gravel. Mr. Chesnut said they are eventually looking at paved parking lots.

Mr. Sumner indicated this whole process has been about compromise. He said he is not a dog lover, so the whole idea of a dog park was something he opposed. However, he was recently in St. George, and they have several dog parks in that city. The people love it. He has since changed his mind about the importance of that use. The Recreation Advisory Commission has done an outstanding job.

Mayor Evans called for a vote. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Mr. Andersen. The motion carried with a majority vote of 4 to 1.

Mayor Evans expressed his hope that the residents who have liked the arts and recreation programs will come out and speak in favor of the CARE Tax.

RESOLUTION—Adopting the Strategic Plan for the Arts in Orem, Revised 2012Ray Smith, chair, introduced members of the Orem Arts Council--Deborah Escalante, vice chair; Diane Asay, Cassandra Barney, Kathie Debenham, Dan Fairbanks, Elizabeth Farnsworth, Eric Fielding, Cody Hale, Hagen Haltern, Debby Lauret, Peggy Philbrick, and Adam Robertson.


The Orem Arts Council showed a presentation of the various programs they have held during the year, which included comments by various patrons.

Mrs. Wallace then presented an Orem Arts Council recommendation that the City Council, by resolution, adopt the Strategic Plan for the Arts in Orem, Revised 2012. In December 2006, the City Council established the Orem Arts Council and charged it with conducting a periodic review of the City’s Cultural Arts Strategic Plan. Consisting of thirteen members who represent diverse interests in the arts as well as the community at large, the Arts Council has spent the past year meeting with representatives of various arts organizations in Orem, and in studying, discussing, and revising the Strategic Plan.

The Strategic Plan for the Arts in Orem, Revised 2012 articulates a vision for the arts and it identifies goals and objectives for the City to advance the arts in Orem.

The Arts Council presented their proposed draft of the Strategic Plan to the City Council in a work session on September 11, 2012. They now recommend that the City Council adopt by resolution the Strategic Plan for the Arts in Orem, Revised 2012 as a document to guide the work of the City as it encourages and supports the growth and development of the arts in Orem.

Mr. Seastrand advised that the last time this plan was adopted was in 2006, and since then there have been several variations presented to the City Council. This plan outlines the overall strategy, objectives, and hopes and dreams of the Orem Arts Council. He said he loves having a vision in front of him with a structure in place; however, the challenge is with funding. He said the Recreation Advisory Commission listed their priorities, and he appreciates that the Orem Arts Council will be there to help establish their priorities.

Mr. Sumner thanked the Orem Arts Council for their work. He indicated having a plan in place is very important.

Mrs. Black complimented the Orem Arts Council for the work they do. The City Council has followed the suggestions from the Orem Arts Council in terms of the CARE Tax allocations in the past. As they go forward, she looks forward to their great vision. She agreed with Mr. Seastrand that prioritization is what the Council is looking for.

Mr. Seastrand noted that in the last work session discussion, they had talked about defining an area for an arts district. He asked if this plan addresses that.

Mr. Smith said they are identifying the need for that. The plan asks for a commission to be appointed to study that and to work with the Orem Arts Council to try to help create it. He expects this to be largely done by free enterprise that is guided by the City. They will also be looking to the City for help with zoning options.

Mrs. Black commented that they have suggested forming this other commission, and she would like to see that happen sooner rather than later. It is time to move forward with that.


Mayor Evans stated that, for the record, he would like to look at a group to help with the CARE Tax allocations, and he would like to find a way to do that for the next CARE cycle.

Mayor Evans opened the meeting for public comment.

Bob Wright, resident, said he supports the arts and appreciates the programs. He expressed concern that the Strategic Plan provides for the hiring of an Arts Council Director who would be paid with City funds, the Center for Story, and an eventual concert hall. The City has been talking about a need to cut spending and services. He proposed that the provisions in this Strategic Plan be postponed for a public meeting to allow public discussion.

Mr. Chesnut clarified that this is just a vision plan from the Orem Arts Council of where they would like to go, and they understand the funding mechanism is something different. Adopting this plan does not approve all of these things. It merely gives a direction the Orem Arts Council wants to go with the arts.

Mr. Andersen stated that Mr. Wright must have read the same thing he read. Mr. Andersen said he hates to be the one who keeps saying do not spend; however, the City is already talking about laying off people, and this plan is talking about hiring people. The City should not spend money it does not have nor borrow money for things it cannot afford. He said he hates to be the “wet blanket” on the money stuff, but the City has to figure out a way to cut expenses.

Mr. Smith indicated that the Orem Arts Council understands they are not in a climate to do this; however, they also have a vision of what they would like to see down the road when funding may become available. The Strategic Plan would really further the cause that they are at the meeting to represent. They realize there is no money at the moment, but they also think it should be part of the vision of where the City needs to be moving when it is able.

Mr. Andersen advised that another part of his wet blanket is that it appears, if they do this, they will have City paid employees who are in competition with the very thing that the City has an agreement to support and not go in competition with, and that is the 720 down here.

Mr. Smith replied that he is not sure how Mr. Andersen is seeing that, because the Orem Arts Council does not envision it as a competitive thing in any way but rather someone who helps to further the cultural arts in Orem. They do not see anyone competing.

Mr. Andersen said he thinks the SCERA is supposed to be the arts center, and this would be creating another full-time employee here eventually that he feels would be in competition as far as gathering funds, contributions, and building other facilities, which would compete with a nonprofit organization. He said it also costs money.Mayor Evans commented that Mr. Robertson is the director of SCERA, and if he was not supportive of this plan, he would probably not be here this evening. Mr. Robertson nodded his agreement. Mayor Evans reiterated that this strategic plan just sets the vision for the future, to let private donors, residents, and CARE Tax supporters know what the vision is for the arts in Orem.


Mr. Chesnut clarified that this does not appropriate any money. They are not borrowing any money nor loaning any money. This is just a direction.

Mrs. Black said she had asked at the previous work session they had with the Orem Arts Council if this was a unanimous proposal by the Arts Council, and she was told it was. She asked whether that is still true. She was told it was.Mrs. Black then noted that Mr. Andersen had asked in the premeeting whether this involved any funding, and he was told it did not.

Mr. Sumner stated that he is the student media director at Utah Valley University, and his boss has told him that he needs to have a plan for his department. When he cuts back a little bit, they ask him how he expects to grow in the future. The money may or may not come, but they need to have a vision for the future.

Mr. Smith said that during the work meeting Councilmember Street had some great suggestions for how this may be able to be brought about over a period of time.

Mr. Andersen said he agreed they did discuss this in September, and he raised the same issue of cost then. He then read the items from the plan that involved cost. He expressed his opinion that they should not say they are going to spend money and then say they are not spending money. This is the goal. He questioned why they should close their eyes and say this is not the strategy when it is. The other items in the plan cost money, too.

Deborah Escalante, Orem Arts Council, clarified that as they have studied what successful cities do in order to promote the cultural arts, one of the things they have noted is that at some point in their progress, they reach a level where they have a designated person working to promote the arts. In Orem, the Library has taken that role. At some point, if the arts were to expand through the city, having someone, either part or full time with the City, who was the connecting person, they feel they would be following the model of other successful cities. The Orem Arts Council believes this is something that could be helpful. She said the Orem Arts Council is just making a recommendation, and part of their vision is that it might be something the City would like to consider at an appropriate time.

Cody Hale, Hale Center Theater Orem, indicated that Cedar City is a prime example of how Cities can make the arts successful. When a city gets involved with the arts, it stimulates the economy like crazy and it makes money. At the beginning of the Shakespeare Festival, they announce that for every dollar that was spent at their event, an additional eight dollars were brought back to the city. A vibrant arts community would be good for Orem since it will bring money back to the City.

Mrs. Black said the word “money” seems to cause some people problems, but when they think about financing, there are many ways of financing things that do not necessarily involve the General Fund or anything like that. There can be public/private partnerships, grant possibilities, and she feels that as they establish this vision, they can go out and look at all of the opportunities that are available and then come down to realities and priorities.


Aaron Orullian, resident, told Mr. Andersen that he is being too rigid, and he has blinders on. Mr. Orullian said he understands that Mr. Andersen likes to save money, but a city without a vision will die. Orem must have a vision for the future. When the time comes and funding is available, then the City can decide what to do. Mr. Orullian asked Mr. Andersen not to destroy the vision because cities fail when that happens. Orem has commissions charged with making the city a better place to live, and if the Council destroys their visions, they might as well shut down and go home. He told Mr. Andersen that he agrees the City should not spend money it does not have; however, he asked Mr. Andersen not to be so focused that he “throws the baby out with the bath water.”

Mr. Seastrand said he does not think the City has to determine funding sources just because it have received a vision statement. There are a lot of options and possibilities, and it is wrong to make an assumption that the City is going to pay for all these proposals when there are many other options out there such as foundations that might be willing to pay for this. There may be a number of future opportunities available, but the City does not know all of those yet. To remove the commission’s vision because Mr. Andersen does not know how it will be implemented, goes along with what Mr. Orullian said. Do not destroy the vision. The City can consider opportunities as they come around. There may never be a cultural arts department, but that possibilities could be vital to the ongoing growth of cultural arts in the community. Mr. Seastrand said he does not automatically connect adopting the Strategic Plan to adopting a funding plan at the same time. The two are completely disconnected. It is, however, a vital part of the City’s visioning process in order to take advantage of future funding opportunities that could arise.

Adam Robertson, SCERA, said it is important for donors and others to have a vision. For example, in the Strategic Plan of 2006, they had a desire for a separate facility for the Orem Heritage Museum. As a result of that vision, a donor stepped forward and made that possible. It is very important to have a vision in place so that others in the community can get on board with it. He said he is happy to report that the museum will open on Veteran’s Day.

Mayor Evans thanked everyone for their comments. He said as the City Council has the opportunity to adopt the Strategic Plans for Cultural Arts, Recreation, or the Beautification Advisory Commission, it comes down to whether the Councilmembers feel they are representing the residents and the best interest of the city in promoting and fostering these things. By having a plan in place, they are saying they promote this vision and that these types of services and things ought to happen. It does not mean that the City is going to pay for them.

Mr. Andersen said he will vote for this when he sees it under that private enterprise banner.

Mayor Evans closed the meeting for public comment.

Mrs. Black moved, by resolution, to adopt the Strategic Plan for the Arts in Orem, Revised 2012. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Hans Andersen. The motion carried with a majority vote of 4 to 1.

Mayor Evans thanked the Orem Arts Council for their service in promoting the arts in Orem.


ORDINANCE - Amending the Orem Alcohol Ordinance to Allow Sunday Beer Sales

Michael Larsen, Public Safety Director, presented an Orem merchants’ request that the City Council, by ordinance, amend the Orem alcohol ordinance to allow Sunday beer sales.

The State of Utah has adopted extensive laws regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages in Utah. Section 32B-1-204 of the Utah Code provides that State alcohol laws override local ordinances if the local ordinances are inconsistent with State law. One of the purposes of adopting these overriding (preemptive) laws is to provide uniformity in alcoholic beverage laws statewide.

Cities in Utah have historically been given some flexibility to regulate beer sales (as opposed to liquor sales) in their respective jurisdictions. The State of Utah has historically regulated most aspects of liquor sales statewide. (In this case, liquor can be roughly defined as any alcoholic beverage that isn’t beer.)

In 2010, the State of Utah totally rewrote the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. The new Act sets hours of operation for on-premise beer retailers (with no restriction on Sunday sales), but continues to give cities fairly broad discretion to regulate off-premise beer retailers. Orem’s current alcohol ordinance prohibits Sunday beer sales for both on-premise beer retailers and off-premise beer retailers.

On-premise beer retailers sell beer to patrons for consumption on the beer retailer’s premises. Restaurants and taverns are examples of on-premise beer retailers. Off-premise beer retailers sell beer to patrons for consumption off the beer retailer’s premises. Grocery stores and convenience stores are examples of off-premise beer retailers.

Various Orem merchants have requested that Orem amend its alcohol ordinance to allow Sunday beer sales for both on-premise and off-premise beer retailers. The proposed ordinance makes this change.

Mr. Seastrand said it is his understanding that, in on-premise facilities, beer sales are legal and are happening right now in the city because of State law.

Greg Stephens, City Attorney, indicated it is his understanding that some of the retailers in Orem are following the City ordinance even though State law would allow the sale of beer. State law preempts cities from regulating days and hours of operation for facilities that do on-premise beer sales. The Attorney General’s Office has the position that cities cannot regulate Sunday sales for on-premise consumption, but can do it for off-premise consumption.

Mr. Larsen said State law currently allows for on-premise consumption of liquor, and the City ordinance prohibits the consumption of beer. It puts the vendors and retail merchants in a tricky situation.

Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Larsen to explain what the neighboring communities are doing in terms of beer sales. It seems that since State law has changed, many of the communities have already modified their ordinances to match State law.


Mr. Larsen replied that all of the neighboring communities, in fact most of the communities in Utah County, allow beer sales on Sunday.

Mr. Seastrand asked whether they have seen an increase in crime associated with this. Mr. Larsen said that none of the cities that allow Sunday beer sale have seen an increase in alcohol related crimes, and he does not anticipate that Orem would be any different if this were approved.

Mrs. Black asked if Orem having this restriction helps the community. Mr. Larsen expressed his opinion that it does not make any difference whatsoever. The City will not see an increase in crime. Right now they are taking a lot of calls for theft of beer because people cannot buy it. This ordinance will put Orem’s retailers on equal footing with neighboring cities and, rather than having to drive out of Orem to purchase the beer, they will purchase their products here. Mayor Evans opened the meeting for public comment.

Bob Wright, resident, read a statement opposing the City allowing beer sales on Sunday. He said this issue should be taken to the people to decide.

Kye Nordfelt, Substance Abuse and Misuse Reduction Team, said research shows that there is a benefit to reducing the number of days alcohol is allowed for purchase. The Center for Disease Control conducted this study. He said he recently attended a summit in Provo, and they invited legislators and city council members to attend. They listened to experts from across the nation, including professors from Duke University and Johns Hopkins University. Their message to the legislators was to not change the laws regarding alcohol. They said Utah was the envy of other states in terms of the alcohol laws and the benefits it provides to public safety and the promotion of health. Mr. Nordfelt encouraged the Council to consider the impact this change will cause to the community.

Mayor Evans asked how limiting the beer sales by one day will affect it. Mr. Nordfelt said people typically drink differently on a weekend. He referred to a graph on alcohol related accidents by day of the week. He noted there is a spike in accidents on Saturdays. He said it appears the current ban on Sunday sales would provide some protective affect right now on Sundays.

Mr. Andersen asked Mr. Nordfelt how he heard about this being on the agenda tonight. Mr. Nordfelt said he read about it in the Daily Herald.

Wayne Burr, resident, stated that there must have been a reason this law was implemented in the first place. He said it was probably to give reverence to Sunday. Just because the neighboring cities have lowered their standards, he did not think Orem should follow suite. He said they should remember that Sunday is a sacred day, and they should try as a community to hold some things sacred. He recommended the City Council vote against the proposed change.

Mr. Stephens indicated that State law considers any alcoholic beverage with an alcohol content of at least .5 percent alcohol by volume as liquor. The State has different regulations for liquor


beverages than it does for those considered to be beer. Cities have never had the ability to regulate liquor sales.

Mr. Larsen clarified that Orem already has on-premise liquor sales on Sundays. The State changed the law to allow on-premise beer sales on Sunday as well. However, there is a conflict between State law and the current Orem ordinance. The State takes precedence on this issue. This request would allow retail sale of beer in grocery stores and convenience stores.Brian Kelly, resident, agreed with the comments that Orem does not have to do what Provo is doing. The residents can drive five minutes to Provo to purchase their beer, and they do not need to buy it in Orem. He has had family tragedies involving alcohol and expressed his opinion that anytime they can alleviate the sale of alcohol they should.

Mayor Evans said he is struggling with the fairness issue that some businesses can sell beer on Sunday and others cannot.

Mrs. Black asked whether grocery stores are able to sell liquor.

Mr. Larsen stated they can sell beer but not liquor. On-premise retailers can sell all of it on Sundays.

Mrs. Black said she is not an expert on beer or liquor. It sounds like liquor is the harder drink. Mr. Larsen explained the difference between the two, indicating liquor has a higher alcohol content then beer.

Mrs. Black noted that if they approve this ordinance as outlined, they will be allowing on-premise beer sales as well as off-premise beer sales. Mr. Larsen said that is correct.

Mr. Sumner questioned if retailers who are not supposed to sell the beer are breaking the law if they do.

Mr. Larsen said there is a conflict between the City’s ordinance and State law. The on-premise retailers know what both laws allow, and they struggle with that. They can sell liquor. The servers get caught in a bind when someone orders a beer, because they have to say the City prohibits the selling of beer on Sunday; however, they can buy a mixed drink. For a lot of customers that is convoluted because the server is trying to sell them a harder and more expensive drink when all they want is a beer. The convenience stores and grocery stores can only sell beer in the first place, and the ordinance prohibits them from selling on Sunday.

Mr. Sumner asked whether Public Safety gives citations to businesses that try to sell it. Mr. Larsen said they do; however, they do not go out and do undercover beer sales on Sunday. If it comes to their attention, the officers will issue a citation.

Mr. Andersen asked how long the City Code has been in conflict with State Law. Mr. Stephens indicated since 2010.

Mr. Larsen advised that the entire alcohol ordinance needs to be updated to be in line with State law.


Mr. Andersen proposed that they wait to get more public input on this item. He would like the public to know more about it. He has a couple of calls out to people that he respects. One is in a public office in the State, but due to his lack of knowledge on how soon the Council would be getting to this, he did not get to them soon enough and they have not gotten back to him at all. He said he is not ready to make a decision until he gets a comment from up in Salt Lake. Mayor Evans asked how the City would get more public comment on it, and Mr. Andersen suggested they could put something on the utility bill, and they could try to get Genelle Pugmire to run more ads. He said he thinks the City has 16,000 emails that might be helpful. He asked how long this has been on the agenda.

Staff informed Mr. Andersen the item has been on the upcoming agenda items for approximately six months.

Mr. Andersen moved to postpone this item to allow time for more public input. He pulled his motion at the request of the Mayor, so the applicant could comment.

Lorie Bolton, applicant, said she was told her business could not open on Sundays at all. She has been open on Sundays and another establishment has been as well. As the owner of a bar, she has the right to sell hard liquor, but most of her customers are beer drinkers. Selling people beers on Sunday is better than selling them mixed drinks. Sunday is a busy is day for her, because there are a lot of sports on television, and people come to watch sports all day long. Ms. Bolton advised that she would not want them to just drink hard liquor the whole time they are in her business. Many of her customers will leave her establishment to drive to Provo or Pleasant Grove to buy beer on the way home. She would prefer that they stop at the corner store by their homes to buy it. She said she pays a lot of taxes, and she would like to see the money stay in Orem rather than going somewhere else.

Paul Reay, Transportation Advisory Commission, indicated that from the transportation side of this, hard liquor has the most volume of alcohol content, so it would be better to have the people drinking beer at the establishments rather than hard liquor.

Mr. Sumner said they need to put all of the businesses on an equal playing field. He relies heavily on the Public Safety Director’s experience about how this will affect Orem. Mr. Sumner indicated that people should have their free agency.

Mayor Evans agreed there are different values and cultures in the community. They need to embrace those many cultures and be respectful of all of the people in the community.

Mrs. Black said she agrees the ordinance should be brought into compliance with State law. The part she has trouble with is allowing beer sales at grocery and convenience stores. She said she would support Mr. Andersen’s suggestion to continue this until the next meeting, so they will have more Council members there to participate in the vote.


Mr. Chesnut drew the Councilmembers attention to upcoming agendas items tab five of their agendas, which outlined the meeting schedule for the next several months. The next meeting would be on November 13, 2012.

Mr. Andersen wondered who sends out the emails and puts things on the utility bills. Mr. Chesnut responded that staff does.

Mr. Andersen inquired whether they can put an announcement on the bills. Mr. Chesnut said there is an opportunity to put items on the bills.Mr. Andersen asked if the utility department also sends out the emails and if they have 16,000 email addresses. Mr. Chesnut said each department has its own email list it uses to distribute its information. The City, however, does not have nearly that many email addresses.

Mr. Andersen moved to continue this item until November 13, 2012, to allow for more public input. Mrs. Black seconded the motion.

Mayor Evans stated he likes Mrs. Black’s comment that it would be nice to have the full Council present to vote on this item.

Mr. Sumner wondered if this would be a public hearing. Mayor Evans advised that they have already received public comment. This will allow time for constituents to contact the Council with their thoughts on the issue.

Mr. Andersen asked for a report on the number of emails and notices staff sends out in reference to this item.

Mrs. Black stated that the motion was to continue this item until November 13, 2012, and that is what she seconded. She did not second every one of Mr. Andersen’s ideas about contacting everyone specifically.

Mayor Evans noted that staff will get the information out; however, he does not think they need to have the specifics as part of the motion.

Mr. Chesnut indicated that what the Council is considering tonight is whether to approve this tonight, deny it, or continue it. Staff has processes for advertising, and they will take care of that.

Mr. Seastrand said this is an important issue; however, he is concerned that Mr. Andersen is waiting to base his decision on how his ecclesiastical leaders feel about this. He questioned whether Mr. Andersen was elected as a representative of his church or of the community. Mr. Seastrand stated that he is okay with further discussion, but he also thinks the reason to continue the discussion is important.

Mayor Evans called for a vote. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, and Mark E. Seastrand. Those voting nay: Jim Evans and Brent Sumner. The motion failed for lack of a majority vote.


Mayor Evans said he would be fine to continue the discussion. He asked Mr. Andersen to make his motion again.

Mr. Andersen again moved to continue this item until November 13, 2012, to allow for more public input. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, and Mark E. Seastrand. Those voting nay: Brent Sumner. The motion carried with majority vote of 4 to 1.

RESOLUTION - Approving a 30 Miles Per Hour (mph) Speed Limit on Columbia Lane from State Street to 2000 South

Paul Goodrich, City Transportation Engineer, introduced members of the Transportation Advisory Commission--Jeanette Parker, chair; Paul Reay, vice chair; and Al Merkley.

Mr. Goodrich then presented a Transportation Advisory Commission recommendation that the City Council, by resolution on, approve a 30 mph speed limit on Columbia Lane from State Street to 2000 South.

Columbia Lane has been widened and improved in this area, and the speed limit should be changed to meet the new design standards.

The City Engineer, Transportation Engineer, and Traffic Operations Engineer have completed an analysis for this portion of Columbia Lane that considered the design speed of the widening and improvement project, prevailing vehicle speeds, accident history, traffic and roadside conditions, and other safety factors. They recommend a 30 mph speed limit.

The Transportation Advisory Commission reviewed the recommendation of the Engineers and unanimously support their recommendation for a 30 mph speed limit on Columbia Lane.

It is recommended that the speed limit for Columbia Lane from State Street to 2000 South be changed to 30 mph.

Mr. Reay advised that a lot of the neighbors in that area were concerned with the difference in speed limits between Orem and Provo on that street. Changing the speed will allow better fluidity for the traffic in that area.

Mrs. Black moved, by resolution, to approve a 30 mph speed limit on Columbia Lane from State Street to 2000 South. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion.

Mr. Seastrand said it is a beautiful road. He commended staff for the design and for the work in obtaining the property to do the improvements.

Mr. Reay indicated that if there is any future growth with businesses in the area, he would recommend the parking be at an angle rather than parallel. The fluid motion of pulling in and out on an angle is a lot safer than pulling into a lane from parallel parking. He said he realizes it would be up to the business, but if the City could encourage it, that would be beneficial.


Mayor Evans called for a vote. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

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

Aaron Orullian, resident, stated that he heard on Mr. Andersen’s radio program last week that the City spent $4 million of taxpayer’s money on Midtown Village. He asked if that were true.

Mr. Chesnut said no tax payer money has been spent on that project. It is a private development. They used the City’s bonding power; however, the City has not put any money into that project.

Mr. Orullian told Mr. Andersen that when things like this come up, it hurts his credibility when he does not give the right information. Mr. Orullian said he was upset about it when he thought his money had been used for this project. Mr. Orullian said Mr. Andersen has an opportunity on his radio program to do a lot of good, and he would love to see him get on there and say, “Let’s pray for Mr. McCandless who is suffering from a stroke.” Mr. Andersen could also discuss some things about the Constitution or the evils of socialism. Mr. Orullian indicated that if Mr. Andersen were to use his media for that purpose rather than being upset with staff or the other Council members, he will become a hero. Mr. Orullian said that when Mr. Andersen is saying things against the City he is saying it about himself because he is part of the City. Mr. Orullian said he would like to see Mr. Andersen become a strong leader.

Mr. Andersen responded that Mr. Orullian’s comments were the nicest corrections he has had. Mr. Andersen clarified that the newspaper has talked about the City threatening to foreclose on Midtown Village for the past two years. He questioned why the City would do that if it did not have any taxpayers money or liability in there.

Mr. Stephens said it is accurate that the City has not paid any money for the Midtown Village Development. This is a special improvement districts where the City bonded to complete some improvements in Midtown Village. While the City facilitated the bond, the property owner has the obligation to pay it. If the property owner does not pay it, the City has the right to foreclose.

Mr. Andersen said that sounds to him like tax payers’ money. If the City can foreclose on it, it should not pretend that the project is just down there and the City has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Stephens suggested that Mr. Andersen should not pretend that the City has paid $4 million for something it has not paid for.

Mr. Andersen wondered why the City is foreclosing on it, then. Mr. Stephens explained that the City would only become obligated for the payment if the property owner failed to pay it.

Mr. Andersen stated that that is what he has been saying. The City would be obligated for it. The City gave them that money. The City gave them the check.


Mr. Stephens said that is not correct. The bondholders purchased the bonds. The City is obligated to make the payment if the property owner does not. If the City forecloses, the City will own the entire project, with the City is in first position—ahead of the banks, the developer, and everyone else.

Mr. Chesnut stated that the developers have not missed a payment to this point.

Mr. Andersen said it is slicing things real close by saying the City did not spend taxpayer money but that the City will own the place if the property owner does not make the payments.

Mr. Stephens clarified it is not slicing it. The City has not paid anything.

Mrs. Black commented that the City would get an $80 million project for $4 million if it foreclosed. That sounds like a good deal to her.

Mr. Andersen said it does, but it is still taxpayer money, and that is how they got in the middle of it. That is why the City can foreclose, threaten them, and walk away with the building.

Mr. Chesnut reiterated that he has not used one penny of City money on Midtown Village. He said he does not know how much clearer he needs to be.

Mr. Andersen noted that as long as the City has the right to foreclose, it is in the middle of that mess down there.

Mayor Evans reaffirmed that the City did not use any taxpayer money.

Mr. Andersen said the City can say it borrowed the money there. He was corrected by the other Councilmembers, saying the City did not borrow any money for the project.

Mr. Chesnut confirmed that this is a point to which they will have to agree to disagree. Mr. Chesnut said he is not spending any money on the Midtown project development.

Mr. Orullian said it seems clear to him that the City can take it over if the property owner does not take care of it.

Mr. Andersen indicated the City is guaranteeing the property owner’s bond.

Mr. Chesnut clarified that if the property owner does not make the bond payment, the project comes to the City. The City would then sell the property and pay off the bond. However, no City money has been used for that.

Mr. Orullian noted there is no City money involved. If the payment is not made, the City has the right to sell the project to pay off the bond.

Mr. Andersen stated that is right because this city guaranteed it. The City can foreclose on them.


Mayor Evans thanked everyone for the clarification. He stated that no City money has gone into the Midtown development. He expressed gratitude that Big D Construction has gotten the project out of bankruptcy and is working on some exciting things to finish the south tower and move ahead on the north tower.

Chris Nichols, resident, echoed what Mr. Orullian said this evening in reference to Mr. Andersen. However, Mr. Nichols stated that he is going to be more direct because Mr. Andersen said several things tonight that bothered him. Mr. Andersen has been in this position for almost one year, and several times tonight Mr. Andersen said he “did not know”, he “did not get that”, and “when is the next meeting”. Mr. Nichols declared that it is time for Mr. Andersen to start taking this job more seriously. Mr. Nichols said Mr. Andersen laughed after the vote on Sunday beer sales, and business owner walked out very frustrated. Mr. Nichols stated that he found it very disrespectful in the way Mr. Andersen handled that as a member of the City Council. Mr. Nichols said it is time for Mr. Andersen to start doing his homework and figuring out this job.

Cathy Young, resident, said she appreciates Mr. Andersen because he has woken her up in terms of what is going on in the city, and she is grateful to him. She is grateful that he looks after her pocketbook, and there are many others who feel the same way she does. She said she does not want any animosity, but she wants it on the record that there are many who feel Mr. Andersen has done his homework, and they appreciate him. She said she does not think he gets that very often.

James Faucet, resident, advised that he lives behind Midtown Village. The City owns the garage level and has to pay for the maintenance of that for twenty years. He asked who would pay for the maintenance after the twenty years were up. He noted it would be the City because it owns the parking down below. Any maintenance done on it is done by the City. The assessments pay that now, but he questioned why the City is doing the maintenance if it is not involved in it.

COMMUNICATION ITEMS

There were no comments on the communication item.

CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS

Mr. Chesnut said he will keep the City Council posted on the condition of Mr. McCandless and the McCandless family.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Andersen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Mark E. Seastrand, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.


Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder

Approved: November 13, 2012


city of orem - oremcityexe.orem.org/.../2001-2050/2012/2012-10-23.ccmin.docx · web viewcity of...

Documents