4:00 P.M. Work Session Public Safety Training Room

CITY OF OREM

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

56 North State Street Orem, Utah

December 12, 2017

4:00 P.M. WORK SESSION – PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM

CONDUCTINGMayor Richard F. Brunst

ELECTED OFFICIALSCouncilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner

APPOINTED STAFFJamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney;Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division Manager; Ryan Clark, Economic Development Division Manager; Tim Dalsing, Public Works Crew Leader; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder

DISCUSSION – Large Animals in City Limits

Mr. Bench shared information about permitted animals within residential zones and the minimum distance of barns, pens, or corrals from any dwelling or public street. He said animals were allowed in residential zones only if the following conditions were met: (1) the area of the lot on which the animals are kept was at least one acre, with the exceptions for rabbits, pigeons, ducks, and household pets, and (2) the animals were included on the list of permitted animals and the number of animals did not exceed the maximum number allowed per acre.

In response to a question, Mr. Bench said that pigs were not a permitted animal in residential zones in Orem. The permitted animals were not to be free range, but had to be limited in the space they could occupy. He further stated that a combination of permitted animals was allowed, as long as the criteria about acreage and maximum numbers were followed. Mr. Bench said migratory animals like ducks and pigeons were not usually a problem because of their nature. Chickens were limited to 20 animals per acre, and could not be raised for the purpose of slaughter. Roosters were not allowed.

Mr. Lentz asked how other cities handled the issues of large animals in residential areas. Mr. Bench said it varied from city to city; some handled it according the property size but others outright excluded these animals in residential zones. Mr. Lentz expressed concern about how changes in the code might affect those who already had animals.

Mr. Bench said 67 residential properties had animals, and of those nine of them had horses. In response to Mr. Sumner’s question, Mr. Bench said that in his 15 years of working for the City he had not heard any complaints about horses until now. It was possible that such complaints had been made in the past and had not reached him, but this was his first time addressing this. However, Mr. Bench stated that complaints were what started this conversation.

When asked about calls to animal control, Chief Giles said it was difficult to answer the question because they did not separate the calls by what kind of animal was being called about. His recollection was that most animal control calls involving large animals were when a horse or cow or llama got out of its corral or pen and was roaming. Chief Giles said if anyone had ever called and complained about smell that would likely have gone to NPU as a neighborhood nuisance and not to animal control.

Mr. Macdonald said he had to give the Hoffmans credit because this would not change their situation, but they wanted to prevent others from having the same issues they were facing. However, he did wonder if theirs was such an isolated situation that it might be premature to make any significant changes to the code overall. Mr. Bench said at this time they were not proposing any changes but wanted a discussion to hear the Council’s thoughts on the matter.

There was continued discussion regarding large animals in residential zones. Some items of discussion were:

Keeping animals for farming and self-sustainability purposes
Land acreage requirements and property taxes
Issues of odor and/or unsightliness from animal waste
Neighbors/visitors petting or feeding animals
Conflicting issues of property rights

Craig Jacobsen, resident, said he lived in northwest Orem and had horses on his property. He said horses had been kept in that area for over 60 years, and the only complaint he had ever had was when a group of mothers knocked on his door wondering where the horses were so their kids could feed them carrots. He added that on the whole, horse manure had the least odor issues than other large animals. His neighbors had not complained, and he felt that some liked having the horses in their neighborhood.

Mr. Lentz said it seemed that there were two separate conversations: (1) the merit of having horses or other animals in a residential neighborhood, and (2) the problems that might arise from introducing large animals into neighborhoods that had never had them before.

Mr. Sumner said it seemed like they were discussing a non-problem, and felt that issues could be discussed and handled as they arose. He felt there were too many what ifs to make any changes to the ordinance.

Mr. Hoffman said he had lived next to a large lot for four years, and they were concerned about their neighbor’s plans to keep horses on that lot. He said it will affect the quality of the neighborhood as well as their ability to sell if they wanted. In response to Mayor Brunst’s question, Mr. Hoffman guessed the neighboring large lot was a couple of acres.

Mr. Davidson reminded the Council that even if they were to consider a change now, it would not keep the Hoffman’s neighbors from bringing in more animals. They would be grandfathered in and their use of the land would be designated as legal, non-conforming.

Mr. Lentz said it might be worth exploring overlay areas where large animals would be permitted and it would keep them from going into other areas. Mr. Seastrand said they did have the guidelines in the current ordinance, which specified things like acreage required and maximum number of animals. Those standards should be the way to implement the zoning.

Mayor Brunst said it was a tough issue, because it was all about property rights. What one land owner wanted might not be what another land owner wanted, and vice versa.

DISCUSSION – Summerfest Organization and Planning

Mr. Downs introduced Kena Mathews, Chair of the Summerfest Advisory Committee, and turned the time over to Ms. Mathews to update the Council on some changes that were being proposed.

Ms. Mathews said she was excited to serve as the Chair for the upcoming year’s celebration. She said last year they decided to create a subcommittee within the Summerfest Advisory Board, but they never actually created the subcommittee or filled in those seats. They were going to move forward with that this year, hoping to fill those seats with a sponsorship chair and other community members at-large. Another proposal was to add two more members to the Summerfest Advisory Committee to help with the workload. She said the addition of two more members was especially critical if the Council wanted to continue to have Summerfest activities held in two City parks.

Ms. Mathews said that historically the activities were held at the City Center Park, but the last two Summerfest celebrations had expanded to host activities at the Scera Park as well. She shared some of the pros and cons of having Summerfest at one park versus spreading into two parks.

ONE PARK
Pros:
Reduces overtime expenses
Allows police and fire to more easily patrol/respond
Still allows for all activities to continue
Put all activities in one place for families that don’t want to drive or walk ¾ mile to enjoy activities
Puts wear on only one park
Allows for family activities to be together on “Family Night”
Cons:
Parking is all concentrated around one park
People have started getting used to the two-park model
Space is limited
May have to put caps on participation in activities such as car show, business showcase, etc.
Eliminates non-paying food trucks

TWO PARKS
Pros:
Additional room/shade
Creates a place for more free activities, separate from the paid activities at City Center Park
Room for continued growth
Showcase more of the City
Parking scattered across two different areas
Allows for a “non-carnival” experience
Cons:
Difficult to attend activities at both parks if they are going on simultaneously
Additional overtime costs and safety concerns
Extreme wear to Scera Park a few weeks before Colonial Heritage Festival

There was discussion about the pros and cons for each scenario. One of the major issues had always been parking, and having activities in two locations would certainly help reduce the number of cars in one given area. In response to a question about the elimination of non-paying food trucks, Mr. Downs explained that only a certain number of food vendors were able to pay to be official vendors for Summerfest, and the fees they paid helped to offset other costs. Having two locations, they could potentially double the number of fee-paying vendors, i.e. food trucks.

Ms. Mathews showed overhead aerial views of how the park(s) would be set up, either at one or both locations. She showed how the individual components would fit into the City Center Park, including an area that had not previously been used with two of the baseball diamonds. They would need to reserve some space to keep a safe perimeter for the fireworks, but there was some space to be found there.

There was continued discussion about the following:

Summerfest Car Show
Military cars
Number of cars
Proposed placement
Business showcase
Go from 35 open spaces to 55
Sponsorships
If sponsors paid $1,500 they automatically got a booth
Kids activities and entertainment
Community Booths
Enough space for public safety vehicles
Family Night – all day Thursday
Additional activities for kids and family that day
Discounts on carnival tickets

Some Council members expressed concern about the additional strain being in two parks would put on the police and fire departments. Chief Giles said it would be an added expense to offer the overtime, but he felt staff-wise it would be no problem. They would be able to cover the regular patrol shifts and get volunteers for the Summerfest shifts. The cost was the real issue, not coverage, but it was certainly doable.

Ms. Mathews was hoping to get direction from the Council on which scenario they preferred. The general consensus was that spreading the activities into two parks was preferred, though there was still some concern about the additional costs and spreading the police and fire too thin.

In response to a comment about funding, Mr. Price said that sponsorship money, as well as fees and charges, were used to cover direct costs. Mr. Davidson said the City covered many of the soft costs, like budgeting overtime for officers to work the event. These soft costs did not show up in the Summerfest budget but they were there. For example, wiring the park so that they no longer needed to rely on generators cost $60,000. He said that long-term they were always striving to improve the Summerfest event, but not necessarily continue to grow the event. There were only so many parks employees, police officers, etc. and they did not want to city services to have to take a back seat to this one event.

Mr. Davidson said he was not opposed to allocating additional city resources, but they had to budget for it. He said he would support having a base budget to buffer the costs, and the Summerfest Committee could utilize sponsorship money to go above that. They would not always have someone with a special skillset like Wally Harkness to help with fundraising, and he thought that incrementally setting money aside would help hedge those costs. Mr. Downs reiterated that it was not the goal to continue to grow the event, but to help make it manageable and sustainable.

There was subsequent discussion about the previous year’s entertainment including the Deseret Book sponsored concert and the fireworks. Summerfest Committee members said that this year would be similar in terms of entertainment.

Mayor Brunst suggested setting aside $25,000 for Summerfest for the coming year.

Mr. Macdonald thought that was too high an amount, considering that they had been given $15,000 the previous year and had only used about half of that. He also did not feel comfortable using public funds to provide a concert that not everyone would attend; he felt would be more appropriately funded by CARE tax money, not Summerfest funds.

In response to Mr. Macdonald’s suggestion that the remaining funds from the $15,000 roll over year to year, Mr. Davidson explained that the money came from fund reserve and did not roll over. One compromise could be having the $25,000 in the City Council Contingency fund, and if they ever needed to draw from that account it would require action from the City Council to allocate that money toward the event.

Mayor Brunst said this was a community event where everyone in the city benefitted. He felt the Council was in agreement to move forward.

Mr. Sumner asked how the Centennial celebrations would tie in with Summerfest. Mr. Davidson said Ryan Clark and his team were working on a plan that included events in and around Summerfest. There would probably be some unique things in the 2019 Summerfest celebrations because of that. They had set money aside from the General Fund and they would anticipate setting more money aside leading up to that.

5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION – PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM

CONDUCTINGMayor Richard F. Brunst

ELECTED OFFICIALSCouncilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner

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

Mr. Davidson had a few updates he wanted to share with the Council before they adjourned to the formal meeting. He first wanted to let the Council know that the Alpine School District Board was also meeting this night, and the issue of elementary school consolidation was on their agenda. He said he and Mayor Brunst had spoken with Superintendent Sam Jarman and his business administrator, and they were reassured that it would not result in a change in the current use of the property in the short term.

Note: At approximately 5:35 p.m. the laptop experienced technical difficulties, causing a break in the audio recording. The audio began recording again at approximately 5:38 p.m.

Mr. Davidson said there had been discussion of a possible trade for land around Scera Park for property that was Hillcrest Park. The intent was to keep Scera Park open while building a new school on the existing ground, but parking and student drop-off areas would be a concern. There would be further discussion on the matter once they knew the direction the School Board was going.

Mayor Brunst said the residents wanted the greenspace around Hillcrest Elementary to stay with the City. He said there had been lots of discussion about a feasibility study in splitting Orem from the Alpine School District, and he said they would have to include Vineyard and Pleasant Grove to make that work. He was personally in favor of splitting from Alpine School District.

Mr. Davidson said that UTA was working hard to have the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system open for the fall beginning of the 2018 school year. He said there had been an agreement reached in which students and faculty from both BYU and UVU would be provided with an eco-pass to use the system. This would provide an automatic ridership of approximately 12,000-15,000 people. This was a victory for the BRT program, particularly the inclusion of BYU in the eco-pass deal. In the past, BYU had been resistant because they did not charge student fees, so having them sign on for a 10-year agreement was big.