[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6550882,"mediaKeyId","5374376-e15bee265d1a79c303780d08fedfe4fb","parentId",5374376,"title","Orem adopts revised campaign disclosure rule: June filing kept, adds Dec. 31 and aligns incumbents with primary filings","audioSeconds",4162,"startMs",1979000,"endMs",6141000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5374376-e15bee265d1a79c303780d08fedfe4fb&start=1979&end=6141","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5374376-e15bee265d1a79c303780d08fedfe4fb/thumbnail_1979000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6550882/Orem/Utah-County/Utah/Orem-adopts-revised-campaign-disclosure-rule-June-filing-kept-adds-Dec-31-and-aligns-incumbents-with-primary-filings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550882-6d56a6cba07a0dd18f420ae849b9fe68/orig.mp4?Expires=1775042336&Signature=NhqkvXRHvMyAjThr6eedi5so4rCoJD6hk2m6mcbP-d3ioMr0LUyTLstKjADNMt80NB4saly6j4o7SQ7vdtSkpvEplbbHzSOfnpwy9zJJMJBUzRFJdSCrtfIdFexsdmz3EZEhXnOfymKRW5hgAOjR5zjxsk303FWwtS12AmK~Vhw-OIKbL~8DfrnTxfwNlaeEM80JzdXoR5xzYn6bNuszwBzy4QfYE-ToD0JGoYcdnqGXXhlJOaeGMnCjvc74UyAraG-JpWziuiGUwutaC2YtBy3iYth1awwKkZX8-v77ObNFnwSy~Ga-FAam3RpPU~YYFgMbXQCsBClnL1S~iqr07A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Orem","date","2025-07-11T19:31:53.713Z","article","The Orem City Council voted to amend the municipal campaign finance disclosure ordinance (section 2‑3‑4), approving an option that retains the current June 30 filing for most elected officials, adds a second annual filing on December 31, and permits incumbents who are running for reelection to file on the same pre‑primary schedule as other candidates (7 days before the primary).

City staff presented two options: a simpler approach that would move the single annual filing from June 30 to December 31, and a more complex approach that keeps June 30 for most officeholders, adds a December 31 reporting date, and treats incumbents running for reelection the same as other candidates by requiring their pre‑primary filing seven days before the primary election. The council chose the latter.

\"As you can see there, it's just basically changing the date that the reporting happens, from June 30 to December 31,\" said the presenter during the overview of options. Staff also explained the second option would create two filing deadlines and add a January 15 filing for officials whose term expires in January so outgoing officials disclose all contributions and expenditures through the end of their term.

Supporters said the chosen approach balances transparency with fairness for incumbents facing primary elections. Council members who were running for reelection during the current cycle said aligning reporting deadlines with challengers would put candidates on an even footing and avoid duplicative filings.

Several council members and the city attorney asked staff to investigate an additional transparency issue discussed at the meeting: the role of 501(c)(4) organizations (sometimes called \"dark‑money\" groups) that can donate to candidates but are not required to disclose their donors at the federal/IRS level. A council member said municipalities could explore code‑level ways to make such contributions clearer on city filings or add explanatory text to local reporting forms; staff said they would research how other jurisdictions handle the issue and report back.

Motion and vote: A council member moved to adopt the second option and another council member seconded. The council approved the ordinance (option 2) by voice vote; individual roll‑call votes were not recorded in the public verbal record shown during the meeting.

The ordinance will require the city recorder's office to implement the revised filing dates and update forms and notices; staff said the recorder's office already sends email reminders to filers.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Orem City Council Meeting | 7.08.2025","oneSentenceSummary","Orem City Council voted to amend its campaign finance disclosure rule, keeping the June 30 filing for most officeholders, adding a December 31 filing and allowing incumbents running for reelection to file on the same pre‑primary schedule as challengers.","taxTitle","Orem, Utah County, Utah","taxId",2947,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6550887,"Orem staff outline code changes after complaints about 35‑foot flat‑roof house; state law limits options",3959,479000,4438000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5374376-e15bee265d1a79c303780d08fedfe4fb&start=479&end=4438","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5374376-e15bee265d1a79c303780d08fedfe4fb/thumbnail_479000.jpg","/articles/6550887/Orem/Utah-County/Utah/Orem-staff-outline-code-changes-after-complaints-about-35foot-flatroof-house-state-law-limits-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550887-3d4dc068808252c9c5bfe9d531fe6e0a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775042336&Signature=aYDYilA9BvWooUYPuHlc0uJjTtSzaaVIzdBt4YjN0~bwAm1P8fggXe7~-7U5Bxp1sG9GrTrwcr9QS38p1QLxFit0EpKkIYQbNwA-rlJH7TDTD1P68iNu3TYj4bIMeurUu5gidXC8ybNFxZnoAJHA0lArBGv7nsFr0ohkq56nltS5u8vdb2lynjwV5sSKSjdt3pQMdeDWzEIDFim~3mA1fpThZRrKcEvommRbdwLiCtKwJG6dNnkK8Uv37HqLLx1oj59JtRRKJpeEu326KUSZz5WE2NlxYSDZyM26CoY73IEUqlncwPAzIgf0cZ-nbcq0YaV1e558Qe5omnD8XHjsFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff briefed the Orem City Council on proposals to curb the visual impact of very tall, flat‑roof homes after neighbors raised complaints about a recently built 35‑foot house described in the meeting as a ‘‘shoe box.’’ Staff said state law limits what the city can regulate, but offered several code approaches the city could pursue.

\"State law prohibits us from regulating the pitch of a house,\" a city staff member said during the presentation. \"We can't tell people what color they can paint their house.\" That statutory limitation means the city cannot mandate roof pitch or color on single‑family and twin homes; staff said it can, however, regulate other structural design elements and dimensional standards.

Staff outlined options that could reduce the perceived bulk of tall homes without regulating roof pitch: require multiple facade planes, require an entry or porch feature, increase setbacks as height increases (a tiered \"wedding cake\" approach), limit the number of stories above grade, or require greater setbacks for portions of a lot that exceed certain heights. Staff also noted narrower allowances already exist in higher‑density zones: R12 and R20 zoning can allow heights up to 45 feet for up to 20% of a building's area but impose greater setbacks (50 feet) for those taller portions.

City staff said they will examine how the municipal code defines height — currently vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of the structure, with grade averaged across the four corners of a lot — and whether an alternate definition would better address steep lots or visual impacts. \"Can we change definitions and look at that kind of thing,\" a staff speaker said, noting hillside lots present different challenges.

Council members and staff discussed nonregulatory approaches as well: voluntary \"good‑neighbor\" suggestions to builders and owners, outreach to affected neighborhoods, and working with the planning commission and the city attorney to draft amendments that remain within state legal constraints. Staff said they had shown sample designs to the planning commission and would return with draft ordinance language after additional vetting and legal review.

Public commenters during the same meeting raised related housing issues. Ashton Jensen, speaking during public appearances, pressed the council to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and backyard cottages, ease minimum lot sizes, and permit conversions from single‑family to duplexes to increase housing affordability. PJ Eager and others asked about short‑term rentals in older neighborhoods. Chuck Sisson said he and neighbors experience inconsistent communication and short compliance windows from the city's neighborhood improvement/code enforcement team.

Staff emphasized there is no simple, immediate fix. \"We're hoping that we can come up with a good code amendment that will stay within the parameters state law has given us, but yet prevent the worst things from happening,\" a city staff member said. The city said it will hold further community outreach before proposing binding code changes.

No ordinance or formal code change was adopted at the meeting; staff will continue drafting options and consult legal counsel, the planning commission and affected residents before returning to council.","City planning staff told the Orem City Council they will study code changes to reduce the visual impact of very tall, flat‑roof homes after neighbors complained about a 35‑foot \"shoe box\" house, but said state law prevents regulating roof pitch or exterior color.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6550893,"Council approves amendment for 1600 North/400 East phase‑1 safety work; $460,000 project on consent",4934,274000,5208000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5374376-e15bee265d1a79c303780d08fedfe4fb&start=274&end=5208","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5374376-e15bee265d1a79c303780d08fedfe4fb/thumbnail_274000.jpg","/articles/6550893/Orem/Utah-County/Utah/Council-approves-amendment-for-1600-North400-East-phase1-safety-work-460000-project-on-consent","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550893-b4fe32391d2108c58a5e82057ea922b8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775042336&Signature=PJjM1nDUXcKnsS90NP4zMC-AqUHeWsFmFaiQC9WC2YYAywAGpJMbc~nn1AZC6dZWJFOOmlB6ykMLRiWPjrry1cD-~2lD8IUhe0-IWmBT1jPoPagHS4FNGkTfLtPbQJbCpWrybJpmgsnt7K60cWVoscu-apNcrMCqfCceyASC4YDtpIQoKLcbsrUBIUKkG65rKUf8dtia6gRs2ZrLpeKG7-63arcExDiIVDI26bk31IHoJPGWZL0sMIDoKPmRqgozYkDNQktDNXdJdMIoa~px4Seyvwn5oJNnxG6meMYqg2b65AWsszd0Chd1yvQ-aXuT~UTzuWlv6plwsgJmkZMexw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Orem City Council voted on the consent agenda to authorize the mayor to sign an amendment to a 2022 interlocal agreement with Utah County to build phase 1 safety improvements at the intersection of 1600 North and 400 East.

City staff described the work as a roughly $460,000 phase to improve trail crossings and pedestrian safety while the city seeks funding for a larger roundabout project planned as phase 2. The amendment adjusts the original interlocal arrangement, which in 2022 contemplated about $1.3 million in MAG‑administered funds for safety improvements at the location.

\"This is about a $460,000 project. Originally, in 2022, we signed an interlocal agreement with Utah County, which administers the MAG money to do safety improvements there for about 1,300,000.0,\" said Ryan, a city staff member, during the presentation. Staff said the work will ‘‘create more of a directional crosswalk system for those that use the trail’’ and include boulders and other features to channel pedestrians and cyclists toward marked crossings and away from diagonal crossings.

The presentation stated the city will pay roughly 6.77 percent of the phase‑1 costs as a local match and that a contractor is already on board. Staff did not provide a firm start date; one staffer said the two staff members who have the schedule were unavailable that evening.

The council approved the consent items, including the interlocal amendment, without separate roll‑call discussion. The amendment was described in the meeting packet as a reasonable change to reflect the phase‑1 scope and costs.

Planning documents and earlier outreach indicated public preference for a roundabout at the intersection; staff said that remains the preferred long‑term solution but will require additional funding and would be considered as phase 2.

Staff asked council members to direct any additional questions or constituent concerns to city staff; the amendment will allow the phase‑1 improvements to proceed while the city seeks funds for the larger project.

Votes at a glance: the interlocal amendment for the 1600 North/400 East project was approved on the consent agenda; individual vote names were not recorded in the public verbal roll call during the meeting.","Orem City Council approved a consent resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an amendment to the interlocal agreement with Utah County to build phase 1 safety improvements at 1600 North and 400 East. The phase is estimated at about $460,000; a future roundabout remains a potential phase 2 pending funding.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Orem adopts revised campaign disclosure rule: June filing kept, adds Dec. 31 and aligns incumbents with primary filings

Orem staff outline code changes after complaints about 35‑foot flat‑roof house; state law limits options

Council approves amendment for 1600 North/400 East phase‑1 safety work; $460,000 project on consent