Monday, July 22, 2019

Council Meetings - 23 July 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:30 PM, Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

    Business

  1. A discussion regarding the creation of a Downtown Parking Committee. (19-002)
    Discussions about parking downtown have come up frequently in Council and committee discussions. The anticipated business and population growth as well as the relocation of the City Center building have made the need for a proactive approach to parking downtown more pressing. One option to address this need is to create a Downtown Parking Committee. I love Downtown Provo. One of the things I like about living where I do is that I can easily walk or bike to Downtown and avoiding the hassle and uncertainty of parking. Downtown parking is not a simple issue, but I think everyone can agree that there is plenty of room for improvement and that we are not utilizing our public resources as well as we should. A motion to create a Downtown Parking Committee, with the mission statement "To review the current state of and demand for public on-street and off-street parking in Downtown Provo, as well as the Strategic Parking Management Plan, in order to propose a vision for a functional, convenient, productive, and sustainable parking ecosystem and a high-level plan to bring about that vision.", with David Harding as chair, Gary Winterton as vice-chair, and with David Knecht as a committee member, was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. Downtown parking is not functioning optimally. This is a complex problem that we have been trying to address for a long time. I think we have done much of the background work. Consultants have created a "Strategic Downtown Parking Plan" which is more of a handbook which lays out many possible options. We have worked with the downtown business alliance. We have improved the consistency of parking enforcement. We have improved signage and communication. I feel that we are now in the position to create a master plan to guide our decisions and so we can proactively manage parking downtown. The difficulty in answering the request by the Blue Sky developers highlights the need for such a plan. With some effort, I believe that parking downtown can be a pleasant, convenient experience which will welcome rather than discourage visitors so that parking is no longer a hindrance to the economic vitality of downtown.
  2. A discussion of proposed amendments to Provo City Code Section 15.03.035 (Grading) to clarify and change requirements related to grading and grading permits. (19-002)
    The Foothills Protection Committee has met for the last several months to discuss areas they can assist in the preservation and protection of the Provo City Foothills. This particular ordinance amendment stems from the discussion that Council had during the April 23, 2019, Work Meeting. This is the proposed legislation relating to the initial step that was discussed by the Committee to prevent grading issues in the future. The three things which are being discussed are:

    (1) Require a Project Plan Proposal with each grading permit. Currently, Provo City Code Section § 15.03.035(2) (Grading) indicates that grading permits can be “obtained at the office of the Provo City Engineer after completion of an application for permit complying with any and all permit requirements.” There are 12 requirements from in PCC § 15.03.035(2) for developers to fulfill. However, if developers were required to provide a plan to fulfill these requirements at the project proposal stage, they will be less likely to abandon grading projects. The additional effort on the part of those seeking a grading permit and gives additional information to Engineering in order to help them as they review projects.

    (2) Increase bonding requirements for grading permit projects. The grading permit requirements found in PCC § 15.03.035(4) currently require that:
    - the work is completed by a licensed qualified contractor,
    - payment of all required permit fees and bonds are received prior to commencement of any work, and
    - the project complies with any special conditions required by the City Engineer.
    The Foothills Protection Committee believes that the bonding requirements for grading permits should be increased. Any permit which requires cutting should be given special scrutiny to ensure that the projects are completed to the expected standards.

    (3) Require a landscaping plan as part of the project proposal. If each project has a landscaping plan, this would show the City the contractor intends to beautify the project upon completion and leave the project in better condition than when they began. This would also provide the Engineering Division additional information on how the contractor intends to beautify the area upon completion of the project. The landscaping component of the project proposal would also likely result in an increase of the bonding requirement.
    The City and nearby residents had a very bad experience a couple years ago with a grading project that turned into gravel operation. We had difficulties all along the way. This experience has led us to review the process that is in place that allowed the problems to occur. This committee is submitting these recommendations for changing the process. The discussion in the meeting will help me to better assess if these recommendations strike the right balance between ensuring that grading occurs responsibly and being too onerous. A motion to forward this for review by the Planning Commission was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. This looks good. I'm interested to see if the Planning Commission finds anything that causes concern. Good work, FPC!
  3. A discussion of possible legislative efforts to be undertaken by the Foothills Committee of the Municipal Council. (19-002)
    Councilor Handley will review Provo City's current hillside code and the Salt Lake County ordinance on foothill protection to highlight what gaps the Foothills Protection Committee might address next. I really like the principles and balance struck in the Salt Lake County ordinance. I was a bit wary of how far this effort might try to go. Presentation only. The committee will continue to prepare policies and legislation, after which they will bring back future recommendations to the Council. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of this committee's efforts on broader foothill issues.
  4. A discussion regarding a proposed Permit Parking Plan ordinance amendment. (19-002)
    In mid- to late-2018, the Policy Governance Committee began discussions to clean up and make amendments to certain elements of the Permit Parking code (see Provo City Code Chapter 9.80). The Permit Parking Areas currently in code have been subject to certain code language that has been outdated since the Parking Enforcement has gone 21st Century. There is no longer a need for actual permits due to the electronic system that Parking Enforcement has put in place. Then there were some procedural elements that the Policy Governance Committee chose to amend certain elements to tighten up the process and add a step for the Planning Commission to review the Permit Parking Area plans. This step is thought to help the Council obtain a land use perspective on these Permit Parking Area plans. Also, there is a fee added to the Consolidated Fee Schedule. This item was heard last time, but was continued to gather more information. Here is what I wrote last time: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.' A motion to refer this item back to the Policy Governance Committee and continue the item at the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019 was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. The Planning Commission indicated that they don't think they are in the best entity to review the applications. I agree, I think that this is more in the scope of the TMAC. The committee will take this back and will have these conversations before returning to the Council with an updated recommendation.
  5. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a water carriage agreement with Central Utah Water and the US Department of the Interior. (19-083)
    The City utilizes A shared water conveyance pipe with other agencies in Provo Canyon. This agreement formalizes how the City will pay for its portion of related costs. We need to pay our share of the maintenance costs. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. This is a forty-year agreement. It is a great example of the boring, yet important work and collaboration between public entities that enables our reliable infrastructure.

  6. Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

  7. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with Mill Race Development, LLC for a project located between 500 S and 600 S, 100 W and University Avenue. (19-084)
    The Community Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation (RDA) purchased the property at 54 West 500 South in December of 2017 from Intermountain Farmer’s Association (IFA) in order to help IFA acquire their current location in the former OfficeMax building. This led to an opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the entire block and the RDA can now leverage their ownership of the existing IFA building into a larger development.

    RDA staff began to meet with the remaining property owners on the block to gauge their interest in participating with the RDA in the redevelopment of the block. Unbeknownst to staff, Mr. Justin Earl had begun negotiations to acquire the largest piece of property on the block. Once the transaction was finished, we had the opportunity to meet with him and ascertain that he would be interested in the redevelopment of the entire block of property.

    Mr. Earl met with his development team and presented a plan that will include an office tower, condominiums for sale and apartments for lease on the property. The development will also include meeting space and structured parking. Mr. Earl intends to offer some workforce housing as part of the office space. Should a firm lease space in the office tower, they would be able to contract for an apartment that would be available to their employees who make 60% of the area median income. Mr. Earl and his company have worked with the City’s Community Development department to provide both a Development Agreement and PRO Zone for this block and are now looking to have the attached Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in order to begin the construction process.

    The OPA provides for the transfer of property to Mr. Earl’s company with the requirement that the development could pay the RDA back after 10 years at the market value of $1,600,000 or pay the RDA back at a later date by appraising the development and paying the RDA one-fourth of the land value of the project, one-fourth being the RDA’s approximate holding in the block. The developer is also asking the RDA to consider providing tax increment to the project in exchange for public parking in the parking structure.
    I am comfortable in the delay of paying for the land. We purchased the land to spur development and that is exactly what is happening. I will feel more comfortable with the TIF request knowing that Provo will be better managing our public parking assets. Still, we need to make sure that the value that the public parking is providing the community is worth the taxes that will be offset. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. This agreement governs how the RDA property will be contributed in the project. The details of any TIF for the project will be worked out at a later date.
  8. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
    Community Development has identified deficiencies in the Campus Mixed Use Zone pertaining to design regulation. The zone currently only requires one door on each street frontage, has no habitable first floor requirement or any regulation of windows and visual permeability at the first floor. Staff is studying amendments to the zone to provide sufficient regulation of these design elements. Staff has also integrated previously proposed amendments to the materials standards into these proposed amendments. The amendments under consideration include the following.
    A minimum habitable first floor depth as measured from the street facing fa├žade. In the downtown this is 30’.
    A minimum number of pedestrian building entrances. For residential in the downtown an exterior entrance is required for each street facing unit.
    A minimum requirement for first floor windows and openings.

    Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
    I support this effort to better define our design standards. I feel that we should be moving towards more form-based zoning requirements. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. The presentation only reinforced my impression from before. This is the direction that our zoning code needs to pursue.

  9. Closed Meeting

    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time.

    Adjournment



PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 23, 2019


    Opening Ceremony

    Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

    Public Comment

    • This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
    • For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
    • For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.


    Action Agenda

  1. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. (19-003)
    Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Stephen Mongie and James Hamula serve on the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. Their appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the Municipal Council and have been submitted to the Council for review. I served on the TMAC before I joined the Council, so it is near and dear to my heart. I served with fewer and fewer of the current committee members, but I'm grateful to the new members who are aptly stepping into our shoes. Approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. They will serve the City well.
  2. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
    This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'I support this effort to better define our design standards. I feel that we should be moving towards more form-based zoning requirements.' Continued by Council Rules to the Council Meeting on August 6, 2019. These are good changes, but we wanted to give people who will be affected to have more time to learn and submit feedback before we make the decision.
  3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 9.80 to update language and amend procedures regarding permit parking areas. (19-002)
    This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'This item was heard last time, but was continued to gather more information. Here is what I wrote last time: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.' Continued during the Work Meeting on July 23, 2019. See the report of agenda item #4 from the earlier meeting.
  4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a water carriage agreement with Central Utah Water and the US Department of the Interior. (19-083)
    This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'We need to pay our share of the maintenance costs.' Approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. This is what I wrote after hearing this item in the earlier meeting, 'This is a forty-year agreement. It is a great example of the boring, yet important work and collaboration between public entities that enables our reliable infrastructure.'

  5. Redevelopment Agency of Provo

  6. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with Mill Race Development, LLC to transfer Agency-owned property for a project located between 500 S and 600 S and 100 W and University Ave. (19-084)
    This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'I am comfortable in the delay of paying for the land. We purchased the land to spur development and that is exactly what is happening. I will feel more comfortable with the TIF request knowing that Provo will be better managing our public parking assets. Still, we need to make sure that the value that the public parking is providing the community is worth the taxes that will be offset.' Approved 6:0, with David Harding excused. This item was actually heard last in the meeting, after the lengthy discussion on item #6. I stepped out to talk with the applicant of item #6 and missed this vote. I support their decision.
  7. A resolution approving a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
    Staff has been working with McKay Christensen on a proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Center Street and 100 East. The ground floor will be commercial and the remaining floors will be residential with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Christensen intends to provide all the necessary parking for his project in a parking structure at the center of the complex. However, the cost to provide parking onsite for his commercial uses is proving to be cost prohibitive. Mr. Christensen is requesting he be allowed to utilize a portion of the 204 parking spaces allocated to the Redevelopment Agency in the Wells Fargo parking structure. The Redevelopment Agency previously approved 63 East using 40 of those spaces for the residents of 63 East. We last considered this request in a formal meeting about a month ago. This was the direct impetus for creating the Downtown Parking Committee. Here is what I reported after we heard the item last time, 'Parking is not well managed downtown. Provo's RDA has invested in parking projects, but others are managing the resources. I think that the city needs to rethink our approach to downtown parking. I fear that if we grant this request we'll be doubling down on the old, broken model, tying up these resources for a quarter-century for far, far below the value of the stalls. Also, the request for dedicated stalls is problematic and very inefficient.' A motion to amend the exhibit to the resolution was approved, after which a vote on a motion to approve the resolution as amended failed 3:4, with George Handley, David Sewell, and David Knecht in favor; and with George Stewart, Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton, and David Harding opposed. This is as narrow of a decision as they come. A new day is dawning for parking in Downtown Provo. By turning down this proposal, this development and all of Downtown will have an even better parking situation.

  8. Adjournment

Saturday, July 6, 2019

Council Meeting - 9 July 2019

It's been a couple years since I missed an official council meeting. I will be missing the meetings on Tuesday. Fortunately, it is a lighter day of meetings than we've had in a long time. Our Work Meeting is starting at 3pm. Even the councilors who have been serving longer than me can't remember ever starting that early.

The items that will likely generate the most public interest are the urban deer removal program and the resolution on changing the form of the county government.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.
  1. A discussion regarding a proposed Permit Parking Plan ordinance amendment. (19-002)
    In mid- to late-2018, the Policy Governance Committee began discussions to clean up and make amendments to certain elements of the Permit Parking code (see Provo City Code Chapter 9.80). The Permit Parking Areas currently in code have been subject to certain code language that has been outdated since the Parking Enforcement has gone 21st Century. There is no longer a need for actual permits due to the electronic system that Parking Enforcement has put in place. Then there were some procedural elements that the Policy Governance Committee chose to amend certain elements to tighten up the process and add a step for the Planning Commission to review the Permit Parking Area plans. This step is thought to help the Council obtain a land use perspective on these Permit Parking Area plans. Also, there is a fee added to the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
  2. A discussion regarding a resolution of support for the recommendation from the Utah County Good Governance Board regarding the Utah County structure of government. (19-060)
    After several weeks of deliberation, on Monday, June 10, 2019, the Utah County Good Governance Board joined Strengthen Utah County in recommending that Utah County change its form of government from a three-person commission to a full-time mayor with seven part-time council members. Five council members would be elected in geographic districts, and two would be elected at large. The recommended change will be placed on the ballot this November 2019. This change is long overdue. There is consensus in the community that this should happen and should happen this fall. I strongly support the recommendations. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. See my discussion for item #4 in the evening meeting.
  3. A discussion regarding the proposed Urban Deer Control Plan. (19-047)
    The Urban Deer program has received preliminary approval from the Council to progress to the point where an Urban Deer Control Plan has been put together, a budget has been prepared, and the Council needs to approve the final pieces in order to make the Plan operational. To do this this resolution takes three steps: 1. This is the second required public hearing to renew our Certificate of Registration with the Division of Wildlife Resources 2. This resolution approves the Urban Deer Control Plan, and 3. Appropriates the needed funds to make it operational. The COR from the Division of Wildlife Resources will be authorized for another three-year period. This is the final step in making the Urban Deer Program move forward in the process. We've run this program for three years, but it is difficult to get good measurements as to what the impact has been. As we renew the program, we have an opportunity to make improvements based on what we've learned.

    The non-lethal portion of the old program was expensive, unsafe for the workers, and too often ended in death for the translocated deer. I don't believe the council will continue this portion. The lethal portion can only be used in the less populous areas of the city, where the urban deer mix with the mountain deer. This year there is a new option, it traps, like the old non-lethal option, but instead of transporting the deer they are euthanized. This option can be used in the denser parts of the city where the urban deer hang out. I believe the council will be renewing the program without the old non-lethal option. I hope that the council focuses on the new trap-and-euthanize option, but gives the operator enough flexibility to adjust to what makes the most sense.
    A motion to replace the text beginning in line 9 of the resolution with the text from the second paragraph of Exhibit A was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. A motion to change the language to read 'up to$15,000' for the appropriation was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. Clarifications were made to better communicate that the target of this program are the urbanized deer -- deer that live year-round in the city -- and not mountain deer who just visit the city looking for food in the winter, and to communicate that the main motivation for the program is to improve public safety.
  4. A discussion regarding proposed amendments to Personnel Policies in Title 4. (19-082)
    As the Administration was preparing for implementing changes to leave policies that were proposed with the annual budget this year, a number of inconsistencies between current practices and some older provisions of the Municipal Code in Title 4 were noted. Many of the personnel provisions in Title 4 are no longer in alignment with standard personnel policies and administrative practices and are somewhat antiquated. A few of these include:
    • A provision that 'total remuneration' to employees cannot exceed the amount in the pay plan - for many years bonuses, temporary acting pay, sick leave buy back and other programs technically haven’t been in alignment with the code
    • Leave administration practices that have evolved over time that are no longer technically in compliance with older provisions of the code
    • A requirement that all new employees start at step 1 of their ranges - for at least 20 years starting wage for a new employee has been based on experience, market and other factors that have helped attract and retain quality employees. The police lateral program established last year, for example, would not be in keeping with the strict interpretation of Title 4.
    I believe Provo City Code is too specific and rigid when it comes to employee compensation. It should establish broad principles and policies and leave plenty of room for the administration to adopt best practices and adapt to the changing labor market to remain competitive and attract and retain quality employees to serve our residents. Presentation only. This item will return to the Council at a future date. The council discussed personnel compensation policy with the administration in broad terms, to try to come to an understanding regarding the level of specificity that should be targeted in the code re-write.

  5. Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

  6. A discussion regarding a proposed amendment to Provo City Code 14.50(30) to amend the title, purpose, and objectives to the 50 East Project Redevelopment Option Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLOTA20190170)
    The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the text of the existing 14.50(30) PRO Zone to allow the zone to be more adaptable to the proposed 64-unit condo project and potential future projects in other areas focused on entry-level housing. The existing language is specific in title, as well as, the purpose and objectives to a project that was not constructed. Planning Commission recommended approval. This won't change any of the regulations. It changes the descriptive language identifying the zone. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. Instead of creating a new zone, Community Development worked with the developer to find an existing PRO zone that was close to what they are planning to create. The one they found had been established years ago, but the project that it was created for was never built. This action just changes the description in the zone to make it applicable to this project and keeps it broad so that it will be applicable to possible future projects as well.

  7. Closed Meeting

    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. A closed meeting was held.

    Adjournment



PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 9, 2019


    Opening Ceremony

    Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
  1. Introduction of the new Foothills Neighborhood Chair, Ruth Thomas.
  2. Introduction of the new North Park Neighborhood Chair, Eric Chase.

    Public Comment

    • This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
    • For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
    • For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.


    Action Agenda

  3. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (19-003)
    The Mayor regularly makes appointments to various boards and commissions, with the consent of the Municipal Council. The following appointments will be presented to the Council for their consent:
    • Kris Whitehead - Airport Board
    • Adam Robertson - Airport Board
    • Scott Glenn - Arts Council
    • Jeff Ringer - Landmarks Commission
    • Diane Christensen - Landmarks Commission
    • Susan Fales - Landmarks Commission
    • Jaisa Bishop - Landmarks Commission
    • Jennifer Wright - Library Board
    • Rebecca Burton - Library Board
    • Cynthia Gagon - Library Board
    • Allyssa Pike - Library Board
    • Andrew Renick - Board of Adjustment
    Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I am grateful to the many people who volunteer their time to serve on our various boards and commissions. Their work is essential in the function of the city and is an important way for decisions to be made with broad public input.
  4. A resolution supporting the Utah County Good Governance Advisory Board's proposal to include the change of government question on the November 2019 ballot. (19-060)
    This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. Like I said in the Work Meeting preview, 'This change is long overdue. There is consensus in the community that this should happen and should happen this fall. I strongly support the recommendations.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. "The big news is that earlier in the day a Commissioner surprised the community with a maneuver that may effectively scuttle the effort to change the form of county government. The State Legislature created a provision in the law designed to prevent a County Commission from blocking the people's efforts to change the form of government. This provision was abused to do what it was designed to prevent. This Daily Herald editorial does a good job laying out the background of the situation. I am pleased that the Council passed this resolution of support and am still hopeful that the people of Utah County will get to vote this fall on whether to change the form of county government."
  5. A resolution authorizing submission of a final Urban Deer Control Plan and authorizing the request for the Certificate of Registration ('COR') from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (19-047)
    This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I said earlier on this item, 'We've run this program for three years, but it is difficult to get good measurements as to what the impact has been. As we renew the program, we have an opportunity to make improvements based on what we've learned.

    The non-lethal portion of the old program was expensive, unsafe for the workers, and too often ended in death for the translocated deer. I don't believe the council will continue this portion. The lethal portion can only be used in the less populous areas of the city, where the urban deer mix with the mountain deer. This year there is a new option, it traps, like the old non-lethal option, but instead of transporting the deer they are euthanized. This option can be used in the denser parts of the city where the urban deer hang out. I believe the council will be renewing the program without the old non-lethal option. I hope that the council focuses on the new trap-and-euthanize option, but gives the operator enough flexibility to adjust to what makes the most sense.'
    Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. From the earlier meeting: 'Clarifications were made to better communicate that the target of this program are the urbanized deer -- deer that live year-round in the city -- and not mountain deer who just visit the city looking for food in the winter, and to communicate that the main motivation for the program is to improve public safety.'
  6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Division of Community and Neighborhood Services and Department of Development Services. (19-036)
    During the Mayor's State of the Union in January 2019, she announced that the Administration would be restructuring to create two separate departments in order to provide better service delivery to residents in the form of a one-stop shop for development. The two departments--Dept. of Community and Neighborhood Services and Dept. of Development Services--would be created by taking the tasks held in Economic Development, Redevelopment Agency, and then divvying up some of the services from Community Development and Public Works to get the employees for these departments. The Administration will address the Title 2 amendments necessary to formally create the Division of Community and Neighborhood Services and the Department of Development Services. Like I said earlier, 'This is a pretty big deal, and is the culmination of years of effort. I believe this restructuring will better serve the interests of Provo.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I am looking forward to improved services for both the neighborhoods as well as developers.
  7. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code 14.50(30) to amend the title, purpose, and objectives to the 50 East Project Redevelopment Option Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLOTA20190170)
    This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. From the earlier meeting, 'This won't change any of the regulations. It changes the descriptive language identifying the zone.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. From the earlier meeting, 'Instead of creating a new zone, Community Development worked with the developer to find an existing PRO zone that was close to what they are planning to create. The one they found had been established years ago, but the project that it was created for was never built. This action just changes the description in the zone to make it applicable to this project and keeps it broad so that it will be applicable to possible future projects as well.'
  8. ***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending the General Plan designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R) for approx 0.78 acres of real property generally located at 862 E Quail Valley Drive. Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190009)
    This item was not ready to be heard
  9. ***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approx 0.78 acres of real property, generally located at 862 East Quail Valley Drive, from Public Facilities (PF) Low Density Residential (LDR). Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180430)
    This item was not ready to be heard
  10. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.285 regarding the design standards for buildings in the Campus Mixed Use Zone. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190025)
    This item was not ready to be heard

  11. Adjournment

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Council Meetings - 18 June 2019

Sorry, everyone, for this being so late. There has been a lot of discussion and exploring going on related to parking, and this kept me from finishing up my previews. Besides the parking items, the department reorganization and new department is a pretty big deal. I also feel that allowing detached accessories is a big change that will have long term impact.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.
  1. Approval of minutes.

    Budget Committee

  2. A discussion regarding changes to the FY 2019-2020 Tentative Budget. (19-004)
    Some changes have been made to the FY 2019-2020 Tentative Budget. In addition to noting these changes for the Council, John Borget will also discuss the changes to the Consolidated Fee Schedule and the new job descriptions updated after the addition of the deputy chief position in the Police Department. So far there have been few adjustments and no requests for changes. I believe this is due to the robust process that we went through before the budget was proposed and because the council and administration communicated and collaborated on the priorities addressed by the budget. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. We got a rundown on the adjustments that had occurred since the tentative budget was approved and they were all minor.

  3. Business

  4. A discussion regarding an appropriation for the Airport operating budget. (19-078)
    The Airport would like to increase their operating budget by $60,000; $30,000 for personnel, and $30,000 for operating costs. The need for the increase in personnel is mostly being driven by overtime expenses. The Airport typically goes through this budget by September. It has been increased in the FY2020 budget as a supplemental request, but needs to be increased in FY2019 to cover what has occurred in the current year. This cost is driven by staff's requirement to have someone at the airport for every commercial flight.

    The need for the increase in operating expenses is due to multiple other factors as well. The cost of snow removal at the airport this year was double what it was last year due to the amount of snow. They also had an unexpected one-time expenditure to receive environmental clearances for new hangar pads; the low bid received for our entry landscaping maintenance contract was much higher this year, and they also had some property appraisals done for potential land purchases. The Airport is covering the cost of this appropriation with higher-than-budgeted revenues. As of today, they are already $26,000 above budget. They are confident that with the remaining parking revenue set to come in (estimated at approximately $30,000, received in account 3832-Lease), $20,000 from Allegiant for passenger and landing fees, and $10,000 anticipated in fuel flowage fees, they will have the revenue needed to cover this appropriation.
    With increased usage come both increased expenses and increased revenues. This appropriation will allow the airport to use the increased revenues to pay for their increased expenses. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. The city staff at the airport are going to great lengths to keep the airport functioning well despite being understaffed. The growth and reports of great customer service are testaments to their efforts.
  5. A discussion on the creation of Community and Neighborhood Services and Development Services. (19-036)
    During the Mayor's State of the Union delivery in January 2019, she announced that the Administration would be restructuring to create two separate departments in order to provide better service delivery to residents in the form of a one stop shop for development. The two departments - Dept. of Community and Neighborhood Services and Dept. of Development Services - would be created by taking the tasks held in Economic Development, Redevelopment Agency, and then divvy up some of the services from Community Development and Public Works to get the employees for these departments. The Administration will address the Title 2 amendments necessary to formally create the Department of Community and Neighborhood Services and the Department of Development Services. This past week I had a frustrated neighbor approach me because a lot subdivision request that affected her future plans was denied. She wanted to know who to talk to overturn this decision. I had to explain that it is not my role to overturn staff decisions, but to set city policies and provide oversight, to establish the framework in which the city provides services. Yes, it's all very bureaucratic, and it takes time and effort to make changes. This effort, years in the making, is an attempt to streamline the development process and to make it easier to navigate and get clear answers for people like my neighbor. It is not a trivial matter to create and reorganize city departments. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. The plan hasn't deviated much since we first received the broad outline. Most of the details have now been worked out.
  6. A discussion regarding the parking requirements and Transportation Demand Management plans for multi-family developments. (19-074)
    The Housing Executive Committee has met to discuss the idea of amending the parking requirements for multi-family developments. There is currently an exception for non-profit entities with regards to those building multi-family developments. Council has attempted to provide alternatives to developers by approving a Transportation Demand Management program for developers of multi-family developments. This discussion is intended to provide further clarification on this issue. The city has struggled to find the right requirement for parking. Parking is expensive and impacts the cost of housing in the city. Too much parking needlessly raises the cost of housing. Too little impacts both the residents of the housing and the residents near the housing. The TDM program could be a way to allow savings on parking by developers designing and building aspects into their project that reduce the demand for parking. Presentation only. This item will be presented to the Housing Committee for review after a proposal is drafted. The council was supportive of the idea generally and agreed to move it to the next step for consideration.
  7. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amendment to Provo City Code Chapter 9.17 (Civil Infractions) parking violations (19-023)
    "The amendments to the Civil Infractions chapter are necessary for two reasons. First, to restructure the fee schedule to comply with Utah Legislature HB0336 which modified the assessment of late fees for violations and will cause the City to be out of compliance as of July 1st, 2019. Second, a proposed increase to all the violation fees to generate an average increase of 25% to the annual revenue generated to cover expected Parking Enforcement operations for the next five budgeted years.

    A couple years ago, Parking Enforcement started the transition to become a stand alone function separate from Police and was officially under the oversight of the Customer Service Department in December of 2017. After a full year of analyzing the operations, including staffing, rebranding, equipment, establishing routes, etc.as well as identifying potential immediate and future needs for the enforcement effort, an operating costs vs. revenue analysis has been completed. An increase in the current operating budget and the budget for the next few years will be necessary.

    Provo's City's Civil Infraction or Parking Violation Code has not been modified for over 10 years, and the parking violation fee amounts longer than that. Since the City needs to restructure the fees to comply with the new law, and there is the data to propose and support an increase in fee amounts, it seems appropriate to satisfy both needs at this time. The proposed new fees are in line with surrounding cities and with BYU. The new structure allows for a discount as an incentive to pay on time rather than penalizing a late payer.
    " Consistent, dependable, credible enforcement of parking regulations will do much to alleviate parking problems in Provo. I do want to make sure that we are complying with the spirit of the new state law, and not just the letter based on a technicality. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. See my report for Item #12 in the evening meeting.
  8. A discussion regarding the HOME Consortium Interlocal Agreement. (19-075)
    This is a renewal of the HOME Consortium agreement that brings several local government agencies together with Provo as the lead entity. The consortium manages federal funds from the HOME Program. As the seat of the county, it makes sense for Provo to be the lead entity of the consortium. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. There were no surprises. The presentation followed the materials provided beforehand.
  9. A presentation regarding the annexation process. (19-076)
    Annexation is a critical but sometimes complicated process. This presentation will outline and clarify the process and highlight the Council's role. We've seen an uptick in annexation requests, with one recently withdrawn and another on the meeting's agenda. We deal with these so infrequently that it will be good to review the process. Presentation only. There are two main steps for the council in the annexation process. The first question is early in the process and asks if we are even interested in considering the annexation. This is done by petition. If the petition is accepted then city staff research the proposed annexation and returns at the end of the process with a report and recommendation. That is when the council makes the final decision on the proposed annexation.
  10. A discussion regarding the East Bay Annexation. (PLANEX20190140)
    It has been suggested that a parcel of land located at approximately 1860 South and Colorado Avenue be annexed into Provo City. The owners have submitted all of the necessary documentation. There are no conflicting water rights in the area. The plan for the area is to build a storage unit called East Bay Self Storage. Construction on the project is anticipated to be completed in April 2020. I believe this is in our existing annexation plan. So far, I haven't seen a reason to deny the petition. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. This is a fairly straight-forward request and will be good for Provo.
  11. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
    Staff has been working with McKay Christensen on a proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Center Street and 100 East. The ground floor will be commercial and the remaining floors will be residential with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Christensen intends to provide all the necessary parking for his project in a parking structure at the center of the complex. However, the cost to provide parking onsite for his commercial uses is proving to be cost prohibitive. Mr. Christensen is requesting he be allowed to utilize a portion of the 204 parking spaces allocated to the Redevelopment Agency in the Wells Fargo parking structure. The Redevelopment Agency previously approved 63 East using 40 of those spaces for the residents of 63 East. Our discussion two weeks ago highlighted several complications with this request. I support the project and feel that the Redevelopment Agency has a part to play in this, but there is no simple way to approve the request. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. Parking is not well managed downtown. Provo's RDA has invested in parking projects, but others are managing the resources. I think that the city needs to rethink our approach to downtown parking. I fear that if we grant this request we'll be doubling down on the old, broken model, tying up these resources for a quarter-century for far, far below the value of the stalls. Also, the request for dedicated stalls is problematic and very inefficient.

  12. Business

  13. A discussion regarding an update to Provo City Code Title 10 making amendment to the Sewer and Water Chapters of the Title. (19-072)
    Changes to Title 10 - Water Resources Chapters 10.02 (Water Service - General Provisions), 10.03 (Sewer Service - General Provisions), and 10.04 (Pre-treatment Program). These changes update the code to create consistency with the development guidelines and comply with State and Federal regulations. We discussed this two weeks ago. The document for Chapter 10.04 is much easier to read, but it is still difficult to understand what exactly is changing. I have a couple questions, but based on our previous discussion, I assume I'll be ready to vote on this by the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. My questions were answered and this is a good code-maintenance step.
  14. A discussion of proposed amendments to Provo City Code 15.03.035 (Grading) to clarify and change requirements related to grading and grading permits. (19-002)
    "The Foothills Protection Committee has met for the last several months to discuss areas they can assist in the preservation and protection of the Provo City Foothills. This particular ordinance amendment stems from the discussion that Council had during the April 23, 2019, Work Meeting. This is the proposed legislation relating to the initial step that was discussed by the Committee to prevent grading issues in the future. The three things which are being discussed are:
    1. Require a Project Plan Proposal with each grading permit. Currently, Provo City Code Section § 15.03.035(2) (Grading) indicates that grading permits can be “obtained at the office of the Provo City Engineer after completion of an application for permit complying with any and all permit requirements.” There are 12 requirements from in PCC § 15.03.035(2) for developers to fulfill. However, if developers were required to provide a plan to fulfill these requirements at the project proposal stage, they will be less likely to abandon grading projects. The additional effort on the part of those seeking a grading permit and gives additional information to Engineering in order to help them as they review projects.
    2. Increase bonding requirements for grading permit projects. The grading permit requirements found in PCC § 15.03.035(4) currently require that:
      • the work is completed by a licensed qualified contractor,
      • payment of all required permit fees and bonds are received prior to commencement of any work, and
      • the project complies with any special conditions required by the City Engineer.
      The Foothills Protection Committee believes that the bonding requirements for grading permits should be increased. Any permit which requires cutting should be given special scrutiny to ensure that the projects are completed to the expected standards.
    3. Require a landscaping plan as part of the project proposal. If each project has a landscaping plan, this would show the City the contractor intends to beautify the project upon completion and leave the project in better condition than when they began. This would also provide the Engineering Division additional information on how the contractor intends to beautify the area upon completion of the project. The landscaping component of the project proposal would also likely result in an increase of the bonding requirement.
    " I support the work of this committee and look forward to their presentation. I like the sound of what they are proposing so that we can prevent the problems we saw a couple years ago near the mouth of Provo Canyon. Presentation only. Additional clarification is needed on whether or not these proposed amendments apply to grading occurring in conjunction with a building permit. After this point is resolved, this item will be brought back to the July 9, 2019 Work Meeting. There were a lot of questions raised that will need to be answered by the committee before we can move forward with this proposal. The main one was how would this affect residential development.

  15. Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

  16. A discussion about a Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) to Low Density Residential and a General Plan Amendment from PF to Residential for 0.78 ac to allow 4 townhomes at 862 E Quail Valley Drive. Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190009&PLRZ20180430)
    The subject property is an infill parcel located between the existing office building on Quail Valley Drive and the Timpview High School Seminary. The applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation for the property from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R) to allow for a six-unit, single-family townhome development project. Planning Commission recommended approval. I believe it is best to have a variety of housing types mixed in throughout our city. I still need to understand this particular proposal better, but in general, this appears to be an appropriate place to have four townhomes. It is between a seminary and an office building and would be accessed directly from a main road. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. See my report for item #13 in the evening meeting.
  17. A discussion regarding a request for ordinance text amendments to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A-Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190120)
    This item is an Ordinance Text Amendment to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S - Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A - Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone, as well as adopt related amendments. This item was first heard at the April 24, 2019, Planning Commission meeting where it was continued to the May 22, 2019, meeting. The amendment was discussed in detail at the May 22, 2019, Planning Commission’s Study Session along with the comments submitted by Paul Evans, the Pleasant View Neighborhood Chair. The item was then continued at the May 22nd meeting, to allow time for staff to present the changes discussed at the study session. Staff has made changes to the proposed amendment based on comments at the May 22, 2019 study session. The new changes are of two kinds: The first includes formatting and grammatical changes. The second group includes changes that add wording meant to clarify the intent of particular sections. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support the concept of this proposal, but I don't think we are ready to implement it. This will impact areas that already have an A or S overlay applied, but I don't feel the residents of these areas have been properly notified of the proposed changes. I also feel that we need reliable enforcement to educate and deter people from misusing these new uses, and I do not yet have confidence that we are there. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. See my report for item #15 in the evening meeting.
  18. A discussion on a request for a zone change for approximately 2.12 acres of real property, from R1.10 to a Project Redevelopment Option Zone (PRO), generally located at 1320 S State Street. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190100)
    The subject property is an infill parcel located between the existing Provo School District bus barn site to the south, State Street to the east, a Provo City Power substation to the west, and the previously approved Autumn View townhome project to the north. The site has been vacant for a number of years and is located in an area intended for medium density development according to the Southeast Provo neighborhood plan. The proposed rezone will allow a new multi-family housing project consisting of 64 two bedroom condominium units divided among four (4) four-story buildings with four (4) units per floor. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. There is a lot to like about this proposal. I believe it will be a solid step towards addressing the affordability problems with housing in Provo. If I have a gripe about the project, though, it would be in the layout of the buildings. I'm not a fan of stacking apartment buildings as if they were rows of filing cabinets. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. See my report for item #16 in the evening meeting.

  19. Closed Meeting

    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. A closed meeting was held.

    Adjournment



PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 4, 2019


    Opening Ceremony

    Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

    Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

  1. Presentation of Awards from the Utah County Child Abuse Prevention Team. (19-077)
    We live in a great community because of the many people who volunteer and work on behalf of others. Presentation only. Three groups were honored and their stories were truly inspiring.
  2. Presentation by the Utah Geographic Information Council Conference Map Contest winner. (19-079)
    Stan McShinksy is a web developer for our GIS Team and creates amazing map-based art. Presentation only. Take a look at his work of art!

    Public Comment

    • This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
    • For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
    • For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.


    Action Agenda

  3. A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement to authorize Provo's participation in the UT Valley HOME Consortium in US Dept of Housing and Urban Development's HOME Investment Partnership Program (Fed FY20-22) (19-075)
    This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 7 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. This is a good arrangement for all of the participating entities.
  4. A public hearing and an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020, in the amount of $254,958,760. (19-004)
    This is the final public hearing as part of the budget process as required by Section 10-6-111(3) of the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities. More information about the budget process can be found on our website. This should be the final step in passing the budget for next year. A substitute motion was made to revise the final total budget; correct references for consistency; amend the certified tax rates in lines 58 to 60; and amend the consolidated fee schedule to increase the airport parking fee to $6. The ordinance was subsequently approved 7:0. We first heard an item explaining the amount of utility fees that are transferred into the city's general fund. These transfers are important to the city and help keep property taxes down on our residents and businesses. More than half of the land in Provo is owned by non-taxable entities, but many of these entities use significant city services like police and roads. Utilities are paid by everyone, so this is one way that these non-profits can help contribute to the cost of the services they use. The trick is to run our utilities so efficiently that we can charge roughly the same as other nearby communities for our utilities, and still transfer money (roughly 11%) to the General Fund.

  5. Stormwater Service District

  6. A public hearing and a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $5,123,278 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-006)
    This is the final public hearing required to establish the budget. This should be the final step in passing the budget for next year. A substitute motion was made to update the budget total and the resolution approved 7:0.

  7. Redevelopment Agency of Provo

  8. A public hearing and a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of 2,429,132. (19-005)
    This is the final public hearing required to establish the budget. This should be the final step in passing the budget for next year. A substitute motion was made to update the budget total and the resolution was approved 7:0.
  9. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
    This was item 10 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 10 in the earlier meeting. A motion to call the question failed 2:5, with Councilors David Harding, David Knecht, David Sewell, George Handley, and Gary Winterton opposed. A substitute motion to continue the item to the July 9, 2019 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. If you haven't seen my report for item #10 in the earlier meeting. The council was unsettled regarding the request to lease the parking stalls for 24 years. We have not found a solution that works for the developer as well as for the public parking downtown.

  10. Action Agenda

  11. A resolution appropriating $139,530 from the General Fund in the Fire Dept. General Fund for the purchase of a temporary apparatus facility during the relocation of Fire Station 2 applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-073)
    This is a resolution appropriating $139,530 from the General Fund for the purchase of a "membrane" structure for the housing of fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles during the demolition and reconstruction of Fire Station #2. The structure will then be relocated to fleet services for reserve apparatus storage and fleet maintenance purposes. We talked about this last week. This is how I reported that discussion, "1. The cost to rent is more than the cost to buy (though it is a different structure). 2. Since this is a purchase that will last longer than the immediate need during the building of the new fire station, project leaders were uncomfortable with using bond money for the purchase. 3. Because actual costs for the temporary staging site are higher by about the amount estimated for the structure rental, the whole amount of the structure purchase, set-up, and eventual move is being asked for as an appropriation." Approved 7:0. I've explained this item a few times. Talk a look at the "preview" to the left. The cost is more than anticipated, but we will be getting an asset that will be of value to our fleet managers for decades.
  12. A resolution appropriating $60,000 from the General Fund in the Airport Fund for personnel and operating costs applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-078)
    This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 3 in the earlier meeting. A substitute motion to correct the resolution to state that the appropriation would come from the Airport Fund balance was approved, after which the resolution was approved 7:0. See my preview and report for item 3 in the earlier meeting.
  13. A resolution accepting or denying an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 2.55 acres of property generally located at 1860 South and Colorado Avenue. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20190140)
    This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 9 in the earlier meeting. A motion to accept the petition was approved 7:0. From my report in the earlier meeting: "This is a fairly straight-forward request and will be good for Provo."
  14. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct and update Title 10 (Water Resources). (19-072)
    This was item 11 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 11 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. From my report earlier: "This is a good code-maintenance step"
  15. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 9.17 Civil Infractions (Parking Violations). (19-023)
    This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 6 in the earlier meeting. Approved 5:2, with Councilors David Sewell and George Handley opposed. Our parking fines are far less than neighboring entities. Right now we have a very low initial fine, but it escalates as time goes on. This ordinance raises the fees to be comparable with others, but offers a discount for people who pay early to help motivate people to pay their fines quickly.
  16. An ordinance amending General Plan regarding a designation change from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R) for approximately 0.78 acres located at approximately at 862 East Quail Valley Drive. Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190009)
    This was item 13 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 13 in the earlier meeting. Continued to July 9, 2019 Council Meeting. The applicant has tried to address concerns raised by concerned neighbors, but missed the mark on a few of his efforts. There was conflicting information about whether the School District is interested in the property. We continued the item for three weeks to see if the neighborhood and applicant could continue to negotiate and the get more clarity on a few questions.
  17. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 0.78 acres of real property, generally located at 862 East Quail Valley Drive, from Public Facilities (PF) Low Density Residential (LDR). Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180430)
    This was item 13 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 13 in the earlier meeting. Continued to July 9, 2019 Council Meeting. same as above
  18. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to consolidate Chapter 14.30 (S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone) with Chapter 14.46 (A-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone) and adopt related amendments. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190120)
    This was item 14 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 14 in the earlier meeting. Continued to a future meeting. Overall this is a good proposal, but we need to implement it wisely and with plenty of notice to neighbors who will be affected by it. We will likely bring pieces of it forward and implement it in a piecemeal fashion.
  19. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 2.1 acres generally located at 1320 S State St, from Residential (R1.10) to a new Entry Level Housing (ELH) Project Redevelopment Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190100)
    This was item 15 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 15 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. One councilor asked the applicants when they are planning for their next project in Provo. There is a lot to like in their proposal. It is a good step towards housing that is more affordable to beginning homeowners. This will be a condo project.
  20. ***CONTINUED*** The Community Development Department requests approval of the 2019 Moderate Income Housing Plan, which is an update to the existing plan. City-wide application. PLGPA20190194
    This item was not ready to be heard
  21. ***WITHDRAWN*** Julie Smith requests the annexation (Peay Annexation) of 13.45 acres of property into the incorporated limits of Provo City, located at approximately 5400 N Canyon Road. North Timpview and Riverbottoms Neighborhoods. PLANEX20180355
    This item was withdrawn by the applicant.

  22. Adjournment

Monday, June 3, 2019

Council Meetings - 4 June 2019

This will be the first public hearing on our $280M budget. We will be making some decisions about Downtown parking. But the item that will likely generate the most public feedback will be the offer to buy Timp Kiwanis Bounous Park.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.
  1. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
    Blue Sky Development is planning a mixed use development at the corner of Center Street and 100 East. They will park their residential tenants but need assistance parking their commercial tenants and are requesting the use of some of the Agency's spaces in the Wells Fargo tower. Provo's RDA (Redevelopment Agency) helped pay for the parking structure next to the Wells Fargo building. We own some of the parking stalls there. This was done to help make the Wells Fargo project happen, as well as to give us the ability to use that parking in the future to help make future projects happen. Well, the future is now. The Blue Sky project is both a residential as well as a commercial project, similar to what we've been asking for in our Downtown. The project will have parking on site for the residential component, but wants to rent some of our spaces in the Wells Fargo garage for their commercial customers.

    I do have some questions about how this will work and be managed.
    This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 4, 2019, however a motion to continue the item was approved 7:0. Right now the parking in the garage is not managed. For the most part, it is open and free to the public. When asked, the presenter explained that the plan for the foreseeable future is for the parking stalls to continue to be unmanaged. There isn't really a good way to ensure that the stalls are being used by patrons to the businesses and restaurants who would be leasing the spaces. I, as well as other councilors, have concerns about entering into long term leases of these spots. I support the Blue Sky project, but I'm not sure this is the best way to provide parking for the project.

  2. Business

  3. A discussion regarding an update to Provo City Code Title 10 making amendment to the Sewer and Water Chapters of the Title. (19-072)
    Changes to Title 10 - Water Resources Chapters 10.02 (Water Service - General Provisions), 10.03 (Sewer Service - General Provisions), and 10.04 (Pre-treatment Program). These changes update the code to create consistency with the development guidelines and comply with State and Federal regulations. This is mostly a code clean up and streamlining by referring to applicable State and Federal regulations. The changes to the section on sewer treatment are fairly extensive, so it is harder to follow what is actually being changed. Presentation only. This item will be heard at a future Council Meeting. We gave it a preliminary thumbs-up. It'll be brought back to a future Council Meeting. Hopefully, the third document will be formatted in a way that it is more understandable.
  4. A discussion regarding the repeal of Provo City Code Section 2.60.040 (19-071)
    This section of the code reflects historic procedures in the Council office that predated the current use of technology to facilitate publication of meeting materials. This was a good catch by our staff. Departments don't need to submit a paper copy of proposed ordinances to me. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 4, 2019. There were no concerns with this proposal.
  5. A discussion regarding an appropriation for a temporary apparatus facility during the relocation of Fire Station #2 (19-073)
    When the new Fire Station is being built the Fire Department is going to be temporarily relocated during that time. They have a location they'll be leasing for living quarters for the firefighters and intended to lease the location for the fire apparatus. However, when they ran the numbers, they found the cost for leasing the apparatus during this time to be near what it would cost to purchase outright. They believe they can re-use this temporary facility for apparatus storage and move it to the Public Works Fleet Management and re-assemble for apparatus storage. My understanding is this is for the structure used to shelter the fire truck when not in use. The cost to rent is not much less than the cost to buy and if we own the structure then we will be able to use it in the future. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting onJune 18, 2019. 1. The cost to rent is more than the cost to buy (though it is a different structure). 2. Since this is a purchase that will last longer than the immediate need during the building of the new fire station, project leaders were uncomfortable with using bond money for the purchase. 3. Because actual costs for the temporary staging site are higher by about the amount estimated for the structure rental, the whole amount of the structure purchase, set-up, and eventual move is being asked for as an appropriation.

  6. Budget Committee

  7. A discussion regarding Fire Department budget requests. (19-004)
    The Fire Department requested two appropriations. First, they requested a capital equipment replacement fund creation. This would be similar to the Recreation Center where they put money into a fund so they can replace equipment as needed. And second they requested a civilian Dispatch Director, someone who could manage the Dispatch office and wouldn't require Civil Service entry. They were granted funding for the civilian Dispatch Director, but not the replacement fund. The Chief will come and explain each of these requests in more detail and spend time answering questions for the Council. This is the last in the series of discussions with departments regarding their budget requests and what actually made it into the budget. Presentation only. The new Dispatch Director frees up a sworn police officer who can help with our police staffing needs. I support the use of the replacement fund, though we will not be able to fully fund this year's contribution. Use of these kind of funds make our budget more sustainable and predictable. We are paying for what we are using, rather than expecting future tax-payers to bond for replacements.
  8. A discussion regarding the Provo City Citizens' Budget. (19-004)
    Council staff have prepared a user-friendly document that highlights and compares items from the proposed FY2020 Provo City budget. This summary is very helpful to anyone looking for a (relatively) quick overview of the current budget and financial health of the city. Presentation only. I don't know how much longer this stretch of sustained economic growth will last, but we've been blessed with prosperity. I feel that we've been making some difficult decisions now that will put the city on a solid foundation to face times that aren't as prosperous.

  9. Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

  10. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.38.085(7) to clarify limitations on signage within the North University Riverbottoms Design Corridor. City-wide application. PLOTA20190026
    Provo City Community Development is requesting an ordinance amendment to subsection 14.38.085(7), to clarify prohibited signs in the North University Riverbottoms Design Corridor. Section 14.38.085 was enacted in 1996 to provide consistent design through this part of that City, and minor adjustments have been made over the years. Due to recent concerns about what types of signs are allowed, staff has brought forward this proposal to clean up language and clarify what signage is prohibited. The proposed language explicitly prohibits any signs that are not otherwise authorized by subsection one, which clarifies the restriction for property owners and residents in the area. This ordinance would fix some ambiguity that might be argued to create a loophole in the sign ordinance. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 4, 2019. See the report for item #11 in the evening meeting.

  11. Closed Meeting

    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. A closed meeting was held.

    Adjournment



PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 4, 2019


    Opening Ceremony

    Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

    Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

  1. Judge Romney receives Utah State Justice Court Judge of the Year Award
    Judge Romney has served the city well for a dozen years in this capacity. It is great to see his exemplary service recognized by his peers. Presentation only.
  2. Introduction of the new Wasatch Neighborhood Chair, David Acheson
    I'm grateful to neighborhood chairs from across the city who give so much for the betterment of our community. Presentation only.

    Approval of Minutes

  3. April 23, 2019 Council Meeting
    Approved by unanimous consent.

    Public Comment

    • This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
    • For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
    • For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.


    Action Agenda

  4. A public hearing regarding a resolution approving the Program Year 2019 Annual Action Plan, Fifth Year update to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, as amended. (19-059)
    The CDBG and HOME Programs provide the City of Provo and other local governments with the opportunity to develop viable urban communities by funding activities that provide decent housing, a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. Funds are awarded to carry out a wide range of community development activities directed towards neighborhood revitalization, homeownership and condition of housing stock. The Programs are administered by the Community Planning and Development Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Every year, as Lead Entity for the Utah Valley HOME Consortium, Provo City submits an Annual Action Plan (an update to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD) outlining the goals, objectives and the proposed use of federal CDBG and HOME resources to address housing, economic development, and community development projects to be undertaken. This is the second of two required public hearings. We are implementing a new procedure that allows for better coordination between local funding governments in the valley that will reduce the amount of paperwork and regulations that our local charities have to manage. When the plan was first presented a month ago, there were a couple of oddities that the new procedure had produced. It appears that those oddities were fixed. Approved 7:0. The oddities were still there. Between the three agencies, a couple of items were funded above the requested amount, even while other really important programs didn't get the funding they sought. We were assured that all of the money we were directing would be used for the residents of Provo. If we had reduced the contribution amount to those programs, it would mean that fewer people from Provo could be helped.
  5. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020, in the amount of $254,958,760, and amending elements of Provo City Code. (19-004)
    This is the first of two public hearings as part of the budget process as required by Section 10-6-111(3) of the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities. More information about the budget process can be found on our website. There will be one more public hearing on the budget at the June 18th council meeting, when we will consider adopting the budget. I highly recommending anyone interested in our budget to read the "Citizen's Budget" summary prepared by the Council Office. Public hearing only; no final action taken. We intend to adopt the budget at our next meeting.

  6. Redevelopment Agency of Provo

  7. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of 2,429,132. (19-005)
    This is the first of two public hearings required to establish the budget. The next public hearing is scheduled to take place at the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. Same as the city budget, but for our Redevelopment Agency. Public hearing only; no final action taken. We intend to adopt the budget at our next meeting.
  8. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
    This was item 1 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 1 on the work meeting agenda. This item was continued during the Work Meeting on June 4, 2019.
  9. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $5,123,278 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-006)
    This is the first of two public hearings required to establish the budget. The next public hearing is scheduled to take place at the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. Same as the city budget, but for our Stormwater Service District. Public hearing only; no final action taken. We intend to adopt the budget at our next meeting.

  10. Action Agenda


    Stormwater Service District

  11. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the sale of the Timp-Kiwanis Park to the Provo School District. (18-018)
    Provo School District needs to expand the Timpview High School campus and has submitted a contract for the purchase of the Timp Kiwanis Bounous Park (TKP) property adjacent to the high school. TKP is on the surplus property list. If approved, the sale is contingent upon approval of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) conversion proposal of TKP from the National Park Service (NPS). If approved for sale and upon approval from the NPS, the proceeds are required, per LWCF requirements, to be used for the purchase of 60 acres of property in Southwest Provo. We have received the LWCF conversion approval. There have been so many steps in this process that required council action. I believe that we are finally getting to the end of the process. Now is the time to execute all that we've been talking about for so long. I am looking for an outcome that helps the school district and keeps a comparable level of park amenities for the residents in this area of our city. A motion to substitute the implied motion with a version of the resolution including a contingency provision was approved, after which the item was approved 5:2, with David Sewell and George Handley opposed. This was the blockbuster item of the day. We have discussed this in public meetings for years. There is a new park that will be developed just three blocks north of this plot. This deal resolves several difficulties for both the school district and the city. The only hang up was that the school district had said many things about how the property would be used and would be available to the public in the future, but hadn't put those words in writing and it wasn't clear if they were taking those words back.

    The contingency provision was that the district had to put their intent regarding no major structures and public access in writing. They did this and the deal has now been executed.
  12. A resolution appropriating $2,200,000 in the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan Fund for the purchase of property located on Lakeview Parkway, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-069)
    The Parks and Recreation Department is intending to purchase a parcel of land located on the west side of Provo just off the Lakeview Parkway and they are intending to use this parcel for open space, regional fields, and in ways they believe will benefit the economic development of the west side of Provo. This discussion was started when the City discovered they were non-compliant with a parcel of property that was purchase with Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). The property had fallen out of compliance due to the requirements of Timpview High relative to the parcel. The LWCF rules indicate that parcels purchase with this money cannot limit access to the community. Since Timpview High was regularly limiting the use by using a portion of the property for sports practices and limiting participation from the community on a regular basis, the decision was made to sell the Timp-Kiwanis Park property to the Provo School District. The LWCF further has restrictions on where that money can be spent. In order to comply with LWCF regulations the decision was made to take that money and put it into this parcel to use for the purposes stated. The appropriation will be funded by the transfer from the General Fund and then repaid from the revenues from the sale of Timp-Kiwanis Park. This project will benefit the whole of Provo, especially our youth and the sports programs geared toward them who do not have enough fields to play on. Approved 7:0. Provo will be able to provide enough fields for our children and adults to play sports on, and will be able to host regional tournaments.
  13. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to clarify limitations on signage within the North UniversityRiverbottoms Design Corridor. City wide Application. (PLOTA20190026)
    This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 7 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. I'm glad that ambiguity is addressed.
  14. An ordinance repealing Provo City Code Section 2.60.040 (19-071)
    This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 3 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. It's important to always be maintaining our code. Clean, understandable code is part of transparency.
  15. ***CONTINUED*** Brady Deucher requests a Zone Change from R1.10 to Medium Density Residential for approximately 2.1 acres located at 1320 S State Street. Spring Creek neighborhood. PLRZ20190100
    This item was not ready to be heard.
  16. ***CONTINUED*** Brady Deucher requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 14.37.050 to allow the city to consider parking reductions for affordable housing developments. City-wide application. PLOTA20190170
    This item was not ready to be heard.
  17. ***CONTINUED*** Community Development Department requests Ordinance Text Amendments to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A-Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. City-wide application. PLOTA20190120
    This item was not ready to be heard.
  18. ***CONTINUED*** Julie Smith requests the annexation (Peay Annexation) of 13.45 acres of property into the incorporated limits of Provo City, located at approximately 5400 N Canyon Road. North Timpview and Riverbottoms neighborhoods. PLANEX20180355
    This item was not ready to be heard.

  19. Adjournment

Monday, May 20, 2019

Council Meetings - 21 May 2019

It's shaping up to be another brutally long day of council meetings tomorrow. The hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars budget has to be the most significant item of the day, but not likely the most controversial.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

    Business

  1. A presentation regarding the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Annual Report. (19-064)
    Each year the City must update a self-assessment regarding the sewer collection and treatment system for submission to the State as part of our sewer discharge permit. Our wastewater collection and processing systems are functioning well, but are no longer meeting the tightening state regulations on nutrient discharge. Our system has served us well for generations, but we have not saved up to pay for the replacement of the infrastructure which is now reaching the end of its useful life. We recognize these problems and are raising sewer rates to pay for needed rehabilitation. This will be costly and painful. This is reflected in this report.

    There are a few programs mentioned on the report form that I would like to ask the department about, specifically,
    • A repair and replacement sinking fund
    • A Plan of Operations
    • An Assets Management system
    • A total replacement cost for the system.
    Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. A sinking fund would be really nice right now. Our failure to set aside replacement money over the past several decades while enjoying the benefits of our old treatment plant that was paid for by previous generations is the reason we are in this painful mess in the first place. We now have to pay to replace the current treatment plant. I hope future leaders will have the discipline to establish a sinking fund once we've paid off the new treatment plant. We are updating the wastewater master plan in conjunction with building a new treatment plant. The master plan will address the other aspects listed in my preview.
  2. A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Department and potential budget impacts. (19-004)
    Revenue and reinvestment from the Recreation Center are key pieces of the Provo City Budget. Scott Henderson, the Director of Parks and Recreation, will present to the Council about how the Recreation Center affects the budget. FISCAL IMPACT: $413,646 will be provided for the maintenance of the Recreation Center and equipment, with unused funds moved forward for future use. The Recreation, Arts, and Parks (RAP) tax is expected to generate approximately $1.325 million in FY2020 for recreation and arts projects. Now that the proposed budget has been finalized, a few of the larger departments have been invited in to discuss their portion of the budget. Presentation only. Rec Center/Triple Plan revenues exceed the cost of operations and maintenance at the Rec Center/Ice Sheet/Golf Course. This is unheard of around the country. The excess revenue is put into the general fund which lowers our need for property taxes to fund other services. The amount, though, is far less than the increased property taxes that we are paying toward the bond that was used to build the new Rec Center. So in a way, the money going into the general fund is a small offset to the bond payments.
  3. A presentation on the Human Resources Department and potential budget impacts. (19-004)
    The Budget Highlights for FY 2020 listed several changes that affect personnel budgets, including merit increases (2.5%), market adjustments, retirement increases, insurance increases (4.5%), and parental leave. The presentation will explain the changes and the anticipated affect on the budget. Now that the proposed budget has been finalized, a few of the larger departments have been invited in to discuss their portion of the budget. Presentation only. We need to attract and retain quality employees who can provide the services our residents value in an efficient manner that respects the taxpayers sacrifice.
  4. A presentation regarding an appropriation of $119,238 in the Airport Fund and $775,000 in the Water Resources Fund, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-061)
    This resolution corrects an omission in the Airport revenue bond interest budget funded from fund balance in the amount of $98,238. It also increases the budget for $21,000 in airport security fencing also from fund balance in the Airport fund. The resolution also increases funding in the water fund by $500,000 for water reuse studies, $75,000 for airport contract services, and $200,000 for well development which is funded from higher than anticipated utility rate revenue. This is an opportunity to discuss an actual appropriation request that we are being asked to vote on in the evening. Mistakes happen, this will correct n mistake on a bond-interest allocation. It'll be interesting to review the other requests. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. These are all necessary projects that will help us maintain the level of services we enjoy in Provo.
  5. A presentation regarding code enforcement. (19-065)
    For FY 2016, the Council approved funding for two additional Code Compliance Officer positions. For FY 2017, the Council adopted the Zoning Disclosure requirement. This presentation will compare data gathered to show the effect the changes have had on code enforcement. Over the years, I have heard frustration from many residents about the prevalence of people ignoring zoning laws. I have felt some of that frustration myself. Last year the council budgeted for two new zoning enforcement officers. This is an opportunity for the zoning enforcement office to report back to the council regarding the impact that those additional resources have made, and to discuss what the next steps should be.

    There are various tools that we are considering to help address the housing affordability crisis that we are facing in the city, region, and state. We need to have confidence that we will have good zoning compliance to move forward with some of these tools.
    Presentation only. The new acknowledgment and disclosure requirement has allowed more renters and landlords to become familiar with the regulations and expectations. Complaints are down, but there is some question about how directly this translates into higher compliance. Turn-over is a major issue in this unit. We discussed various ideas about how to make the position more attractive as a career and not just a brief stepping stone. We are expending significant resources to train code compliance officers who, on average, aren't staying much longer than the time it takes to be trained.
  6. A presentation regarding the implementation of the General Plan. (19-066)
    Council staff have worked with almost every City department to report on the implementation of the 420 goals listed in the General Plan. Goal statuses were reported as follows:
    • Complete: 28
    • Ongoing (no end date): 345
    • In Progress (toward an end date): 13
    • Not Started: 34
    I'm very interested to see this presentation. The former mayor, John Curtis, use to talk about having goals and even plans in place, even if the funding or opportunities aren't immediately available, so that when the occasions arise, we are ready to grasp the opportunity. I'm okay with the fact that we have so many goals, as long as we are actively pursuing some of them and we are making progress overall. Presentation only. General Plan Goal 6.4.8 is Preserve historic or unique historic homes and buildings. This goal won't ever be completed. It will always be an ongoing process. Many of the goals in the General Plan are similar. Because of this, it is not surprising that 345 out of the 420 goals in the General Plan have been assigned the status of "Ongoing" in this report. 34 have been determined to be "Not Started." 28 are listed as "Completed". 13 are identified as "In Progress" which is similar to "Ongoing", but there is an expected end date.

  7. Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

  8. A discussion regarding the adoption of a Supplementary Residential (S) Overlay Zone in a One-Family Residential (R1.8) Zone located at approximately 244 E 2100 N. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190094)
    The applicant is requesting the adoption of the Supplementary Residential Overlay to the existing R1.8 zone. The S Overlay would allow accessory apartments if the home is owner occupied. The applicant has received support from the majority of the residents in the proposed rezone area. The majority of homes in the Pleasant View neighborhood already have an “S” or “A” Overlay applied to them. Planning Commission recommended approval. The majority of the residents in the proposed area are in favor, and the recommendation from the Planning Commission was unanimous, but there is some opposition to this request, including over parking pressure as well as concern over zoning compliance. This is an example of what I was talking about for item #5 in this meeting. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. A motion (a) to continue that hearing of this item, with Council Chair David Harding announcing before the Council Meeting public comment period that the item has been continued; (b) to take public comment as part of the presentation for item 13 on the Council Meeting agenda; and (c) to indicate that when the item comes back to a future Council Meeting there will be a full opportunity to participate in the public hearing process, was approved 7:0. With the current parking and traffic problems on 2230 N in front of the schools, and the changes being proposed to the A and S overlays, we felt that it would be better to consider expanding this overlay after we have addressed those issues.
  9. A discussion regarding a General Plan amendment to add the Utah Transit Authority Station Area Plan to the Downtown Master Plan as an appendix. City-wide impact. (PLGPA20190059)
    Three years ago the Downtown Master Plan was adopted. Since then, community stakeholders including area residents, property owners, and developers have collaborated with the Utah Transit Authority, Provo City staff and Mountainland Association of Governments to create a vision and direction for the Provo Station. The Provo Station area is projected to have 900,000 sf of new development (325,000 sq. residential, 475,000 sf. office and 100,000 sf. small-scale retail in a mixed use context). The proposed Station Area Plan – Provo Station will be an appendix to the Downtown Master Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm glad to see this back. I suggested that Community Development consider this when UTA presented the results of their study back in February. I support adding this plan as an appendix. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. This is a good plan and I'm glad that it will be easily referenced as an appendix to the Downtown Master Plan.
  10. A discussion regarding a zone change from Regional Shopping (SC3) to Health Care Facilities Zone (HCF) for 22.12 acres, and to Campus Mixed Use (CMU) for 8.94 acres, located at 178 E 1860 S. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180321)
    Provo City has conveyed 22.12 acres of the Reserve at East Bay Golf Course to GT Medical Holdings for the construction of the Noorda College of Osteopathic Medicine. As part of this transaction the developers of the medical school are paying for the redesign and relocation of the affected golf course holes. A 7.82 acre parcel to the north of the medical school parcel and directly west of the US Bureau of Reclamation Office has been purchased for the development of 793 units of apartment housing. The applicant has begun preliminary discussion with Provo City to purchase a portion of the storm water retention facility to the west of the 7.82 acre parcel to include in the apartment development. Previously the General Plan Designation for the area was changed from Commercial to Mixed Use and Public Facilities. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was a split recommendation from the Planning Commission. There are questions about the livability of the housing that is planned in conjunction with the medical school. Housing has always been envisioned in this project, but I share some of the concerns about the remoteness of this location from other residential areas. I do think, though, that the housing will work well for the students of the medical school as well as employees of some of the surrounding businesses. I am encouraged by the fact that the owners of the housing project will have a vested interest in keeping it nice and inviting since it is adjacent to their medical school. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. I'm disappointed that the project won't have the same look as what was presented to the Council in earlier meetings. Overall, though, the medical school will be a great addition to our city.
  11. A discussion on a zone change request from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Light Manufacturing (M1) for approximately 7.7 acres of land located at approximately 1060 E 1320 S. Spring Creek Neighborhood.(PLRZ20190117)
    The applicant is requesting a zone change from R1.10 to the M1 at approximately 1060 E 1320 S. In 2017 the Southeast Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the City. The future land use map in the plan calls for this area to be Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). In the interim time the property was rezoned from the M1 zone to the R1.10 zone. In 2019 there was a subdivision of the Pro Steel property and this parcel was created. They are now requesting to rezone it back to M1 for this new parcel, but not the Pro Steel parcel. Planning Commission recommended denial. I can't say that I understand this request. We recently adopted the South East Area Master Plan and are committed to moving forward with this plan. This proposal run counter to the plan and I don't see any reason why we should deviate. I agree with the conclusion in the staff report, "Staff finds that this proposal to rezone to the M1 zone would not be consistent with the Southeast Neighborhood Plan that shows this area to become LDR and MDR. Rezoning to M1 would be a deviation from the direction that the City has been headed for this area of the City. No compelling reason has been provided to deviate from the future land uses anticipated by the Neighborhood Plan. It is recommended that the land uses in Southeast Neighborhood Plan be followed." Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. See my report of item 16 on the council meeting agenda.

  12. Closed Meeting

    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time.

    Adjournment



PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 21, 2019


    Opening Ceremony

    Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

    Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

  1. A Provology Graduation. (19-067)
    Congrats to the latest group to complete this course. Presentation only. This is a great program for those looking to be more involved, or for those wanting to better understand the services the city provides and how the city works.
  2. A presentation by America's Freedom Festival. (19-068)
    The Freedom Festival has added so much to our community over the years. Presentation only. I'm so grateful for the many people who put on this fantastic celebration each year for our community.

    Public Comment

    • This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
    • For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
    • For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.


    Action Agenda

  3. A resolution consenting to the appointment of George Stewart to the Library Board. (19-003)
    Mayor Kaufusi has submitted a recommendation for George Stewart to serve on the Library Board. The Library Board has one spot reserved for a city councilor. I am grateful to Councilor Stewart for being willing to fill it. Approved by unanimous consent. This item provided some of the more light-hearted moments of the evening. Councilor Handley wondered aloud whether Councilor Stewart had sufficient experience to serve on the Library Board.
  4. An ordinance enacting a free expression ordinance in accordance with the Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 61. (19-058)
    This item is an ordinance which provides guidelines for Provo City to regulate expressive activities on (1) public property which is a traditional public forum and also on (2) public property which is not a public forum. It also authorizes the Mayor to establish policies and practices consistent with this Section for City property and may delegate such authority to Department Directors with regards to the City property they manage. This is what I wrote two weeks ago when we previewed this in the work meeting, "The state legislature passed a law this spring that requires us to address this topic. The state legislature took up this issue because of complaints coming out of Provo and Orem during the referendum effort about BRT." and "This is a good plan to meet the new state law, and have clear guidelines for individuals to follow as they seek to exercise their right to expression." Approved 7:0. This authorizes the Mayor to create written policies regarding expressive activities on city-owned property that isn't a public forum.
  5. A resolution approving the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Report for 2018 in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Report. (19-064)
    This was item 1 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 1 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. See my report on item 1 on the work meeting agenda.
  6. A resolution appropriating $119,238 in the Airport Fund and $775,000 in the Water Resources Fund, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-061)
    This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 4 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. See my report on item 4 on the work meeting agenda.
  7. An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule relative to an Impact Fee charge. (18-099)
    At the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting, the Municipal Council adopted the new Impact Fees with the intention of having the fees take effect on July 1, 2019. During the interim between that meeting and the date they go active, there have been reviews of the Impact Fee Analysis and there have been questions posed from developers that they felt were inconsistent. Our Provo City Finance Department has worked with our consultant, Zions Public Finance, to address those questions. The determination was made regarding the Police Facilities Plan that a few changes need to be made to that Impact Fee to make sure it aligns with the expected Facilities Plans. The consultant could address a few other concerns that were brought up but not intended to change. I'm grateful to the Finance Division for carefully considering the feedback and concerns by the Homebuilders Association and other stakeholders. After careful review, one of the disputed impact fees is being proposed to change. Approved 7:0. This is a good example of various stakeholders working together to improve city policy.
  8. A resolution tentatively adopting the proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-004)
    This is a step in the budget process as required by Section10-6- 111(3) of the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities. Upon completion of this step, the Council will then have public hearings on June 4, 2019 and June 18, 2019 where they will formally adopt the budget, unless the Council opts for a Truth in Taxation meeting. In that case, the timeline would be extended by a few weeks. The expected amount for the Provo City Budget adoption is $254, 958,760, with the General Fund expected to be $59,678,744. I'm still excited by the substantial improvements that we were able to make towards properly staffing our police department. A few corrections to spreadsheet formulas have been made since the tentative budget was presented two weeks ago, but there haven't been any substantive changes. Approved 7:0. We have tentatively adopted the proposed budget. This means that this is officially the budget that we will be considering over the next month (until June 18th).

  9. Redevelopment Agency of Provo

  10. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-005)
    Each year, the Redevelopment Agency submits a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The expected Redevelopment Agency budget is $2,429,132. We haven't yet received the final details on this budget. Approved 7:0. We were given the auxiliary budgets beforehand and had good presentations on the budgets. There are no major changes from previous years.

  11. Stormwater Service District

  12. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-006)
    Each year, the Stormwater Special Service District submits a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. This year, the expected FY2020 budget for the Stormwater Service District is $5,123,278. We haven't yet received the final details on this budget. Approved 7:0. See my report on the previous item.
  13. A resolution appropriating $100,000 in the Stormwater Service District for principal payments on Storm Drain Revenue Bonds, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-062)
    This resolution corrects an error in the budget that left insufficient funding for the principal on debt line item. The funding source is fund balance in the Storm Drain fund. This is another omission to be corrected. Approved 7:0. Fixed.

  14. Action Agenda

  15. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 442 and 490 South State Street from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR). Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
    The applicant is requesting a zone change from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) at this location to allow for a four-story, 32-unit apartment, a three-story, 24-unit apartment and a two-story, 4-unit townhomes on the corner of 500 South and State Street. These proposed sixty units would be on commercial property that is to be rezoned to High Density Residential (HDR). The HDR zone would allow for more units and additional building height than is being requested, therefore, a development agreement would be advisable to ensure that only what has been proposed would be developed. The City Council continued the zone change request and instructed the applicant to go back and work with the neighborhood and address their concerns. The applicant has now done that and made changes to their original proposal of 64 units in 2 four-story buildings. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. We continued this last time to give the community more time to review the proposal and bring us feedback. Here is my preview from last time, "I think that this project has evolved quite a bit in the years-long process that it has taken to get here. I think it is a good project. My main question now is if the "two-story, 4 unit townhomes" that front 500 South are actually two stories. I believe they are one-story, but on top of parking. The neighbors have pushed for housing that will encourage some longer-term residents. I think that true two-story townhomes, on top of parking, would be far more attractive to potential longer-term residents." A motion to update the implied motion to reference the version of the ordinance with a development agreement was approved, after which the implied motion was approved 6:1, with George Stewart opposed. The townhouses facing 500 S will just be a single level of living space, but I still think this is a good project and appropriate for the location along State Street.
  16. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification to adopt a Supplemental Residential (S) overlay zone in a One-Family Res. (R1.8) zone generally located between 2320 N, approx 2100 N, 350 E and approx 250 E. Pleasant View Neighborhood.(PLRZ20190094)
    This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 7 on the work meeting agenda. The item was continued to a future Council meeting during the Work Meeting on May 21, 2019. See my report on item 7 on the work meeting agenda.
  17. An ordinance amending the General Plan to add the Utah Transit Authority Station Area Plan to the Downtown Master Plan as an appendix. City-wide impact. (PLGPA20190059)
    This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 8 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 6:1, with David Knecht opposed. See my report on item 8 on the work meeting agenda.
  18. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 31.06 acres of real property, generally located at 178 E 1860 S, from Regional Shopping (SC3) to Health Care Facilities (HCF) and Campus (CMU). East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180321)
    This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 9 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 6:1, with Kay Van Buren opposed. See my report on item 9 on the work meeting agenda.
  19. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 7.71 acres of real property, generally located at 1060 East 1320 South from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Light Manufacturing (M1). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190117)
    This was item 10 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 10 on the work meeting agenda. The ordinance amendment failed 0:7, with Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton, David Sewell, David Harding, David Knecht, George Stewart, and George Handley opposed. No strong argument was made as to why we should reverse the recently made plan for this area of the city.
  20. An ordinance amending the Provo City Code regarding Election Code to better align with Utah State Code and streamline and clarify portions of the code. (19-002)
    The Election Code Committee has reviewed Provo City's current election code with Provo City election officials and is proposing updates and changes to bring it into better alignment with state code, and better address and balance interest of campaign finance transparency, donor privacy, code clarity, and ballot access. Some of the changes include: *Streamlined (and aligned by referencing state code; *Report district (if in Provo), city, and state of donor, but not street address; *Remove aggregate report option; *Clarifies reporting requirements for donations/expenses before and after the election season; Here is what I wrote in my preview of this item two weeks ago, "I've been working on this committee and we have tried to work through several issues but have been on a very tight timeline. I feel these changes will increase transparency for the public and will make it easier for the campaigns to comply." Approved 7:0. There are a few other changes that I would have liked to see, but I think there are many good improvements and look forward to getting feedback from the campaigns this year as to their experience with the new regulations.

  21. Adjournment