Council Meetings - 5 December, 2017

Last Council meetings of the year! The big news is the change in the Medical School proposal (see the last item of the day). There won't be any suspense, but it's not every day that we apppoint an interim mayor. Parking is always a hot topic, we'll be considering the adoption of a strategic plan.

The "Background" information is "staff interpretation" of the items. The "Preview" information are my personal thoughts on the items. The official published agendas and supporting materials can be found online.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, December 5, 2017

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

Approval of Minutes

• June 6, 2016 Budget Retreat
• October 18, 2016 Work Meeting
• September 19, 2017 Council-Planning Commission Joint Meeting
• November 14, 2017 Work Meeting
Approved by unanimous consent.

Business

1. A presentation on Wastewater planning (17-131)
   The Public Works Department will be presenting on financing options for either upgrading the current wastewater treatment plant or building a new wastewater treatment plant. This is the $200,000,000 question. Presentation only. The models show that we can save many tens of millions of dollars over the next 30 years if we build the new treatment plant in phases and pay as we go, instead of bonding. But the timing will be tricky, and our rates will need to continue to rise sharply to pay for the construction without bonding.
2. A discussion on Police fees (17-142)
   Acting on a request from the Budget Committee, Council has asked for a regular review of city fees to compare them to actual costs. This item will focus specifically on a review of Police Department fees. There are no documents for this item in our packet. Public safety, and specifically our police force is our largest expenditure from general monies. Only a very small amount of police services are paid for by fees. And there are good reasons for that. Presentation only. Police fees are mostly inline with the cost to provide the service (though we don't charge fees at all for core police services). One fee was identified as a candidate to increase, and the police may request a false alarm fee similar to the one the Fire Department is requesting (see the next item).
3. A discussion on proposed new Fire Department fees for false alarms (17-133)
   The Fire Department will be presenting their recommendations for an ordinance regarding false alarms. This item came from past fee review efforts. Some business owners have faulty fire alarm systems that frequently call out the Fire Department. Because there is no charge for the Fire Department responding to alarms, these business owners have no motivation (besides common decency) to fix their system and end these false alarms. The proposal is to start charging fees after THREE false alarms in a year. A new addition is that the Department is requesting that commercial fire alarms be registered with the City, including a 24-hour contact person. Presentation only. This proposal makes sense. One new wrinkle is that it will be based on a rolling 12-month time frame, rather than a calendar year.
4. A discussion on adopting the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan as a guide for decision making and policy formation (17-126)
   This is a follow-up to a series of discussions Council has had with Provo City’s Parking Administrator. Council will be discussing whether they would like to officially adopt the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan, developed byKimley-Horn Associates, at the Council meeting as a guide for decision making and policy formation. As I've written here before, I want to follow the recommendations of the Parking Strategic Management Plan which was written a few years ago by a consultant. The plan calls for a mission and vision statement, as well as guiding principles to be adopted. It doesn't call for the plan itself to be adopted. I think it is prudent to stick to that level of detail in our adopted policies. A motion for the Council to proceed at the December 5, 2017 Council Meeting with the option of considering adopting chapters 1 and 2 of the proposed Strategic Parking Management Plan was Approved 7:0. See the report for item 8 in the later meeting
5. A discussion on proposed Neighborhood Program changes (17-138)
   The Neighborhood Program Review Committee has worked with the Neighborhood Advisory Board to update the ordinance language in Provo City Code regarding the Neighborhood Program. The Neighborhood Program Review Committee reviewed input received from Council members and Neighborhood Chairs and Vice Chairs after the first presentation at the November 21 work meeting.. Proposed changes include transforming the Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB) into the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC), a Council committee; defining the membership and duties of the NAC; outlining the matching grant application process; and reverting the Downtown Neighborhood back to the standard neighborhood structure of electing a Chair from its residents. I'm still uncomfortable treating the Downtown Neighborhood like every other neighborhood in the City. I met with Downtown leaders and attended the last Neighborhood Program Review Committee meeting. It sounds like we will get more input from Downtown stakeholders before making changes, but I curious how that will show up in the proposed language. A motion for the Council to proceed at the December 5, 2017 Council Meeting with consideration of a version of the ordinance which continues to use “Neighborhood Advisory Board” and omits the sections with changes to the Downtown Neighborhood and neighborhood meetings for the land use development process. See the report for item 9 in the later meeting.
6. A discussion on proposed Council Handbook amendments (17-037)
   The Council Handbook contains information like background information, rules and procedures, intended to assist Council members in their duties. Council intends to review and revise the contents of the Handbook as needed, or at least every two years. As a member of the Rules Committee, I had the opportunity to work on this update. Some Council initiatives seem to go on forever, so it was great to be apart of something that is so near completion. It was a large undertaking, mostly by our Counsel and Staff. I'm impressed that we were able to get it out of committee before the end of the year. Now the question becomes, will it pass before the end of the year. A motion to approve the Council Handbook update was Approved 6:1, with Council member Kim Santiago opposed. A few months back, Mr. Sewell set a fairly lofty goal to complete a rewrite of the Council Handbook by the end of the year. With this vote we accomplished the goal. I've enjoyed being a part of the committee assigned to this task, but all of the heavy lifting was done by our wonderful staff.
7. A discussion regarding the Provo City Audit Report and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. (17-134)
   Council is presented with the audit report and comprehensive financial report each year. These reports will be explained during the work meeting before considering a resolution at the Council meeting to accept the reports. The CAFR itself hasn't been provided. It does take some time to get through Presentation only. The take away is that the audit is complete and we passed.
8. A discussion on the Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone, the Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone, and related zoning topics(17-137)
   At the request of various Council members, Gary McGinn from Community Development will go over the differences between the Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone (A Overlay), the Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone (S Overlay), and the provision allowing citizens who are 65 years and older to have accessory apartments. The goal is to provide Council members with a clear understanding of the differences between specific overlay zones in the City Code. I've been at this for years and every time I think I understand the occupancy regulations in Provo, I learn of a new wrinkle. I hope the presentation also includes information on occupancy regulations for areas not under the overlays to give context for what the overlays do. Presentation only. I'm almost to the point of just giving up on trying understand Provo occupancy rules. It's hard to expect residents to choose to follow the law if it takes a law degree to understand what it is. I hope to be able to address this next year.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

9. A discussion on a request to amend Provo City Code Subsection 15.03.020(3) to update 2017 standards to 2018 standards. City-Wide Impact. (17-0022OA)
   The Public Works Department operates based on a series of standards set at federal, state, and local levels. The City Code needs to be updated to reflect 2018 standards, and this item will allow that update to happen. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the update, though I noticed some differences between the version they voted on and the one we are considering. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the December 5, 2017 Council Meeting. I requested that next year the presentation include an outline of changes being made.



Closed Meeting

10. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. No closed meeting was held.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Opening Ceremony

• Roll Call
• Prayer
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Neighborhood Spotlight: Provo Bay Neighborhood
• Approval of Minutes
  • October 17, 2017 Council Meeting
  • November 14, 2017 Council Meeting
  Approved by unanimous consent.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Provology graduates
   Provology is a course offered to Provo residents to gain a better understanding of how Provo City functions. Presentation only. Congrats to the current batch of graduates! I look forward to working with them in the future.
2. A recognition of Provo City Employees
Presentation only. A group of officers were recognized, as was Janene Weiss, our retiring City Recorder. Provo is a great place to live, work, learn, and play due in large part to the remarkable employees who serve the 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 public meeting to appoint an individual to the office of Provo City Mayor to fill the remaining portion of the unexpired term vacated by Mayor John Curtis until January 1, 2018. (17-132)
   Each qualified applicant will be allowed a time-limited opening statement to the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council will ask questions of each applicant and then a vote will be held (if needed) to narrow the candidates to two individuals. A vote will be held to select the final candidate and the Council will vote on a resolution appointing an individual to the office of Provo City Mayor to fill the remaining portion of the unexpired term vacated by Mayor John Curtis until January 1, 2018. The Council previously passed an intent statement indicating that we would likely appoint whoever became the mayor-elect. The application period has now closed and our Mayor-Elect was the only one who applied. There won't be much suspense on this one. Approved 7:0
4. Administration of the oath of office to the mayoral appointee
   The Provo City Recorder will swear in the person appointed as the interim mayor. Presentation only. Congratulations to Interim Mayor (and Mayor-Elect) Kaufusi.
5. A resolution accepting a Provo City Audit Report and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. (17-134)
   Council is presented with the audit report and comprehensive financial report each year. These reports will be explained during the work meeting before considering a resolution at the Council meeting to accept the reports. See item 7 in the meeting above. Approved 6:0, with Council member Kim Santiago excused. See the report for item 7 in the earlier meeting.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

6. A resolution approving the appropriation and budgeting of $3.8 million to purchase the property located at 57 West 500 South in Provo and to loan an additional $2.2 million to Intermountain Farmer's Association to purchase the property at 898 South University Avenue in Provo. (17-141)
   Intermountain Farmer’s Association (IFA) has had a presence in Provo for many years. They are currently located at 57 West 500 South. Over the last several years the store has not lived up to its potential and has struggled with parking issues as other businesses and meeting venues in the area have expanded. The OfficeMax building, located at 898 South University Avenue, has been vacant for a year and half since the company closed their store in Provo as a result of changing market conditions. Previously the owners of the building were looking to lease that space but have recently included a sale as an option for the property.
   
   IFA owns their location and has had several discussions with the OfficeMax building’s owners and representatives about purchasing the property and relocating the IFA Provo store into the OfficeMax building. This potential move would expand their store from 10,000 square feet to 23,000 square feet as well as give them ample parking . The move would also give IFA better visibility on a more traveled street, as well as a more easily recognized and accessible location. IFA feels if they could purchase this space it would allow them to expand their offering and increase their sales.
   
   Due to prior commitments and restrictive covenants from their financial institutions, IFA is unable to provide their own financing to acquire the OfficeMax building for approximately 5 years. IFA approached Provo City about short-term assistance in helping them maintain their store in Provo and expanding their operations.
   
   Staff is proposing the following to assist IFA maintain and expand. The Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation (Agency) would purchase the existing IFA store for at $1,600,000. In addition, the Agency would provide a loan of $2,200,000 to IFA for 5 years to make up the difference in the purchase price of $3,500,000 for the OfficeMax building. This loan would include $300,000 for some costs to relocate the IFA store and do some work on the OfficeMax location. The loan would be secured by a Note and a Deed of Trust on the OfficeMax property with a stipulation that the Agency note would be the only lien on the property as long as the note is in place. The loan would be amortized over 25 years and due and payable in 5, giving IFA time to arrange financing with their existing lenders and keeping a long time business running in Provo.
   
   This option would allow the Agency to own approximately a quarter of a block in an area that has seen a great deal of activity recently and success with the Startup Building and other business newly opened in the area. Additionally, there is an opportunity to participate the redevelopment of the entire block and the Agency could leverage their ownership of the existing IFA building into a larger development. The $2,200,000 loan would be repaid over the 5 year period at an interest rate of 4% resulting in monthly payments of $11,612.41 and a balloon payment of $1,916,301 as shown on the attached spreadsheet. The Agency would not charge a prepayment penalty if IFA is able to arrange financing to pay off the loan sooner. There is a timing issue as IFA needs to close their transaction with the OfficeMax ownership group before December 20, 2017. Whoa, that was a lot of background. The money would be taken from a fund that was established for purposes like this. Making this loan ties up a significant amount of money for 5 years which reduces our ability to participate in other proposals. I do think this proposal is worth doing, and I'm particularly excited that our RDA will be able to take an active role in redeveloping this block. Approved 6:0, with Council member Kim Santiago excused. This is a good move, for the reasons I explained in the Preview.



Action Agenda

7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to update public works standards to meet 2018 criteria. City-wide Impact. (17-0022OA)
   The Public Works Department operates based on a series of standards set at federal, state, and local levels. The City Code needs to be updated to reflect 2018 standards, and this ordinance will allow that update to happen. See item 9 in the above meeting. Approved 6:0, with Council member Kim Santiago excused. See the report for item 9 in the earlier meeting
8. A resolution adopting the Provo City Strategic Parking Management Plan for decision making and policy formation in regards to parking management within Provo City. (17-126)
   Council has been discussing updates to the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan, developed by Kimley-Horn Associates, and adopting it as a guide for decision making and policy formation. See item 4 in the above meeting. Approved 6:0, with Council member Kim Santiago excused. We decided in the Work Meeting to consider approving only the first two chapters containing the Vision and Mission Statements and the guiding principles. This is what was passed. The consultant's report is still available for reference. I'm open to approving the Action Steps when they are ready.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code related to the Provo City Neighborhood program and clarifying sections related to City Boards. (17-138)
   The Neighborhood Program Review Committee has worked with the Neighborhood Advisory Board to update the ordinance language in Provo City Code regarding the Neighborhood Program. The Neighborhood Program Review Committee reviewed input received from Council members and Neighborhood Chairs and Vice Chairs after the first presentation at the November 21 work meeting.. Proposed changes include transforming the Neighborhood AdvisoryBoard (NAB) into the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC), a Council committee; defining the membership and duties of the NAC; outlining the matching grant application process; and reverting the Downtown Neighborhood back to the standard neighborhood structure of electing a Chair from its residents. See item 5 in the above meeting. Approved 6:0, with Council member Kim Santiago excused. The default motion that we voted on was changed in the earlier meeting (see the results of item 5 in the earlier meeting). I'm grateful that the Council held off on making changes to Downtown and the meeting timeline for developments. We'll be able to work out the details and bring them back when we are really ready.
10. Public Comment on the Rocky Mountain University proposal to build a medical school on a portion of the East Bay Golf Course (17-136)
    Provo City has received a proposal that would involve building a medical school on a portion of the East Bay Golf Course. Presentations were made at the November 21 work meeting and Council has been gathering public input. The Council will receive public comment on this item at the Council meeting. Council members could potentially decide to schedule a public hearing at a future Council meeting to decide whether or not to place the property on the surplus list. News broke today that Wasatch Educational is no longer asking for an option on the "Southern Wedge" after 15 years. This means that decades from now, if they want to expand, they will have to go to the current City Council to make the request. Most of the opposition that I heard was okay with phase 1 (because the displaced holes can be relocated on the site, but were concerned with phase 2 because the City would be bound to sell, and there was no clear way to replace the holes at the current site. This really becomes a "eat your cake and have it too" proposal. We get a new medical school, and we get to keep our golf course, with the same number of holes and an upgrade to three of the holes. A motion to schedule the surplus hearing on January 9, 2018 and hold an open house on January 4, 2018 in advance of that meeting was Approved 6:1, with Council member Kay Van Buren opposed. There were some good questions raised that need to be answered. There will be a public open house on January 4th for the public to learn more and make their preferences known.



Adjournment

To send comments to the Council or weigh in on current issues, visit Open City Hall.

Council Meetings - 21 November, 2017

***Update:
Regardless of where you stand on the Golf Course/Medical School question, every resident of Provo should be grateful for the remarkable management by our Parks and Rec team which has turned a struggling course into a gem for our community, a destination that draws far more than your stereotypical golfer, and is on the verge of eliminating the public subsidy, something that is nearly unheard of for a public course. We should also be grateful to live in a community of such quality that it is a top candidate for a medical school, and that there are people willing to invest in our community and address the physician shortage in our state and nation. Many of the people involved have long been contributors to our community.

I'm very pleased with how the Sanitation proposal turned out. I think it is a prime example of good governance and what can happen when ideas are refined through the approval process.***

The Golf Course/Medical School item is likely to get the most attention. No decisions will be made and no public input will be taken until later.

The first look at potential recommendations for changes to the Neighborhood Program is of particular interest to me.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, November 21, 2017

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. Presentations on the proposal to build a medical school on a portion of the East Bay Golf Course (17-136)
   Provo City has received a proposal that would involve building a medical school on a portion of the East Bay Golf Course. This item will feature two presentations—one by representatives from Wasatch Educational regarding the medical school proposal and the other by representatives from the East Bay Golf Course. Staff will make concerted effort to share presentations from this discussion with the public between November 21st and the Council meeting on December 5th. The Council will receive public comment on this item at the December 5th Council Meeting. The goal is to provide details to the public and the Council regarding the medical school proposal and the current status of the East Bay Golf Course. This will be the first time that we hear all of the details of the proposal, and first public presentation on the current state of the Golf Course. The first opportunity for public comment in an official meeting will be on December 5^th. I recommend interested people on both sides to review the information that is presented and not wait until December 5th to contact your representatives. Presentation only. "Presentation only" is quite the summary. The interest in this item brought so many people to the Work Meeting that we had to relocate to the Council Chambers. Wasatch Educational, which runs Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, presented on the local and national need for physicians, the impact of the proposed medical school, and details on the timing and scope of the proposal. Representatives of the East Bay Golf Course then presented on the impact that the golf course currently has on our community and the impact that the proposed medical school would have on the course.
   We did not take any public input. At our December 5th meeting we will decide if we want to schedule a public hearing to decide if the property should be surplused. We will take public comment then (but I don't recommend waiting for a public meeting to voice your feedback). If we decide to go forward with the hearing, it would likely occur on January 9th. Below is a site plan for the proposed medical campus, including the timeline. And here is the best site to get the details and register your preference and ideas with the Council.
   
2. A discussion on the Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone, the Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone, and related zoning topics(17-137)
   At the request of various Council members, Gary McGinn from Community Development will go over the differences between the Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone (A Overlay), the Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone (S Overlay), and the provision allowing citizens who are 65 years and older to have accessory apartments. The goal is to provide Council members with a clear understanding of the differences between specific overlay zones in the City Code. I've been at this for years and everytime I think I understand the occupancy regulations in Provo, I learn of a new wrinkle. I hope the presentation also includes information of occupancy regulations for areas not under the overlays to give context for what the overlays do. This item was continued. Item 1 took more than twice its allotted time and bumped the next two items.
3. A discussion on adopting the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan as a guide for decision making and policy formation (17-126)
   This is a follow-up to a series of discussions Council has had with Provo City’s Parking Administrator. Council will be discussing whether they would like to officially adopt the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan, developed by Kimley-Horn Associates, at a future Council meeting as a guide for decision making and policy formation. As I've written here before, I want to follow the recommendations of the Parking Strategic Management Plan which was written a few years ago by a consultant. The plan calls for a mission and vision statement, as well as guiding principles to be adopted. It doesn't call for the plan itself to be adopted. I think it is prudent to stick to that level of detail in our adopted policies. This item was continued. Item 1 took more than twice its allotted time and bumped the next two items.
4. A discussion on proposed text amendments to Title 11 regarding sanitation services (17-123)
   This is a follow-up to the discussion at the October 3, 2017, work meeting to establish a minimum requirement for sanitation services at all residential dwellings throughout the City.
   The purpose of this proposed text amendment is to ensure residential participation in the curbside garbage collection (black can) to maintain revenue and provide clarification in the Sanitation code for minimum requirements for residential waste collection.to ensure that each residential unit is providing for adequate waste removal. This will be voted on at the November 21 Council meeting. I support the clarification that all inhabited dwellings must have some sort of garbage service. I support having a minimum weekly capacity per dwelling. I'm not convinced yet that 95 cubic feet is the right weekly capacity. I need to ask how this might apply to rest homes or other situations where less garbage is produced per unit. A motion to amend the ordinance to read “Regardless of collection method, the owner of any dwelling may be required by the Public Works Department to provide up to 95 gallons of refuse waste capacity per week for each dwelling in order to satisfy Provo City Code 11.01.050(13)” was Approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the November 21, 2017 Council Meeting. These are the moments that make serving on the Council worth it. We have a fairly sensible law that says landlords need to provide enough garbage capacity for their tenants. A vast majority of landlords would do this anyway, but despite the law, some landlords don't and it causes problems with trash being left on the ground as well as trash being dumped in neighboring dumpsters. Our Sanitation division works with these landlords, but some are not cooperative. Unfortunately, "enough capacity" is difficult to prove in court so, despite being a sensible law, it is difficult to enforce. The proposal was to require all landlords to provide at least 95 gallons per week of garbage capacity for each occupied unit. This is a hard number that is much easier to enforce. This amount should cover almost any circumstance, but is likely overkill for many situations. This may be an added burden on landlords who are in compliance with the current standard but aren't providing 95 gallons. During our deliberation, and in response to our concerns, Dave Decker, the Director of Public Works, proposed a modification. Instead of requiring all residential units have 95 gallons, it gives Public Works the ability to require 95 gallons for any unit. This way, only the problematic properties will be required to meet that standard, but Public Works will still have the tool to make enforcement easier.
   Throughout the discussion over the past couple of weeks, this item has reminded me of the Rental Contract proposal. We are adding a burden onto all landlords in order to ease enforcement on the non-compliant ones. I wonder if we can learn from the sanitation solution.
5. A presentation from Finance on operating budget carryovers (17-135)
   Finance Department will provide an update on how carryover money from the budget has been used or allocated. Not enough information is given on this item to form even the most preliminary of opinions. I'll let you know what it's about in my report afterward. Presentation Only. After many questions, I learned a bit about what carryovers are and how and why they are used. We reviewed the larger line items and discussed ways to make the report more helpful to providing oversight on the finances of the City.
6. A discussion on proposed new Fire Department fees (17-133)
   Acting on a request from the Budget Committee, Council has asked for a regular review of city fees to compare them to actual costs. The Fire Department will be presenting information on the costs involved with their fees listed on the Consolidated Fee Schedule and their recommendations for a new false alarm fee. This item was continued (postponed) in the last meeting. Here is my preview from last time. "We love our Fire Department and the great service they provide. When an alarm or call comes in, they head out to protect life and property, and they do it without charging the caller or property owner. We don't want people trying to deal with fires on their own in order to avoid a bill from the Fire Department. But unfortunately, there are some who have faulty alarm systems that frequently send false alarms to the Fire Department. Apparently, they don't mind wasting our firefighters time and resources. The false alarms don't cost them anything but fixing their system would. So the false alarms keep coming. The proposed new fee only kicks in on the FOURTH false alarm in a calendar year. The fee goes from $100 on the fourth false alarm to $300 for the sixth and subsequent false alarms. We don't want people to be scared of calling in a suspected fire, but hopefully, this fee will motivate people to fix their alarms." This item was continued. Another casualty of the lengthy Medical School/Golf Course discussion.
7. A discussion on proposed Neighborhood Program changes (17-138)
   The Neighborhood Program Review Committee has worked with the Neighborhood Advisory Board to update the ordinance language in Provo City Code regarding the Neighborhood Program. This presentation will give Council members a first look at the proposed changes to the ordinance and get their input. The Neighborhood Program Review Committee will review input received from Council members and Neighborhood Chairs and Vice Chairs to make any additional changes before bringing the final proposal to the December 5 Council meeting. Proposed changes include transforming the Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB) into the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC), a Council committee; defining the membership and duties of the NAC; outlining the matching grant application process; and reverting the Downtown Neighborhood back to the standard neighborhood structure of electing a Chair from its residents. I'm interested to hear the details of what is being proposed, but it sounds like they have identified several items that need to be addressed. My biggest concern is over the proposal to treat the Downtown Neighborhood more like a standard neighborhood. This has been discussed before and I hope to be able to be involved in exploring what is the best structure for this unique neighborhood. Presentation only. I support the changes to the Neighborhood Advisory Board. I am unsettled on the changes to the Downtown Neighborhood representation. I'll be attending the next committee meeting to discuss it further.
8. A discussion on the proposed 2018 Council meeting calendar, the timing of Council meetings, and the election of the Municipal Council Chair (17-139)
   Utah Code requires that the Council publish the scheduled meetings for the coming year. Council has traditionally met on the first and third Tuesdays of the month, but staff have recommended some adjustments to the schedule based on major holidays, election dates, and other factors. Because of the proposed change for the first Council meeting of the year, Provo City Code Section 2.50.020 would need to be amended to change the current requirement that the Council Chair be elected on the first Tuesday of each year. The calendar will be voted on at the November 21 Council meeting. Inauguration will be held on the 2^nd of January. I support the proposed changes to our code. The overall calendar for the year looks good. I wonder if there will be a primary next year that we need to avoid. Presentation only. These items were already scheduled for the November 21, 2017 Council Meeting. The changes to City Code gives us more flexibility for when the Council Leadership needs to be selected. If we hadn't changed it then we would have had to hold a meeting and select Leadership on New Year's Day in 2019. The calendar of meetings next year shows that most Council meetings will be on the first and third Tuesday, with a few deviations to accommodate holidays and community events (like election day).
   
   

   Closed Meeting

9. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
   Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Board of Canvassers Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 21, 2017

1. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council and Mayor sitting as The Board of Canvassers accepting the election returns and declaring and certifying the results of the municipal general elections held in Provo, Utah on November 7, 2017. (17-105)
   This is a presentation of the final vote tallies in the municipal general election. So far, there has been less drama with the general election results. Unless something changes between now and the canvassing, this meeting should be relatively drama-free. Approved 8:0. Dave Sewell, Council Chair and Acting Mayor, voted in both capacities, and raised both hands in support.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:45 PM, Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. Neighborhood Spotlight: Franklin Neighborhood
   Franklin is in the Central District and is just south of my neighborhood. It has a special place in my heart. Teri McCabe, the new Franklin Neighborhood Chair, shared a list of things that neighbors love about their neighborhood. #1 on their list was "walkability".



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

2. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Title 11 (Solid Waste Management). (17-123)
   The purpose of this proposed text amendment is to ensure residential participation in the curbside garbage collection (black can) to maintain revenue and provide clarification in the Sanitation code for minimum requirements for residential waste collection.to ensure that each residential unit is providing for adequate waste removal. See Item 4 in the earlier meeting Approved 7:0. See my report on item 4 in the earlier meeting. I feel like this is an example of good governance.
3. A discussion on the proposed 2018 Council meeting calendar, the timing of Council meetings, and the election of the Municipal Council Chair (17-139)
   Utah Code requires that the Council publish the scheduled meetings for the coming year. Council has traditionally met on the first and third Tuesdays of the month, but staff have recommended some adjustments to the schedule based on major holidays, election dates, and other factors. Because of the proposed change for the first Council meeting of the year, Provo City Code Section 2.50.020 would need to be amended to change the current requirement that the Council Chair be elected on the first Tuesday of each year. See Item 8 in the earlier meeting Approved 7:0. See my report on item 8 in the earlier meeting.
4. A resolution adopting the 2018 Council Regular Meeting Schedule (17-140)
   Council is required by Utah Code to annually publish the scheduled meetings for the coming year. See Item 8 in the earlier meeting See my report on item 8 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 14 November, 2017

The hot topic for Tuesday will be the proposed ordinance requiring "contracts" between landlords and tenants (item 5 in the Work meeting and item 6 in the Council Meeting). Perhaps my favorite item is the new arrangement which allows enterprise-scale energy production (item 4/3). The discussions on Complete Street policies and West Provo development may have the longest lasting impacts.

Most of the content of this document represents the work of the Council Staff. Only some formatting and the "Preview" text is my own.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee

11:00 AM, Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes.

1. A discussion on a complete streets policy
   Council and the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee (TMAC) have previously discussed the idea of complete streets standards. Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders. Provo City’s Transportation Master Plan lists in 11.02 for goals of the Bicycle Plan, “1. Institutionalize Complete Streets principles that encourage consideration of all road users when modifying existing roads or constructing new ones.” I served on the TMAC prior to joining the Council and we spent a lot of effort discussing and studying Complete Street principles and how they could best apply to Provo's transportation infrastructure. I am a big proponent of livable streets and balancing the needs of the community's transportation needs. We need to embrace these principles, and wisely work to implement them in our city. There were no motions, just discussion, thought individual Councilors weighed in on their preferences on various aspects. I feel like the Council in general is supportive of Complete Street System policies. TMAC will continue their work and will present us with a proper proposal in the future.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, November 14, 2017

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 on tools for implementing Westside Policies (17-129)
   Transfer of development rights (TDR) is a tool that has been discussed in the context of creating a plan for Provo’s Westside. TDRs can help government entities preserve certain types of land within their jurisdictions. In order to establish TDRs in a community, a government entity designates “sending areas” and “receiving areas.” In theory, TDRs remove development potential from the sending areas and increase development potential in the sending areas. This discussion is to see whether the Council is interested in creating a TDR program. During this item we will be discussing TDR as well as other tools available to help “preserve Provo’s agricultural heritage and support agriculture for as long as farmers choose to farm.” I have mixed feelings about TDR programs. I feel we need to be very careful as we move forward with development in West Provo. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to a future Work Meeting once Community Development staff have surveyed property owners about interest in various agricultural preservation tools. Much of the discussion was about what "on average, 4 units to the acre" means. Is it net units to the acre (after the land for roads and such are taken out) or gross units to the acre (including the land for roads, etc). Is it 4 units uniformly distributed or are some areas denser and other areas less dense? We took excursions to talk about timing and sequencing with infrastructure, and a number of other topics. Towards the end we talked specifically about some tools, including the transfer of development rights and the purchase of development rights.
2. A discussion on adopting the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan as a guide for decision making and policy formation (17-126)
   Council will be discussing whether they would like to officially adopt the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan, developed by Kimley-Horn Associates, at a future Council meeting as a guide for decision making and policy formation. In a nutshell, I support following the Strategic Management Plan by adopting the Vision, Mission, and Policy Statements, rather than adopting the Plan itself. I have no problem adopting the original plan as an appendix, but the Plan itself was never intended to become policy. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to the November 21, 2017 Work Meeting. Mr. Taylor went over 8 "Key Outcomes" related to the Provo Strategic Parking Management Plan in thorough detail. I feel the Council was quite receptive. There is a proposal to adopt at 25 page document extracted and adapted from the previously produced Strategic Parking Management Plan. The Council saw this document for the first time in this meeting, so we will read through it on our own and will discuss it again next week.
3. A discussion on proposed new Fire Department fees (17-133)
   Acting on a request from the Budget Committee, Council has asked for a regular review of city fees to compare them to actual costs. The Fire Department will be presenting information on the costs involved with their fees listed on the Consolidated Fee Schedule and their recommendations for a new false alarm fee. We love our Fire Department and the great service they provide. When an alarm or call comes in, they head out to protect life and property, and they do it without charging the caller or property owner. We don't want people trying to deal with fires on their own in order to avoid a bill from the Fire Department. But unfortunately, there are some who have faulty alarm systems that frequently send false alarms to the Fire Department. Apparently, they don't mind wasting our firefighters time and resources. The false alarms don't cost them anything but fixing their system would. So the false alarms keep coming. The proposed new fee only kicks in on the FOURTH false alarm in a calendar year. The fee goes from $100 on the fourth false alarm to $300 for the sixth and subsequent false alarms. We don't want people to be scared of calling in a suspected fire, but hopefully, this fee will motivate people to fix their alarms. This item was continued to the November 21, 2017 Work Meeting.
4. A discussion on above 25kW distributed generation (17-130)
   The Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA) has approved providing a way for commercial and industrial customers to install solar that would generate greater than 25 kW. This would incentivize solar installations while protecting utility and city budgets taking transfers into consideration. A change would need to be made to City Code to allow this. This is an elegant solution which allows large entities to receive the benefits from investing in sustainable power generation while protecting and sustainably maintaining the City's electrical infrastructure. Presentation only; this item was already scheduled for the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting. It was as good as expected. We passed the ordinance at the later meeting
5. A discussion on a proposed zoning ordinance amending Provo City Code 6.26.150 (17-104)
   The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written disclosure with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. Council has discussed this in work and regular meetings, has held an open house and posted surveys on Open City Hall to get public input on the topic, and has held public hearings during the regular Council meeting. It is scheduled to be voted on at the November 14 Council meeting. I support the basic idea behind this proposed ordinance. It would ensure that tenants are aware of their rights and responsibilities. It also ensures that landlords are aware of who is living in their units. This will be an added tool for Zoning Enforcement to fight over-occupancy in the City. Tenants will no longer unwittingly enter into illegal arrangements and landlords will have a harder time claiming ignorance when their units are over-occupied.
   There are two aspects of this proposal that I find troubling. First, it requires disclosure of tenants rights and responsibilities and it requires an acknowledgment of who is residing in the unit, yet the language of the ordinance calls this a contract, rather than a disclosure and acknowledgment. Requiring a contract is far more intrusive, and I think the language is both confusing and alarming. I support changing the language to more clearly describe what is actually being required. Second, I believe that landlords and tenants should be given a reasonable amount of time to sign these disclosures and acknowledgments before it becomes illegal for them to not have them. I am not certain that January 1st is enough time, particularly with the holidays. Council members made a series of motions, though not all reached a vote.
   A motion to accept the proposed language as shown on the screen, which included the addition of “except on-site property managers of multifamily properties” was Approved 7:0. A motion to keep the language the same (as proposed in version 2-1, which included updates to 1(a)) was Approved 4:3, with Council members David Harding, David Sewell, and Gary Winterton opposed.
   This motion simply clarified which version of the ordinance would be put forward as part of the implied motion in the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting, for which this item was already scheduled. I believe that redefining the word "Contract" in the code for this section is confusing and is a bad idea. Unfortunately, four Councilmembers disagreed. Another issue became a larger discussion point in the later meeting, but this ordinance was still passed without the amendments.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



6. A discussion on a request for a Street Vacation for 40 East from 3700 North to 3800 North, and 3800 North from University Avenue to 40 East to facilitate the Olde Ivy Development. Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (17-0001SV)
   Vacating a street means that the City will be giving up ownership. This request is associated with the Olde Ivy development proposal previously approved by Council. In order to create and adopt the most efficient and desired site plan, it may be necessary to allow realignment of the roadway. The portions of the street being vacated were dedicated to the City in December 2015. I see this as a technicality left over from a land use decision we made earlier in the year to accommodate the Olde Ivy proposal. We couldn't act on this until the site plan was approved, which didn't happen until recently. Presentation only ; this item was already scheduled for the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting. We spent very little time on this one. It was called a "no-brainer" in the Work Meeting.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify minimum required submittals for Project Plan Reviews. Citywide impact. (17-0018OA)
   Council’s Development Approval Process Review Committee reviewed this part of the Provo City Code and recommended changes to reduce the confusion regarding what items are required with certain applications (concept plan approval, final plan approval, and preliminary subdivision approval). Clarifying the code would reduce the time and financial impact on an applicant while still providing the necessary information for the Council to make applicable decisions related to land use applications. This proposal doesn't appear to remove any requirements, but it removes a list of possible requirements that often gets confused as requirements. City Staff still have the ability to require these items and more, but they will no longer be spelled out in City Code. Public Works has indicated a concern, so I want to understand their perspective. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended this to us. Presentation only ; this item was already scheduled for the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting. These changes were proposed by Community Development and all of the other departments which review development applications were fine with it, except Public Works had some concerns. Public Works came with a mark up of what changes they'd like to see, but weren't certain which way they should format it. The Council expected that it would take some time to sort it all out, but they had resolved all the issues before the later meeting, Community Development accepted their amendments, and we passed it in the evening with no opposition.



Closed Meeting



8. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
   Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. A closed meeting was held.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for November 2017
   There is no indication in our support documents who the receipient will be. I guess we'll just have to wait to find out. Presentation only. Congratulations to Yader Zalaya, a supervisor in our Parking Enforcement division.



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. There were no public comments at this time

Action Agenda

2. A resolution requesting approval from the Utah Division of Water Quality of a variance from Technology-based Phosphorous Effluent limits under R317-1-3.3.C.d and R317-1-3.3.C.e for the Provo City Wastewater Reclamation Facility. (17-128)
   Provo City has been putting significant effort into investigating whether to upgrade or relocate the Water Reclamation Facility. Either course of action would enable the City to meet State phosphorus limits in the future that the current facility cannot achieve. In the meantime, the Council is considering whether to request a variance from the State phosphorus limits for the current plant. The purpose of the phosphorous limits is to lower the phosphorus level in Utah Lake, and the City is working with other entities to find alternative ways to reduce the phosphorous amounts in general. We can meet the 2020 deadline by applying an expensive band-aid approach, or with a variance giving us until 2025, we can make larger infrastructural changes which will allow us to not only meet this round of tightened regulations, but the even tighter regulations that will likely be introduced in the future. Approved 7:0. No surprises
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow commercial and industrial energy customers to install solar greater than 25kW. Citywide impact. (17-130)
   The Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA) has approved providing a way for commercial and industrial customers to install solar that would generate greater than 25 kW. This would incentivize solar installations while protecting utility and city budgets taking transfers into consideration. This ordinance would change City Code to allow this. This item was previewed as item 4 in the earlier meeting. "This is an elegant solution which allows large entities to receive the benefits from investing in sustainable power generation while protecting and sustainably maintaining the City's electrical infrastructure." Approved 7:0. As good as expected
4. An ordinance requesting a street vacation for 40 East from 3700 North to 3800 North, and 3800 North from University Avenue to 40 East.. Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (17-0001SV)
   Vacating a street means that the City will be giving up ownership. This request is associated with the Olde Ivy development proposal previously approved by Council. In order to create and adopt the most efficient and desired site plan, it may be necessary to allow realignment of the roadway. The portions of the street being vacated were dedicated to the City in December 2015. This item was previewed as item 6 in the earlier meeting. "I see this as a technicality left over from a land use decision we made earlier in the year to accommodate the Olde Ivy proposal. We couldn't act on this until the site plan was approved, which didn't happen until recently." Approved 7:0. The only drama was provided by a private dispute over an old agreement that was aired publicly.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify minimum required submittals for Project Plan Reviews. Citywide impact. (17-0018OA)
   Council’s Development Approval Process Review Committee reviewed this part of the Provo City Code and recommended changes to reduce the confusion regarding what items are required with certain applications (concept plan approval, final plan approval, and preliminary subdivision approval). Clarifying the code would reduce the time and financial impact on an applicant while still providing the necessary information for the Council to make applicable decisions related to land use applications. This item was previewed as item 7 in the earlier meeting. "This proposal doesn't appear to remove any requirements, but it removes a list of possible requirements that often gets confused as requirements. City Staff still have the ability to require these items and more, but they will no longer be spelled out in City Code. Public Works has indicated a concern, so I want to understand their perspective. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended this to us." Approved 7:0. See my report of item #7 in the earlier meeting
6. An ordinance enacting a new Provo City Code provision regarding rental contracts. (17-104)
   The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written disclosure with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. Council has discussed this in work and regular meetings, has held an open house and posted surveys on Open City Hall to get public input on the topic, and has held public hearings during the regular Council meeting. Council anticipates voting on the ordinance at this meeting. This item was previewed as item 5 in the earlier meeting. "I support the basic idea behind this proposed ordinance. It would ensure that tenants are aware of their rights and responsibilities. It also ensures that landlords are aware of who is living in their units. This will be an added tool for Zoning Enforcement to fight over-occupancy in the City. Tenants will no longer unwittingly enter into illegal arrangements and landlords will have a harder time claiming ignorance when their units are over-occupied.
   "There are two aspects of this proposal that I find troubling. First, it requires disclosure of tenants rights and responsibilities and it requires an acknowledgment of who is residing in the unit, yet the language of the ordinance calls this a contract, rather than a disclosure and acknowledgment. Requiring a contract is far more intrusive, and I think the language is both confusing and alarming. I support changing the language to more clearly describe what is actually being required. Second, I believe that landlords and tenants should be given a reasonable amount of time to sign these disclosures and acknowledgments before it becomes illegal for them to not have them. I am not certain that January 1st is enough time, particularly with the holidays." Approved 5:2, with Council members David Sewell and David Harding opposed. In addition to my concern expressed in the report from the earlier meeting, I was concerned if we were giving landlords and tenants enough time to be informed and to come into compliance. Staff gave their opinion in the earlier meeting that January 1st was a reasonable date for implementation. A several members of the public expressed their opinion in the Council Meeting that it was not sufficient. But another aspect to the timing was made clear from the public comments: A January 1st implementation date requires a significant amount of work for Landlords and managers, who have to give documents and get signatures from every adult living in their units, all over the holidays. This is a lot of work for conscientious landlords who want to follow the law. If we required the disclosures and acknowledgement at the time of lease renewal (capped at a year), then the burden placed on landlords would be much less, they could simply add in a couple of sheets of paperwork into the lease agreement.
   As I noted above, the ordinance passed without any of the proposed amendments.
7. **CONTINUED** A resolution amending the General Plan by deleting Appendix C-3 “Residential Agricultural Specific Development Plan” as pertaining to the proposed land use for property located on both sides of Lakeshore Drive between approximately 120 North and 400 North. Fort Utah Neighborhood. (17-0003GPA) (Notes: This item was continued by the Planning Commission on November 8, 2017. It will be noticed again when it is assigned to future Planning Commission and Council dates.)
   Based on feedback from the neighborhood, the developer would like to make some changes to this plan and bring it back to the neighborhood before proceeding.
8. **CONTINUED** An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 23.8 acres of real property, generally located on both sides of Lakeshore Drive between approximately 120 North and 400 North, from Agriculture (A1.10) and (A1.5) zones to Residential, Performance Development (R1.10PD) zone. Fort Utah Neighborhoods. (17-0006R) (Notes: This item was continued by the Planning Commission on November 8, 2017. It will be noticed again when it is assigned to future Planning Commission and Council dates.)
   Based on feedback from the neighborhood, the developer would like to make some changes to this plan and bring it back to the neighborhood before proceeding.

Adjournment

Council Meeting - 31 October, 2017

***Update: The truly frightening issue was item 2. The discussion went so long that it bumped the third item. As bad as our sewer treatment situation is, we are probably better off than most cities. ***

The list of issues to address at our 14 November Work Meeting was growing so large that it was frightening. So we are holding an extra work meeting on Halloween. It will be full of scary questions like, "what to do if the Mayor goes missing?", "what to do with what's lurking in our sewers?", and, scariest of all, "what to do about PARKING in Provo?!?"

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

9:00 AM, Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.
Please note that due to scheduling accommodations, the Council will convene the public meeting at 9:00 AM, then following Approval of Minutes, immediately move into the Closed Meeting portion. It is anticipated that the Closed Meeting will adjourn and the Council will reconvene in the public meeting setting at approximately 10:15 AM.

Closed Meeting

The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above.

Business

A discussion on the process for appointing an interim mayor (17-132)
In the event that Mayor Curtis resigns before his term expires, an interim mayor will need to be appointed. The process and timing for this are spelled out in Utah State Code and Provo City Code. Council will be discussing this process to determine some of the details in order to be prepared. We have to appoint an interim mayor within 30 days of a vacancy, but two weeks after publicly noticing the vacancy and intention to appoint. We will have a special circumstance because if the Mayor resigns, it will very likely be after the election. I think the best thing to do would be to appoint the mayor-elect once the election has been certified. Can anyone think of a reason not to do this? A motion approving the amended Council intent statement regarding the process for appointing an interim was Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused. If it is necessary to appoint an interim mayor, we expect to appoint the mayor-elect until their regular term is to begin.

A presentation on Wastewater planning (17-131)
The Public Works Department will be presenting capital improvement projects (CIP) for wastewater and what the options are for infrastructure, particularly on the west side of the city. Information on options for the wastewater treatment plan will also be presented and discussed. I believe the future needs for wastewater treatment are the largest unfunded infrastructure need. The State regulatory environment is perhaps the greatest unknown and is making it hard to plan for the future. Presentation only. Our sewer treatment plant is 60 years old. It needs to be completely overhauled or reconstructed. The State is lowering the limits to "nutrients" coming out of the plant (which can feed our colorful algal blooms in Utah Lake). This current round of reductions is coming at a good time, it's better to build a plant to certain standards than to come back later and try to retrofit for compliance. The problem is that the State is hinting at future reductions in the 2030 timeframe, but what those limits will be are not known at this time. That creates a lot of uncertainty which makes it hard to properly plan for the new treatment plant. We have two years left on the painful five-year sewer rate increase plan. But after that, instead of leveling off to the match inflation, we will likely need to raise rates an additional 3.5% for many years. There are still many details to work out and decisions to make, but we are looking at a $220 million project.

A discussion on adopting the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan as a guide for decision making and policy formation (17-126)
This was discussed at the October 17 work meeting and requests were made for some edits and updates to the plan before bringing it back to Council. The discussion focuses on officially adopting the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan, developed by Kimley-Horn Associates, at a future Council meeting as a guide for decision making and policy formation. Should we adopt the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan or should we actually follow the Plans recommendations and adopt "new program Vision and Mission Statements and Recommended Parking Program Guiding Principles"? I personally feel that the Council should "stay out of the weeds" and focus on high-level policy. I think we should follow the (very detailed) plan and adopt statements and principles, but not the plan itself, except as a reference document. Continued to the November 14, 2017 Work Meeting. Due to the length of the Sewer Plant discussion, this item was pushed back to the next meeting.

Adjournment

Council Meetings - 17 October, 2017

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

11:30 AM, Tuesday, October 17, 2017

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 on a conservation easement for Rock Canyon (17-085)
   The Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance has presented the idea of placing a conservation easement on Rock Canyon to preserve the property’s natural habitat in the future. Proposals for the easement have been reviewed by the Legal Department and Parks and Recreation. The latest information will be presented. We heard this proposal at the end of August. Since then, the proposed easement has been adjusted to make our lawyers happy. But now our Parks and Recreation Department has a counter-proposal. One that would protect even more land. I'd like to find a proposal that both our Parks (who will be maintaining the park and trailhead) and the Rock Canyon Preservation Association (who donated half the money to purchase the land) can get behind. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to a future Work Meeting. It really is a blessing to work with people who are passionate about serving the community and working together to bring about positive changes. Everyone engaged on this item has the best interest of the City at heart and are willing to listen and work towards the best solution. I have no doubt that we are close to having a proposal that everyone supports.
2. A discussion on the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Division and the work they're doing for the 2020 Census (17-127)
   Preparations for the 2020 Census are beginning and local governments have a chance to update the Census Bureau’s residential address list so the Census Bureau can include every residence in the census. Provo’s GIS team will give an overview of the project. GIS is preparing for the 2020 census. In addition to being charged with providing every address in the City before the census, they are also developing tools to allow the public to propose the adjustments to the Council district boundaries (as they did after the last census). Presentation only. In addition to talking about the prepared presentation, we talked about the move of maps.provo.org away from Flash, and the difficulties in redrawing Council districts every ten years.
3. A discussion on a request for variance from Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limits for the Wastewater Reclamation Facility (17-128)
   Provo City has been putting significant effort into investigating whether to upgrade or relocate the Water Reclamation Facility. Either course of action would enable the City to meet State phosphorus limits in the future that the current facility cannot achieve. In the meantime, the Council is considering whether to request a variance from the State phosphorus limits for the current plant. The purpose of the phosphorous limits is to lower the phosphorus level in Utah Lake, and the City is working with other entities to find alternative ways to reduce the phosphorous amounts in general. We are taking the effluent nutrient restrictions seriously. We are currently evaluating two courses of action, both will take time and a lot of money to implement. This waiver will allow us the time to make the proper, long-term upgrades. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to the November 14, 2017 Work Meeting. It is hard to know what infrastructure upgrades that we need to invest in when the State requirements are expected to change in 15 or so years, but no one knows what the requirements will be. Infrstructure is expensive and requires long-range planning.
4. An update on Council Communications (17-125)
   Council adopted the Open City Hall platform one year ago as one of its tools for public engagement. Council’s Community Relations Coordinator will be sharing information on the results of using Open City Hall as well as other tools for public outreach and discussion. It's always good to review the use of our tools to make sure they are providing adequate value for their cost. I have appreciated the feedback received through OCH and found it to be a helpful tool when serving on the West Provo Development Policy Committee. Presentation only. The Council Office and individual Council members are putting in a lot of effort to make it easy for interested residents to be able to easily stay informed. We are alway looking for ways to improve.
5. A discussion on adopting the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan as a guide for decision making and policy formation (17-126)
   Council will be discussing whether they would like to officially adopt the Provo Parking Strategic Management Plan, developed by Kimley-Horn Associates, at a future Council meeting as a guide for decision making and policy formation. I'm anxious to see some changes to our parking paradigm in Provo. Hopefully, these steps will help us move efficiently towards a better state. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to the November 14, 2017 Work Meeting. We discussed whether we should adopt the high-level policies, or adopt the whole strategic plan, or some sort of hybrid of the two.
6. A discussion on the baching overlay (17-124)
   Jeremiah Maughan has been asked to discuss the existing state of the baching singles overlay plan and where it may possibly serve a purpose elsewhere in the city. He intends to discuss the difference between overlaying existing property versus making it available for new property. He also intends to talk about potential weaknesses in the existing ordinance based on how the particular demographic it services has changed over time. I believe we have a vision for what we'd like to see in this newly rezoned area on the west side of South State Street. Perhaps a tweaked Baching Singles Overlay is the right tool. Perhaps we'll need something else. Presentation and discussion only. We are interested in crafting some zoning that would allow for housing types and developments that would accommodate the desires and lifestyles of our young, single professionals.
7. A discussion on a proposed zoning ordinance amending Provo City Code 6.26.150 (17-104)
   The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written disclosure with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. Council has discussed this in work and regular meetings, has held an open house and posted surveys on Open City Hall to get public input on the topic, and has held public hearings during the regular Council meeting. The item will return to the Council for a vote at the November 14 Council meeting. I'll be asking for ways to make sure landlords are disclosing the required information to tenants as the contracts are signed. Perhaps require a declaration as part of the business licensing process. A motion to keep the wording as “contract” was Approved 5:2, with Council members David Sewell and David Harding opposed.
   
   A motion to use an effective date of January 1, 2018 and for the Administration to bring a plan and budget for educating citizens, particularly those affected by the ordinance, on November 14, 2017 was Approved 7:0. Our council attorney realized that after the latest changes we made, what we were calling a contract in the proposal did not technically constitute a contract. He proposed changing "contract" to "disclosure and acknowledgment". I loved this idea, I feel it better describes what is required and I think it would go along way to addressing concerns and clearing up misunderstandings about what the proposal would require. Unfortunately the majority of the Council did not see it as I did. I am still interested in exploring this idea more, though.
   My other concern is that the way we are implementing it is not optimal to our ultimate goal which is for everyone to choose for themselves to voluntarily obey the law.
8. A discussion on above 25kW distributed generation (17-130)
   The Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA) has approved providing a way for commercial and industrial customers to install solar that would generate greater than 25 kW. This would incentivize solar installations while protecting utility and city budgets taking transfers into consideration. A change would need to be made to City Code to allow this. I feel that this is a step in the right direction. Presentation only. A draft of the ordinance will be brought to the November 14, 2017 Work and Council Meetings. I LOVE this approach. It is an elegant way to resolve a potentially thorny question. Basically, UMPA commits to buy all electricity produced at the prices it pays other energy producers, and the customer agrees to pay for all its energy usage at retail rates. It is fair and provides flexibility, predictability, stability, and sustainability.
   

   
   Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

9. Provo City Economic Development Department requests amendments to the General Plan text for the Spring Creek Neighborhood to allow for SLU#6614 Contract Construction Services and Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) Zoning, located at approximately 4000 South 2300 East. Current zoning is Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0004GPA)
   Originally the site of the Columbia Steel Mill, Economic Development has been in the process of remediating (make safe) the site for future development. Sunroc Corporation would like to purchase the property if they can use it as a storage facility for gravel and recycled concrete. Amendments to the General Plan are needed to change the use. See my notes for the next item. This item was already scheduled for the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting and the presentation was continued to the evening meeting. (See my report in the evening meeting.
10. Paul Washburn requests a Zone Change from Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) Zoning to the Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) Zone for approximately 64 acres located at 3750 South Mountain Vista Parkway. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0013R)
    Sunroc Corporation seeks a rezone to allow the property to be used as a gravel and recycled concrete storage and transfer facility. In reading the Planning Commission's report, there is some controversy over this proposal. There seem to be two main concerns. One, that this is a change from the original vision of the business/industrial park, and two, that the occasional concrete crushing may cause problems for the other tenants of the park. As I have served on the executive committee of the RDA, I have followed the negotiations on this project for some time. There is no question that this is a change in vision. The question is, does this opportunity, and the current conditions, warrant that change in vision?
    We are in the midst of a building boom. Having a materials storage facility nearby helps lower the cost of development.
    The more difficult question is who to believe about the impacts of concrete crushing. This item was already scheduled for the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting and the presentation was continued to the evening meeting. See my report in the evening meeting.
    

    
    Business

11. A discussion on the Transfer of Development Rights (17-129)
    Transfer of development rights (TDR) is a tool that has been discussed in the context of creating a plan for Provo’s Westside. TDRs can help government entities preserve certain types of land within their jurisdictions. In order to establish TDRs in a community, a government entity designates “sending areas” and “receiving areas.” In theory, TDRs remove development potential from the sending areas and increase development potential in the sending areas. This discussion is to see whether the Council is interested in creating a TDR program. I like the idea and innovative thinking behind TDRs. I am concerned, though, that they can drive up the cost of higher density housing which might otherwise be used to help us address the lack of housing that is affordable to a significant portion of the people who want to live in Provo. This item was continued to the November 14, 2017 Work Meeting. We ran out of time.
    

    
    Closed Meeting

12. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF PROVO
and STORMWATER SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for October 2017
   There is no information for this item in the document packet. I'm waiting in suspense to see who it will be! Presentation only. Trent Johnson, our Airport Operations Coordinator, is a perfect example of how Provo can provide such value to our residents and taxpayers. His competence and professionalism keeps our airport running smoothly, even with so few staff members. We all owe Mr. Johnson, and so many other Provo City employees like him, our heartfelt appreciation.



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. A number of residents raised important issues with the Council and Administration.



Consent Agenda

Items on the consent agenda are generally routine in nature, have been fully vetted in other meetings, or do not need additional discussion. They are approved together as one item.
2. August 8, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes
3. August 29, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes
4. September 19, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes
5. October 3, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes
6. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (17-089)
   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:
   • Jeff Rose - Energy Board
   I appreciate Jeff's willingness to serve on the Energy Board. A motion to approve all items on the Consent Agenda was Approved 7:0.



Action Agenda

7. A public hearing on a supplemental resolution authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of sales tax revenue bonds, Series 2017 of the City of Provo, Utah; and related matters. (17-113)
   The City will be issuing sales tax revenue bonds to finance the construction of a ramp at the Provo Municipal Airport. The ramp will connect the airport to an area that will be developed to include Duncan Aviation along with other future developments and provide general airport access. Just when we cleared the preliminary approval, the bond is ready to issue. We will find out on Tuesday what the interest rate will be. Approved 7:0. There were 8 bids for our bonds. The winner offered 2.43% interest. We continue to benefit from our long-term fiscal responsibility.
8. A resolution authorizing participation in the Small Business Loan Program administered by the Business Loans of Utah (BLU). (17-121)
   In an effort to strengthen small businesses, the Economic Development Department is proposing a revolving loan fund designed to stimulate redevelopment and utilization of deteriorated commercial and industrial properties. Funds for this program were appropriated as part of the FY 2017-18 budget. We previously approved our participation in this program, but there was a change so we are being asked to approve it again. The change was a good thing, in my estimation. Approved 7:0. This was a simple re-authorization after a small change to the program.
9. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.29 acres of real property, generally located at 1282 North Geneva Road, from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.8). Lakeview North Neighborhood. (17-0009R)
   This rezone request is to facilitate the creation of a seven lot residential subdivision that would include incorporating two existing homes. The property is currently illegally subdivided into five parcels and the proposed R1.8 zone is potentially inconsistent with the General Plan policies on density. Had a first hearing of this item at the October 3, 2017, Council meeting. We heard this item in our last meeting and the applicant requested a continuation so that the information that should have been submitted at the beginning of the process could be turned in. I can't see myself voting for this rezone unless Staff, the neighborhood, and the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to review and respond to the information. A motion to send this item back to the Planning Commission on the presumption that Mr. Chappell will provide the necessary information to staff in time for them to make a different recommendation. If the item has not been heard by the Planning Commission by the end of the year (December 13, 2017 is the last Planning Commission meeting before the year-end), then it will be considered an automatic denial. Approved 5:2, with Council members Kim Santiago and George Stewart opposed. I feel this is an example where the City and Council has been more than patient with a developer, but is still maintaining high standards to protect the community from poor development.
10. An ordinance to amend the General Plan text regarding land use at approximately 4000 South 2300 East to allow for contract construction services and heavy manufacturing zoning. Spring Creek Neighborhood (17-0004GPA)
    Originally the site of the Columbia Steel Mill, Economic Development has been in the process of remediating (make safe) the site for future development. Sunroc Corporation would like to purchase the property if they can use it as a storage facility for gravel and recycled concrete. Amendments to the General Plan are needed to change the use. See the preview of the next item. This item was continued at the applicant’s request. All the interested stakeholders gathered for the Work Meeting discussion that didn't happen because we ran out of time. Between the end of the Work Meeting and the start of the Council Meeting, the applicant decided to request more time. I'm hopeful that additional discussions between stakeholders will result in a proposal that all can get behind.
11. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 64 acres of real property, generally located at 3750 South Mountain Vista Parkway, from Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) to Heavy Manufacturing (M-2). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0013R)
    Sunroc Corporation seeks a rezone to allow the property to be used as a gravel and recycled concrete storage and transfer facility. Items 10 and 11 are related. This proposal represents a significant change in the planned uses in the Mountain Vista Business Park. The proposal calls for the rezoning and sale of the southern end of the Business Park, which is on the City border, to Sunroc to be used as a materials storage and processing facility, as well as to house some company offices. I do not see this as a "routine" item and fully expect it not to be voted on until at least the next meeting. See also the preview of agenda item 11 in the Work Meeting above. This item was continued at the applicant’s request. All the interested stakeholders gathered for the Work Meeting discussion that didn't happen because we ran out of time. Between the end of the Work Meeting and the start of the Council Meeting, the applicant decided to request more time. I'm hopeful that additional discussions between stakeholders will result in a proposal that all can get behind.
12. **CONTINUED** A resolution amending the General Plan by updating the Southwest Area Council Map. Fort Utah, Lakeview South, Lakewood, Provo Bay, and Sunset Neighborhoods. (17-0006GPA) (Notes: This item was continued by the Planning Commission on October 11th, 2017. It will be noticed again when it is assigned to future Planning Commission and Council dates.)
    Based on the policies developed by the West Side Planning Committee, a new committee was formed with key stakeholders from Southwest Area neighborhoods to take the next step toward an updated Southwest Area Plan. The group created a land use map and presented it at the October 11, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. It was determined that the item was not ready to move forward to the Council at that time. This item was continued by Planning Commission on October 11th, 2017. It will be noticed again for future Planning Commission and Council dates.



Stormwater Service District

13. An ordinance amending the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule. (17-102)
    An intended new fee for stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the fee schedule that was passed in June 2017. The goal has been to come up with a system for calculating the fee in a way that will cover actual costs of the inspections. We've been discussing this for a while now. I feel like we have made all the necessary tweaks. I would have like to have seen the fee come down a little more, but I trust in the analysis that this is a fair fee to cover the costs. Approved 6:1, with Council member Kay Van Buren opposed. No surprises.

Adjournment