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

Council Meetings - 3 October, 2017

***UPDATE: Rather than copying all of this information into a new post, I'm updating the old post with the results, and my reports on the various items.***

The big topic for tomorrow will still be the rental contract proposal (items 4 and 11 in the Work and Council meetings, respectively). The appointment of a new Police Cheif is big news (CM3). People may also find the discussion of electronic signs (WM3) and Setbacks for South Campus (CM8) interesting.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, October 3, 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 proposed code revisions from the Sanitation Department (17-123)
   The proposed changes are to establish a minimum requirement for sanitation services at all residential dwellings throughout the City. They explain when and where refuse collection service is required and clarify requirements for refuse container size. It looks like the biggest change is that a minimum volume per dwelling unit is being set.
   There is a phrase in the proposed language that says, "or the owner of a dwelling contracts to have the owner’s refuse collected and disposed of by a commercial hauler". I think the second "owner's" should be changed to "dwelling's" or "residents in the dwelling's".Presentation only. This item will be brought back to a future Work Meeting. There were actually two parts to this presentation. The first part was to introduce a proposed change to clarify the city code: All SFD homes are required to use city garbage collection, multi-family units can use city services or the owner/manager can arrange a separate service, but must meet the required weekly volume capacity (95 gallons). In the second part of the presentation, Public Works proposed that we continue with the recently adjusted can fee rate structure through at least the end of this fiscal year (June 2018). We will resume discussion on structural changes through the regular budget process which starts in January.
2. A discussion on the Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan Fee in the Stormwater Consolidated 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. This was discussed at two previous work meetings and additional information was requested. We continued this item last time because Public Works requested at the meeting a fee that was substantially higher than what was included in our packets. The continuation allowed time for the public and builders to weigh in on the proposal. I have heard from an association representing builders. They don't mind paying their fair share, but feel that the idea that each inspection costs the City $50 is wrong because the inspections usually occur at the same time that other inspections are going on. And their preferred fee structure would be a base fee, then a cost per acre, with a cap at 20 acres. They also said that a table is easier to use than a formula.

   Number of Disturbed Acres		Fee
   >	<=	$
   0	1	200
   1	4	350
   4	9	500
   9	16	650
   16	25	800
   25	36	950
   36		1100

   A motion to move forward with the table of stepped fees to the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 7:0. Builders would prefer a table to a formula. I feel better about the stepped rates because the intervals make more sense now. There is still some question if the rates are too high. Public works will verify the calculations before it comes to the Council Meeting.
3. A discussion on possible code changes regarding signage (17-110)
   This discussion about how signage is regulated in Provo City Code is intended to determine whether Council is interested in pursuing code changes in a future meeting. This was discussed at a previous work meeting, but more discussion was needed. The basic idea is that static electronic signs are no more obtrusive than back-lit signs, so we should consider allowing them anywhere back-lit signs are allowed. We had a good discussion in our last Work Meeting, but a few questions came up, like what to do with "scrolling" signs. Hopefully, we will have good recommendations on these questions this time.A motion to move this item to the next Planning Commission meeting was Approved 7:0. Looks like all of the kinks have been worked out. I'm comfortable with the "low churn" signs (which can not be changed more than 3 times per day. I'm still uncomfortable with the "high churn" signs which can change every 8 seconds. I think we need to carefully consider which areas in our city allow high churn signs. Perhaps we need a mid-churn level.
4. 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 contract 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 Zoning Committee met to discuss this feedback and will update the Council in preparation for tonight’s regular Council meeting. Along with the contract, landlords are required to provide a copy of the tenant's rights and responsibilities, and the legal occupancy of the unit. These contracts and disclosure will protect law-abiding tenants and landlords. It will also make it harder to claim ignorance when over-occupation occurs. This will help our zoning enforcement officers be more effective when enforcing over-occupancy requirements. Some suggestions for changes have been made since the change was proposed. I don't see those suggestions reflected in the latest language. I'm curious if the Zoning Committee considered them.
   Our packet includes a very interesting graph on how much has been spent on zoning enforcement over the years.A motion to utilize version 2 of the draft [which included definitions] was Approved 7:0. A motion to postpone a vote on this item until the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 4:3, opposed by Council members Kim Santiago, George Stewart, & Kay Van Buren. Several improvements were made over the past two weeks. We discussed voting on it in our evening meeting, and the possibility of waiting until either the next or following meeting to vote. In the end we narrowly voted to continue it for two more meetings before voting on it. This will allow for more time to fine tune the proposal, as well as to reach out to help clear up some of the misunderstandings surrounding this proposal.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

5. A discussion on a zone change request of approximately 0.642 acres from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR), on property generally located at 925 East 1140 South. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0012R)
   This rezoning request is to facilitate the development of 9 townhomes. It is in compliance with the General Plan and follows the recommended land use in the Southeast Area Neighborhood Plan. It is being recommended by the Staff and the Planning Commission. It is aligned with the Neighborhood Plan. It looks pretty good to me. Here is the site plan and a map of the location:
   
   
   The presentation on this item was continued to the evening Council Meeting. This item was already scheduled for the October 3, 2017 Council Meeting. See Item #9 in the Council Meeting below
6. A discussion on a zone change request on approximately 2.29 acres from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.8) on property generally located at 1282 North Geneva Road. 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. Well, this plot is back before the Council again. It appears that not much has changed since the last time we denied the request. It seems that everyone is willing to work with the applicant, but that willingness isn't being reciprocated. The presentation on this item was continued to the evening Council Meeting. This item was already scheduled for the October 3, 2017 Council Meeting. See Item #9 in the Council Meeting below



Business

7. A discussion on a proposed Business Loans of Utah Revolving Loan Fund (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. Economic Development presented this program to us a number of months back. Basically we can access $7 for every $1 that we contribute in a first-loss position, to use as loans for small businesses who haven't quite made it to the point that commercial banks are willing to lend to them. We may earn money off of the interest of these loans, but we would also be in the position to lose the money that we front, if the businesses default on their loans. The real return on the investment is in higher property taxes, sales taxes, new jobs, and a more vibrant city. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting. The program changed a little. We had previously approved it, but the Office of Economic Development wanted to make sure that we still supported the program after the change. I think the change is in our favor.



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
(and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF PROVO)
(and STORMWATER SERVICE DISTRICT)
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A proclamation pertaining to Provo's sister city, Meissen, Germany (17-121)
   "No files found" in the document packet. Presentation only. I was in Dresden a few weeks ago for business. I should have looked it up because Meissen is not far from Dresden and I could have visited.



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. 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
   • Elizabeth Smart - Library Board
   • Deon Turley - Planning Commission
   • Ben Markham - Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee
   I have interacted with all four of these individuals, and Provo City is fortunate to have such quality individuals willing to serve on our boards and commissions. Approved 7:0. Welcome aboard, and thank you for serving!
3. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of Rich Ferguson as the Chief of the Police Department for Provo City. (17-122)
   Rich Ferguson was appointed interim police chief in March after the resignation of former police chief John King. Ferguson has been with the Provo Police Department for 27 years. After the recent upheaval, I am grateful that our next Chief has been with the Provo City Police Department for so long. Chief Ferguson's character and competence are well known. He will serve the Department and our city well. Approved 7:0. I've been impressed with Chief Ferguson over the past several months as he has served as the Interim Chief. I hear more stories, both in public and in private, of our officers going above the call of duty and providing great service than I do from angry or upset citizens. Chief Ferguson has been a part of the Provo PD for decades and is ready to lead the department.



Stormwater Service District

4. 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. This was originally set to be heard at the August 29 Council meeting, but was continued due to requested changes raised in the August 29 work meeting. This issue was heard in the earlier meeting as item #2. (We continued this item last time because Public Works requested at the meeting a fee that was substantially higher than what was included in our packets. The continuation allowed time for the public and builders to weigh in on the proposal. I have heard from an association representing builders. They don't mind paying their fair share, but feel that the idea that each inspection costs the City $50 is wrong because the inspections usually occur at the same time that other inspections are going on. And their preferred fee structure would be a base fee, then a cost per acre, with a cap at 20 acres. They also said that a table is easier to use than a formula.

   Number of Disturbed Acres		Fee
   >	<=	$
   0	1	200
   1	4	350
   4	9	500
   9	16	650
   16	25	800
   25	36	950
   36		1100

   
   ) During the Work Meeting, this item was continued to the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

5. A resolution authorizing the execution of a Tax Increment Funding Agreement with Provo City and a Development Agreement with Provo City and Duncan Aviation. (17-114)
   Provo City agreed to provide improvements to the airport to accommodate development related to Duncan Aviation. Funding sources for this project include a 108 Loan to be repaid with CDBG funds, Economic Development Administration grant, bonds to be repaid with tax increment, and a transfer from the General Fund. This item has been on the past several meeting agendas and was part of a larger group of items. This is part of the fulfillment of past commitments and will bring a project that will have a significant positive impact on our economic development. Approved 7:0. It seems like items related to the Duncan expansion at the airport has been on every agenda for the past several months. I believe this is the last of them...until the financing is lined up.



Action Agenda

6. A resolution authorizing the execution of a Tax Increment Funding Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City and a Development Agreement with the Agency and Duncan Aviation. (17-114)
   Provo City agreed to provide improvements to the airport to accommodate development related to Duncan Aviation. Funding sources for this project include a 108 Loan to be repaid with CDBG funds, Economic Development Administration grant, bonds to be repaid with tax increment, and a transfer from the General Fund. This is the same agreement in the last item, but now we are considering in our role as Council, rather than our role as the board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo. No action was required on this item; the Council previously authorized these agreements on August 29, 2017 as part of Resolution 2017-40. This was incorrectly noticed.
7. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.056 acres of real property, generally located at 2585 North Timpview Drive, from R1.10 to R1.9. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (17-0014R)
   The property owner is seeking to subdivide the property. The existing home would be maintained and the remaining land divided into three additional lots. Two of the lots don’t have the width needed for the R1.10 zone, but could qualify for R1.9. This is the second hearing for this land use item. I didn't hear any new arguments over the past two weeks. I support the request. Approved 7:0. The majority of the neighborhood was in favor of this, but one couple adjacent to the lot was opposed. The proposed project meets almost all of the requirements for the current zone, and would meet all of the requirements once the flag lot regulations are fixed. It makes sense to rezone to R1.9 to allow this to move forward now.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding setbacks for front yards and side street yards in the Campus Mixed-Use Zone. Joaquin Neighborhood. (17-0006OA)
   The Campus Mixed-Use Zone was adopted to accomplish the objectives of the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. Some recent developments have revealed shortcomings in the yard requirements of the zone. City staff proposed changes. This will also be the second hearing. I invited feedback from a number of Provo-centric Facebook groups. I was surprised that the feedback was more nuanced. I expected "Yes, of course, the setbacks need to be increased," but instead there were plenty of differing opinions but the overall message was, "What's wrong with this building wouldn't have been fixed with setbacks." Approved 7:0. I was on a business trip the week before this meeting and had the opportunity to walk around three different cities and looked at many examples of small setbacks and no setbacks. I came away comfortable that this adjustment to the setback will not be harmful to what we are trying to achieve in this area. But I made sure the message I heard on social media was conveyed, that what's wrong with the building on 700 N and 900 E will not be fixed by setbacks alone. I think everyone agrees on that point. Community Development will continue to bring fixes to us.
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.642 acres of real property, generally located at 925 East 1140 South, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0012R)
   This rezoning request is to facilitate the development of 9 townhomes. It is in compliance with the General Plan and follows the recommended land use in the Southeast Area Neighborhood Plan. This issue was heard at the earlier meeting as item #5. (It is being recommended by the Staff and the Planning Commission. It is aligned with the Neighborhood Plan. It looks pretty good to me. Here are the site plan and a map of the location:
   
   
   
   ) Approved 7:0. This proposal fits this plot very nicely. I like how it fronts the road.
10. 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. This issue was heard at the earlier meeting as item #6. (Well, this plot is back before the Council again. It appears that not much has changed since the last time we denied the request. It seems that everyone is willing to work with the applicant, but that willingness isn't being reciprocated.) A motion to continue this item to the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 7:0. The applicant requested a continuation to allow him to supply the requested information to Community Development. I, personally, won't be voting in favor of the rezone unless the proposal, now with all of the required information, goes back before the Planning Commission. I rely on the Staff report, the Planning Commission report, and the neighborhood input. The process can not proceed properly if certain information is not provided until the last stage.
11. An ordinance enacting a new Provo City Code provision regarding rental contracts. (17-104)
    Council previously adopted the Code Enforcement Strategic Plan as a guideline for increased enforcement of the City Code. Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan is to use enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses to increase compliance among landlords with Provo City occupancy laws. This proposed addition to the City Code is a step in achieving that goal. The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written contract with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. The purpose of the ordinance is twofold. First, it educates landlords and tenants regarding the legal requirements regarding the occupancy restrictions of a particular residence. By requiring landlords to provide tenants with a copy of the rental dwelling license application approval letter and the Tenants’ Rights and Responsibilities document, both the landlords and the tenants can have a clear understanding of their legal obligations so that they do not unwittingly violate the City Code. Additionally, it provides a way to indirectly enforce occupancy restrictions against landlords who intentionally violate the City Code. Landlords who are willfully violating occupancy restrictions are forced to choose between informing prospective tenants that they are breaking the law or violating this section of the code, as well. This is the second public hearing on the ordinance. This issue was heard at the earlier meeting as item #4. (Along with the contract, landlords are required to provide a copy of the tenant's rights and responsibilities, and the legal occupancy of the unit. These contracts and disclosure will protect law-abiding tenants and landlords. It will also make it harder to claim ignorance when over-occupation occurs. This will help our zoning enforcement officers be more effective when enforcing over-occupancy requirements. Some suggestions for changes have been made since the change was proposed. I don't see those suggestions reflected in the latest language. I'm curious if the Zoning Committee considered them.
    Our packet includes a very interesting graph on how much has been spent on zoning enforcement over the years.) During the Work Meeting, this item was continued to the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting. The vote was continued until November 14th. Please see item 4 in the Work Meeting above.



Adjournment