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