Council Meeting - 18 December 2018

On Tuesday we have a special holiday bonus meeting. The agenda last week was so full that we pushed a few items to this Work-Meeting-only special.

I feel the Ranked Choice Voting item is pretty significant, as is the item on housing affordability.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, December 18, 2018

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 statement of intent regarding the voting policy in Provo City. (18-088)
   Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of choice. If your top candidate can’t win, your vote counts for your next choice, until someone wins with a majority. Utah passed legislation earlier this year to allow cities to pilot ranked choice voting. A presentation was given at the September 25 work meeting. Cities have until December 31 to indicate to the State if they would like to utilize ranked choice voting in the 2019 election. The Council discussed ranked choice voting (RCV) in the fall. At the time we understood that we had a binding decision to make by December 31st whether or not Provo would use RCV in our fall 2019 elections. That was also the time that much of our energy and outreach was focused on the bond. The general consensus was that there wasn't enough time to properly engage with the public before making the decision. Also, there was a concern about adding another change after the County has struggled to administer vote-by-mail elections in the first two years after making that change. The State has now indicated that cities who declare their intent to use RCV in 2019 can still change their mind during the springtime. This would allow us time to engage with the public, be a part of the discussion about changes the State will make to the program in their legislative session, and monitor changes the new County Clerk/Auditor as she takes over the administration of elections. From my perspective, the main decision the Council was considering was whether to declare our interest to the State to preserve the option of using RCV in 2019. I believe this would have given us a (better) seat at the table with the State to discuss changes to the State statute governing the use of RCV, and would have focused the public discussion on whether RCV should be used in Provo municipal elections. The counter-argument was that the Council and public needs more time to consider RCV and the State needs to fix the statute, so we shouldn't preserve the option to use it in 2019. The Mayor expressed her opposition to preserving the option for 2019. It was apparent that 4 Councilors were also against preserving the option for 2019. Rather than pursuing that motion, we voted on a motion to pass a statement of intent which stated that we are interested in learning more about RCV and engaging with the public to decide if it will be a good fit for Provo, but that we don't feel that 2019 is the right time. The motion to release the Statement of Intent was passed on a 4-3 vote.
2. A presentation and discussion on recent updates to Stormwater requirements from the State Division of Water Quality. (18-102)
   Erica Gaddis from the State Division of Water Quality will be here to present on the recent updates to requirements. Last week we had a presentation regarding concerns our Public Works Department has about potential regulations that are being discussed by the State. Dr. Gaddis has met with the Council in the past regarding wastewater treatment and has been very helpful in both our understanding of the issues as well as in coordinating State assistance with our new wastewater treatment plant. She will be discussing stormwater and possible new regulations. The implementation deadline will be pushed back again to allow further discussion with local governments about the best way to reach to objectives. No Council action was taken.
3. A discussion on an appropriation for the Urban Deer Program. (18-061)
   In FY 2016, the Municipal Council appropriated $35,000 to fund an urban deer removal program on an interim basis. On May 15, 2018, the council evaluated the program and voted to extend the program for an additional year. In that motion, the council recommended the funding be included in the FY 2019 budget. Through the changes that were made to the budget, that change was not incorporated into the new-year budget. The annual cost for administering the program last year approached $20,000. The request before the council is to appropriate an additional $20,000 to fund the FY2019 portion of the program. I am very interested to hear the updated stats of the problem and the program. I do believe the program has been beneficial. The question is is this the best use of this money? The program has two parts, a professional bow hunting component, which can only be used in the less populated parts of the City, and a live trap-and-relocate component that can be used in the more populated parts of the City. The trap-and-relocate part is more expensive in terms of both money and burden on our police officers. Also, reviews of similar programs show a low survival rate of the relocated deer. One solution would be to cut the trap-and-relocate portion of the program, but “urban deer” (deer that change their behavior and live in the city year-round) are the main problem, and they are located in the more populated portions of the city. The Administration agreed to look into whether trap-and-euthanize is an option available to us.
4. A discussion on a Provo River Corridor Plan. (18-101)
   A class of BYU students has been working with a Steering Committee to formulate the Provo River Corridor Plan. They will present the draft plan to the Planning Commission on November 28. The Plan is not in a final form yet, and it will take well into the new year to get it where it needs to be, but Bill Peperone would like the students to have the experience of presenting what they have so far to the Council. During the discussion on the Southwest Area Future Land Use Map, I pushed for protection and a plan for the River corridor. I didn't know that a class was already working on one. I'm curious to see what they've come up with so far. The Plan is still in its early stages and is very high level. It is also very bold and would direct the redevelopment of significant areas of Provo over many decades. I absolutely agree that Provo City needs to do a better job of embracing the river in the more developed areas of the City.
5. A discussion on affordable housing policies in Provo City.
   At the August 7, 2018 Work Meeting, representatives from The Salt Lake Chamber came to discuss a policy initiative they recently headed and referred to as the Housing Gap Coalition. As part of their presentation, they discussed with the Council a study their group had recently commissioned with the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah. The study uncovered several areas dealing with housing affordability and availability that were of concern and in need of attention. One of the primary asks of this presentation was that the Council consider and pass a resolution which would unite cities in the state and partner with the Housing Gap Coalition to address housing affordability. The Council has had numerous discussions regarding this resolution, but never adopted the resolution. Council Leadership asked Council staff to review the housing policies in place and to particularly look at current policies and whether current policies would create a duplication in effort. The Council's Policy Analysts have authored a great report discussing the proposed resolution, but also many of the related developments and efforts in the County and the State. We ran out of time and continued this item to the next Work Meeting.
   
   

   Adjournment

Council Meetings - 11 December 2018

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, December 11, 2018

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



1. November 29, 2018 Joint Zoning and Housing Committee Meeting
   Approved by unanimous consent.



Business



2. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify that unauthorized energy generation shall not receive any rate or bill credits (18-103)
   Provo City Code prohibits self-generation of electric energy unless the generation is licensed by the Provo City Energy Department. Additionally, licenses for electric self-generation by industrial and commercial customers have only recently been authorized by the code. Because self-generation without a license is prohibited, such generation would not qualify for any rate or bill credits. However, with rising interest in self-generation by residential, commercial, and industrial customers, the Energy Department believes it would be prudent to add language to the code explicitly stating that entities that engage in unauthorized self-generation shall not receive any rate or bill credits. The clarifications only apply to industrial or commercial generators, and are truly clarifications and fixes. No real policies changes are being made. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. BYU is likely the first to be affected by these regulations (not the minor changes and clarifications we were considering, but the underlying regulations). Their representatives spoke briefly. There are still some disagreements about how the regulations interface with federal regulations, but, after some last minute tweaks, they gave a thumbs-up to what we were considering. It looks like the remaining questions will need to be worked out by the legal teams.
3. A discussion on policies regarding impact fee policy (18-099)
   There is a clear cost of growth in any community. A city's infrastructure provides a given quality of life in a community, and growth can put a strain on that infrastructure. Water, electricity, sewer, street systems, and more must be modified to address the needs resulting from new growth. State law provides a mechanism, called impact fees, to collect funds to offset the City's cost of accommodating that growth. Provo City's ordinance provides that impact fees and capital facilities plans should be reviewed on five-year intervals. The Impact Fee Review Committee (comprised of Council members, City staff, developers, and community members) has been meeting since early 2017 and working with a consulting firm to bring forward updated recommendations. The results of their work were presented at an Impact Fee Open House on November 8, 2018. Council will be holding public hearings at the November 27 and December 11 meetings and will then vote on the adoption of updated impact fees. Current impact fees are listed on the consolidated fee schedule. Questions before the Council: How quickly should we implement the fee changes? Should we lower the fees? Should we make exemptions to the fees?
   
   State law requires us to allow at least 90 days between adoption and implementation. I'm interested to see if there is a recommendation to extend this. Based on our discussions around affordable housing, I feel that waiving impact fees for these projects is a straight-forward and clean way for the City to participate. It is the middle question that I'm struggling with. We are being advised to not reduce the fees without reducing the planned level of service (LOS) associated with the fees. I'm interested to hear the reasoning behind this directly, but what I've heard second-hand so far has not been convincing. For decades, the impacts of new developments were paid by everyone in the system through regular utility rates. Only relatively recently have new developments been required to pay for their impacts up front. The City can decide if we are going to charge impact fees and if we are going to raise impact fees (after conducting the required study) so why can't we decide to assess the fees at, say, 80% of the justified levels? 0% is fine. 100% is fine. But anywhere in between isn't? That doesn't make sense to me. A motion that the Council commit to having a discussion at a later point regarding an exemption for low- income housing and criteria for the necessary City ordinance and that the Housing Committee prepare a recommendation, but that the discussion not delay a vote on the impact fees at the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 6:1, with Kay Van Buren opposed.
   
   A motion to change the implied motion to reflect an effective date of July 1, 2019 was approved 5:2, with George Stewart and George Handley opposed. So our outside Council clarified that we are free to make a policy decision to not charge the maximum amount allowed for impact fees. What he had previously warned against was undercharging on impact fees based on the projects that are anticipated without identifying how the projects would be funded, thus jeopardizing the projects. If the projects don't get built, then the impact fees that were collected could have to be returned. It would get messy.
   
   The will of the Council was to move forward, with a delayed implementation date, and have a discussion later about whether low-income housing might qualify for a waiver and how to best set up the process. Now that we know that we *can* charge less than the maximum, I think it would be good to consider if we *should*.
4. An update on the state loan and financing for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and a discussion on the Westside map (18-052)
   The Public Works Department will come to provide an update to the Municipal Council on the discussions that the Public Works has had with the State regarding a loan for a portion of the cost of this project. They will also update the Council on the location issues that they've uncovered as they've started to narrow the location for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Finally, they intend to discuss the financing options available to pay for the Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades. Phase I costs of the new Sewer Treatment Plant are estimated at $151,262. (Phase II is contemplated for 2031). We applied for a construction loan from the State Water Quality Board to cover 80% of the project. Unfortunately, they only approved a loan for 50% of the project. They offered an even lower interest rate plus some principal forgiveness. Between this loan and what we can get on the regular revenue bond market, we will likely end up paying an average interest rate of 1.9%.
   
   Previously it seemed that Public Works was leaning towards moving the treatment plant closer to Provo Bay. Now I hear rumblings that that may be changing. It'll be interesting to get the update on the location selection process. A motion to indicate that the Council is interested in moving forward with the loan offered by the State as a general method of funding the sewer treatment plant, that the Council invite a proposal from staff regarding the issue of sewer capacity banking, and that the Council evaluate the net present value calculation of the State loan vs. traditional revenue bonds was approved 7:0. The size of the loan was less than we had hoped, but the rate on the loan and that there is partial principal forgiveness exceeded our hopes. We will continue to pursue this option, but need to check to make sure it makes the most sense.
5. A discussion regarding state regulations for Stormwater and an update on a completed draft of the Stormwater Master Plan (18-102)
   Public Works has recently completed a draft of the updated stormwater master plan, including an impact fee facilities plan in conjunction with the citywide impact fee study. The draft master plan will be presented to the Council and then after it has been reviewed and it will be ready for adoption by Council. An update to our Stormwater Master Plan was long overdue. This update occurred in conjunction with the impact fee review study. This is a hefty document, looking at our entire system and every deficiency and needed upgrade. Presentation only. There are some concerns about additional regulations that the State may propose. We will hear next week from some State representatives. The master plan was reworked based on a more aggressive storm model. Retention basins will be used where practical in order to extend the capacity of the existing infrastructure. There is a $70M price tag for all of the projects included in the master plan.




Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



6. A request for an amendment to adopt Provo City Code Chapter 14.50(36), for the establishment of a new redevelopment zone to facilitate a construction project. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180365)
   The proposed Performance Redevelopment Option (PRO) zone is attached to a rezone and concept plan that would allow the applicant to build 62 residential units and would allow for a higher amount of singles to reside within each unit. It aligns with the Southeast Neighborhood Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is the first proposed development in the area we highlighted as a good place to build new housing designed for young single professionals. Stuck between two storage unit properties, there isn't much potential for this development to be integrated into the surrounding area. My hope is that this type of development will be so attractive and in demand that the storage unit facilities will be enticed to move elsewhere. My only question on this one is why a PRO zone is needed? What does the MDR zone not provide? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. See my report of items 8 and 9 in the evening meeting.
7. A request for an ordinance amendment to the Zone Map Classification of approximately 5.89 acres of real property, generally located at 1606 S. State Street, to a Redevelopment PRO zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ2018105)
   This is part of the project listed in item 7. The requested rezone provides for townhomes with a higher occupancy density (baching overlay) which furthers the goals and policies within the General Plan and future land use designated in the Southeast Neighborhood Plan. Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation. This item is a companion to the previous item. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. This item is a companion to the previous item. See my report of items 8 and 9 in the evening meeting
8. A discussion on a request to adopt the Moderate Income Housing Report for Provo City. Citywide impact. (PLGPA2018395)
   The Moderate Income Housing Report is a biennial report of the efforts Provo City has made in the last two years regarding the implementation of the Moderate Income Housing Plan as contained within the City’s General Plan. These city-authored plans and reports are a major focus of State efforts to encourage local governments to engage in the housing affordability crisis. Provo City has been compliant with both the letter and spirit of the State law for many years. Something that apparently few other cities can say. The State has added new requirements for the plans, and we have until the middle of next year to bring our plan into compliance with these new regulations. The report, which documents our efforts and progress on implementing the plan, needs to be adopted by the Council before the end of the year. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. The discussion was similar to what I said in the preview.

Business



9. A discussion on the Parameters Resolution for Provo Police, Fire & City Facilities Bond (18-106)
   Voters approved the sale of bonds in the November general election. The parameters of the bond sale will be voted on in the December 11 Council meeting. This sets the parameters by which the bond will be marketed by buyers. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. The bond sale will take place on the 22nd of January and will come back to the Council for final approval.



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. A closed meeting was held.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• A presentation of the Provo City Audit Report and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-105)
  Presentation only. The City's financial standing improved during the previous fiscal year (which it should during prosperous times), and the audit praised the City for having good financial controls.
• A presentation of the Provology graduates
  Presentation only.

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.




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.
1. Approval of Minutes for the October 23, 2018 Council Meeting
2. Approval of Minutes for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to Public Works standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180348)
   Each year, the Provo Public Works Departments updates utility construction standards, street design standards and other development standards. Staff is particularly interested in those standards which have a visible impact on the built environment and clearly fall within the purview of the Planning Commission. The standards under consideration for revision are generally related to underground utility construction. The current street design standards are not proposed for revision because an update to the Transportation Master Plan is currently in progress. These street design standards will come before the Planning Commission as part of the review of the Transportation Master Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was continued from last time to give us the opportunity to review the proposed changes.
4. A resolution adopting the 2019 Council regular meeting schedule. (18-104)
   The Council’s meeting schedule for the next calendar year must be adopted by the end of the current year. Changes may be made during the year according to provisions in State Code.
An implied motion to approve all items on the Consent Agenda was approved 7:0.



Action Agenda



5. A resolution appointing individuals to various boards and commissions (18-003)
   The Mayor regularly makes appointments to various boards and commissions, with the consent of the Municipal Council. The following appointments will be presented to the Council for their consent:
   • Jane Wise - Arts Council
   • Mary Rasband - Energy Board
   • Lynette Hemsath - Housing Authority
   • George Handley - Housing Authority
   I'm grateful to the individuals who are willing to serve on our boards and commissions. Approved 7:0. I say this every time, but our boards and commissions are one of the reasons our city is so well run.
6. A resolution setting the parameters of the Provo Police, Fire & City Facilities Bond. (18-106)
   The is item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. As I said in the earlier meeting, "The bond sale will take place on the 22nd of January and will come back to the Council for final approval.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to modify and enact impact fees for Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Power, Parks and Recreation, Roadway Facilities, and Public Safety, and to modify provisions regarding impact fees. (18-099)
   This is item 3 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview in the work meeting. Approved 6:1, with Kay Van Buren opposed. A few other concerns were received from the public. Mostly concerns that these adjustments will hurt the affordability of housing in Provo, and questioning why some fees on multifamily housing were the same as fees on single-family housing.
8. An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 14.50(36) (Spring Creek High Occupancy Performance Redevelopment Option zone). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180365)
   This is item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. After the item passed, unanimously on the first hearing, I commented about how remarkable this moment was. We had just rezone some land for high(er) density housing, yet no one showed up to protest, the only comments were supportive. This didn't just happen, it was the result of years of working with many groups to get out in front on planning the future for this area of Provo. Now that the vision is agreed upon, developers can come in, understand what is wanted, and move forward with confidence.
9. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 6.21 acres of real property, generally located at 1606 South State Street, from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to a PRO (PCC 14.50(36)). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ2018105)
   This is item 8 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. This item is coupled with the previous item. See my report there.
A resolution approving the adoption of the Moderate Income Housing Report for Provo City and amending the General Plan. Citywide impact (PLGPA20180395)
This is item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. We passed it, see my report in the work meeting.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase buffering requirements and transitional standards when certain uses are adjacent to a Residential Zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180216)
    Provo City Code has a section that identifies zones where impound yards can be and are subject to a conditional use permit (CUP). Some of the zones allow impound yards as a Permitted Use which is conflicting with 14.34.350. A number of existing impound yards in the City have been identified. Many existing impound yards are adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone. The applicant has expressed concerns with the existing buffering requirements of impound yards near residential zones. Staff finds that there are inconsistencies in the zoning code related to impound yards and where they are Permitted or Conditional Uses. Staff has proposed ordinance revisions to clean up the inconsistencies and move towards having them be permitted uses subject to meeting established criteria that the Planning Commission feels would mitigate impacts related to these land uses. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was previously heard at the November 27 Council meeting. I'm interested to see what adjustments were made to the proposal. A motion to substitute an alternative version of the Exhibit with additional standards for such uses adjacent to residential zones was approved 7:0. The implied motion was approved as amended 7:0. A few tweaks were made regarding the need for masonry walls near boundaries with residential zones, and with respect to design corridors. Most of the changes were to clean up the code with had conflicting provisions in different areas. I feel this strikes a good balance.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify requirements regarding customers that generate electric energy. Citywide impact. (18-103)
    This is item 2 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. See my report in the work meeting (agenda item 2).



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 27 November 2018

After a couple months of "lighter" meetings, our agendas seem to be getting heavier again. Could it be holiday weight gain?

I usually try to highlight a few of the most impactful or interesting items. We don't have any blockbusters, but several could have a significant lasting impact. Should Provo have its own disaster recovery fund? The State thinks so and has incentivized us to do so. What about large-scale private energy production that interfaces with our grid? What can we/should we do about rising housing costs? Impact fees play into the housing affordability conversation. Some advocate for low/no impact fees, but does that doesn't make the related costs go away, it only shifts the costs to others. Finally, there is a newly added item that would raise the bar for homes eligible for home-purchasing assistance.

These should be some of the more interesting meetings to watch.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 27, 2018

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 the proposed Council Meeting schedule for 2019
   The Council is required to publish a schedule for the next calendar year. A draft has been put together for Council to consider. The schedule looks good to me...but as Vice-Chair I've already seen it and have given my input. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. We aim for the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month, but about a third of the time we shift to the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays because of scheduling conflicts.
2. A presentation on the option for municipalities to create a local government disaster fund
   A presenter from the Division of Emergency Management under the Utah Department of Public Safety will speak to the Council about the option in State Code for municipalities to create a local government disaster fund. The State wants local governments to take on a more active role in preparing for disaster, rather than just assuming that the state or federal government will swoop in a fix everything. They have created an incentive to encourage local governments to create their own disaster fund. From one perspective, this is a horrible time for Provo City to try to set aside even more money. After decades of letting tax and utility revenue dwindle, we have been playing catch up to responsibly maintain our services and infrastructure. From another perspective, though, if we can't set money aside for disaster recovery in the midst of this period of lauded prosperity, we never will. I've very torn on this. Presentation only. As the presenter said, there are major problems with this program, no one is using it, and they will be fixing it in the coming legislative session. They asked for our feedback and ideas on how it should work. We will give our suggestions and then will look into the topic again once the changes have been made.
3. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify that unauthorized energy generation shall not receive any rate or bill credits
   Provo City Code prohibits self-generation of electric energy unless the generation is licensed by the Provo City Energy Department. Additionally, licenses for electric self-generation by industrial and commercial customers have only recently been authorized by the code. Because self-generation without a license it prohibited, such generation would not qualify for any rate or bill credits. However, with rising interest in self-generation by residential, commercial, and industrial customers, the Energy Department believes it would be prudent to add language to the code explicitly stating that entities that engage in unauthorized self-generation shall not receive any rate or bill credits. This seems a bit unnecessary, but clarity is good. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. There were several points of clean up, but really no substantive changes.
4. A presentation about the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce
   Councilor David Harding asked Rona Rahlf, President of the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce, to present to the Council about the Chamber's efforts on affordable housing. She will also provide an overview of their Valley Visioning initiative. Initially this started with me reaching out to our local Chamber about the Housing Resolution that the Salt Lake Chamber was asking us to pass. From this discussion, I learned that the Utah Valley Chamber has a number of initiatives of their own that they are pursuing to help address the threat of rising housing costs to our business environment. Presentation only. The UVCC supports the resolution proposed by the Salt Lake Chamber, but is in the initial stages of a major effort to help communities around the Valley to coordinate our efforts to address housing affordability. Here is a link to a survey to help inform the process.
5. A presentation on the Timp Kiwanis Bounous Park (TKP) LWCF Final Environmental Assessment Review (17-036)
   This update covers the last of the public comments received as part of the process. I believe this will be the final draft which, if approved, will be submitted to the federal government for their review. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. The Parks and Rec Department pushed back on suggestions that the Environmental Assessment was rushed or sloppy. They reviewed the purpose and scope of the document and how it fulfilled them.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



6. A discussion on a request for amendments to Section 15.03.020(3) to update 2018 standards to 2019 standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180348)
   Each year, the Provo Public Works Departments updates utility construction standards, street design standards and other development standards. Staff is particularly interested in those standards which have a visible impact on the built environment and clearly fall within the purview of the Planning Commission. The standards under consideration for revision are generally related to underground utility construction. The current street design standards are not proposed for revision because an update to the Transportation Master Plan is currently in progress. These street design standards will come before the Planning Commission as part of the review of the Transportation Master Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is a routine update. I didn't see anything consequential, but I'll ask this question during the presentation. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. As we transition to a new document handling system, the actual changes were not included in our document packet. We eventually (in the evening meeting) continued the item until next time so that we can review the proposal.
7. A discussion on a request for an Ordinance Text amendment to Section 14.34.350 Recreational Vehicle Storage and Towing Impound Yards to increase buffering requirements when adjacent to a Residential Zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180216)
   Provo City Code has a section that identifies zones where impound yards can be and are subject to a conditional use permit (CUP). Some of the zones allow impound yards as a Permitted Use which is conflicting with 14.34.350. A number of existing impound yards in the City have been identified. Many existing impound yards are adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone. The applicant has expressed concerns with the existing buffering requirements of impound yards near residential zones. Staff finds that there are inconsistencies in the zoning code related to impound yards and where they are Permitted or Conditional Uses. Staff has proposed ordinance revisions to clean up the inconsistencies and move towards having them be permitted uses subject to meeting established criteria that the Planning Commission feels would mitigate impacts related to these land uses. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support removing inconsistencies from the Code. I support adequate buffering between recreational vehicle storage and towing impound yards and residential areas. I am a little wary of moving these uses from conditional to permitted. I'll need to feel comfortable that the "established criteria" will indeed properly "mitigate impacts related to these land uses". Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. What is the right width of the buffer? What is the right fencing?
8. A discussion on a request for a zone change from R1.10 to Low Density Residential (LDR) for 2.94 acres of land, located at approximately 1080 E 1320 S to facilitate a 44-unit townhome development. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180102)
   The applicants obtained the property in the last year with the intent to build a townhome project. The request comes with a concept of a 44 unit townhome project. The proposal has met all zoning requirements of the LDR zone and has satisfied the majority of city department issues. The remaining concern is that the roads to access the site are not completed at this time. This will have to be done before the final project plan is approved, and will be tied to that application. The adopted Southeast Neighborhoods Plan appendix of the General Plan shows the subject property as part of the LDR zone in the Future Land Use map. The LDR zone allows for townhomes with a maximum density of 15 units per acre. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm interested in this item, and looking forward to learning more and possibly asking questions during the presentation. I believe this is in the area that we signaled an interest in developments targetting our young single professional population. I'm curious if the developer is tailoring the proposal to better fit the needs and desires of this group. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. This is next to, but not a part of the area we highlighted for developers as a possible place for YSP-focused development. It fits with the neighborhood plan and the vision for this area.



Business



9. A report on the impact fee review process (18-099)
   There is a clear cost of growth in any community. A city's infrastructure provides a given quality of life in a community, and growth can put strain on that infrastructure. Water, electricity, sewer, street systems, and more must be modified to address the needs resulting from new growth. State law provides a mechanism, called impact fees, to collect funds to offset the City's cost of accommodating that growth. Provo City's ordinance provides that impact fees and capital facilities plans should be reviewed on five year intervals. The Impact Fee Review Committee (comprised of Council members, City staff, developers, and community members) has been meeting since early 2017 and working with a consulting firm to bring forward updated recommendations. The results of their work was presented at an Impact Fee Open House on November 8, 2018. Council will be holding public hearings at the November 27 and December 11 meetings and will then vote on the adoption of updated impact fees. Current impact fees are listed on the consolidated fee schedule. I think it is wise to account for the public costs that come with growth. I think it is reasonable to expect the people creating the costs to pay for the costs. I also think that there may be reasons why we wouldn't want to charge the full amount. This should be a good discussion. Presentation only. A presentation on this item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. The public hearing on this item will be held at the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. The proposal is for a 60% increase in overall impact fees. These fees haven't been adjusted since 2004 and at the time they were set below cost. I want to commend the committee that spent more than a year on this effort, and included stakeholders from across the spectrum. No one likes increasing fees, but the consensus is that these fees are fair and accurately reflect the costs created by development.



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. None requested.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• A presentation of the Employee of the Month for November 2018
• A presentation on the establishment of the proposed impact fees (18-099)
  There is a clear cost of growth in any community. A city's infrastructure provides a given quality of life in a community, and growth can put strain on that infrastructure. Water, electricity, sewer, street systems, and more must be modified to address the needs resulting from new growth. State law provides a mechanism, called impact fees, to collect funds to offset the City's cost of accommodating that growth. Provo City's ordinance provides that impact fees and capital facilities plans should be reviewed on five year intervals. The Impact Fee Review Committee (comprised of Council members, City staff, developers, and community members) has been meeting since early 2017 and working with a consulting firm to bring forward updated recommendations. The results of their work was presented at an Impact Fee Open House on November 8, 2018. Council will be holding public hearings at the November 27 and December 11 meetings and will then vote on the adoption of updated impact fees. Current impact fees are listed on the consolidated fee schedule. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I think it is wise to account for the public costs that come with growth. I think it is reasonable to expect the people creating the costs to pay for the costs. I also think that there may be reasons why we wouldn't want to charge the full amount. This should be a good discussion."
  
  The actual vote won't take place until 11 December at the earliest. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled to be heard and voted on in the following meeting (11 Dec). The one thing I asked them to look into was tiering the price for residential water based on connection size. This would lower the impact fees on 3/4" connections and raise the fees on 1" connections. The current proposal is for them to be the same.

Public Comment

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




Action Agenda



1. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to Public Works standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180348)
   This is item 6 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "This is a routine update. I didn't see anything consequential, but I'll ask this question during the presentation." A motion to place this item on the consent agenda for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. The continuation will allow us to review the documents before voting.
2. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.94 acres generally located at 1080 E 1320 S, from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180102)
   The is item 8 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I'm interested in this item, and looking forward to learning more and possibly asking questions during the presentation. I believe this is in the area that we signaled an interest in developments targetting our young single professional population. I'm curious if the developer is tailoring the proposal to better fit the needs and desires of this group." Approved 7:0. The proposal fits the vision and plan.
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase buffering requirements and transitional standards when certain uses are adjacent to a Residential Zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180216)
   This is item 7 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I support removing inconsistencies from the Code. I support adequate buffering between recreational vehicle storage and towing impound yards and residential areas. I am a little wary of moving these uses from conditional to permitted. I'll need to feel comfortable that the 'established criteria' will indeed properly 'mitigate impacts related to these land uses'." Continued to the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. Community development is reworking the width of the buffer area.
4. A resolution approving an Environmental Assessment regarding a proposed Land and Water Conversion Fund property conversion (17-036)
   This is item 5 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I believe this will be the final draft which, if approved, will be submitted to the federal government for their review." Approved 7:0. I've written so much on this item already. It has been a painfully long process so far. I do support the neighborhood being made whole overall.
5. A resolution approving a substantial amendment to the program year 2018 annual action plan, fourth year update to the five-year consolidation plan, as amended (18-100)
   HOME Program regulations state that Participating Jurisdictions (PJ) utilizing HOME funds for activities assisting homebuyer and/or homeowner rehabilitation must use the Affordable Homeownership Limits (AHL) provided annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Alternatively the regulations allow the PJ to determine its own AHL by conducting a market analysis. City staff has conducted an analysis of the current local market in Utah County shows that the AHL provided by HUD, do not reflect the trends of the local market, limiting the choice of available homes for low-income families and individuals. The City, as Lead Entity of the HOME Consortium, is proposing to adopt its own AHL which reflect an increase of about 29% over the HUD limits. Increasing the AHL will enlarge the pool of available homes to low-income families and individuals and allow the PJ and partner non-profit agencies to better assist them. This is the first that I've heard about this item. I'm surprised that it is not on the Work Meeting. Well, I guess we'll see what it is about. The support documents are helpful. Approved 7:0. This won't change who qualifies, but what houses these programs can be used on. The use of this program has dropped over the past couple of years as fewer and fewer homes qualified for the programs.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 13 November 2018

In my estimation, the most important items on tomorrow's agendas are development related. During the Work Meeting we'll be discussing possible changes to the zoning for "The Mix". In the evening meeting we will be considering the adoption of the Future Land Use Map for Southwest Provo.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, November 13, 2018

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. Approval of minutes
   Approved by unanimous consent.
2. A report from Downtown Provo, Inc. (18-027)
   A semiannual update from Downtown Provo Inc. on their current initiatives and successes, as well as updates on any programs or projects. I haven't heard as much from DPI in the last little bit, so it'll be good to get up to speed on their current efforts. Presentation only. There is a lot of energy and excitement in Downtown Provo. DPI is in good hands.
3. A presentation on OnBase, the Council's new agenda management software (18-095)
   As part of the City's Provo360 project, the Council made a transition from SIRE to OnBase Agenda Management as the primary software to manage Council agendas. The system introduces many new features which will help Council staff and other city staff to work more effectively to conduct city and Council business. The presentation will cover how the public and Council will use the available resources to access Council agendas and materials. I've been looking forward to this day for a couple years now. I'm trying not to have unreasonable expectations, but I am hopeful that this transition will provide the public with all the information they need to follow the business of the Council in a way that is easy to access and navigate.
   
   Go to documents.provo.org to get started. Presentation only. So far the public interface seems fairly comparable to the old SIRE site. I believe the links to documents won't change with every minor update, so that is definitely an improvement. I would really love to get links to the presentation slides that are used in the meetings. I'm not sure that will happen, though.
4. A discussion on a proposal related to Neighborhood Housing Services of Provo and homes purchased with CDBG/HOME Dollars (18-076)
   Several years ago, Neighborhood Housing Services (now known as NeighborWorks) purchased and rehabbed several houses using funds borrowed from the Redevelopment Agency that originally came from the Federal Government. Based on the type and amount of funding used, the homes were required to remain affordable for specific durations of time. Recently, there has been interest in forgiving some of the loans. The RDA is concerned that should some of these houses no longer remain affordable, the Federal Government (HUD) could demand the funds back from Provo that were originally used to rehab them. The RDA is seeking guidance from the Council about whether to forgive the write-off amounts on all of the loans, the write-off amounts on some of the loans, and/or whether to establish a covenant between NeighborWorks and Provo City that would ensure the houses in question stay affordable. If I understand this correctly, this has been an unresolved issue for many years now. I am hopeful that we will have everyone and all the information together in the same room so that we can get to the bottom of it and can resolve it once and for all.
   
   Questions I have include: Was the original expectation that the loans would be paid back in full? Are there ways to ensure the units remain "affordable" during the required period? How is it in the public's best interest to forgive these loans? A motion to request RDA staff to make amendments to the contracts and documents to implement the changes discussed and to bring to a future Council Meeting was approved 7:0. The discussion was very helpful. While some of the rehabilitation projects may pay for themselves, that is not the main purpose of doing the project. As an example, shortly before I moved to Provo a dozen years ago, a house in my neighborhood was rehabbed by NHS. It had been the source of much crime and many calls to police. Meth had been cooked there. No private investor would buy and rehab the place because it was a money-losing proposition. But unless it was rehabbed, it would remain a source of problems and blight. It was very costly for Provo's emergency services to continually respond and had a significant negative impact on the quality of life of all the neighbors. The house was rehabbed and sold. The sales price may not have covered the cost to purchase and rehab the house, when the larger City and societal costs are considered, this was a valuable project.
   
   We discussed the importance of good communication, which has been improving, and for clear expectations when entering into these projects. I am optimistic that these problems are behind us and that we will be able to move forward with a valuable partner.
5. An update on the Interim Transportation Oriented Development (ITOD) zone as it relates to The Mix (18-097)
   This update is about potential changes to the ITOD zone in the area of The Mix development. (Supplemental Background from the Staff Report:) "The property owners of The Mix had planned to build retail and office space but have decided to build retail and housing instead due to a surplus of office space on the market. They will need to rezone the area from SC-3 to SC-2 and ITOD. The retail portion would remain about the same. The developer would more than likely bring a residential partner into the project to do that portion."
   
   There is high market demand for housing. We say we want more housing. We say we want housing that is more affordable for those living in Provo. We say we want density were density makes sense. We also value our role as being a business hub and office space is important for that. But if there is a current surplus of office space, I don't see much downside to allowing higher density residential into this space (assuming it is done well). A motion to request staff to prepare a rezone from SC3 to SC2 and ITOD and to begin the process of moving this forward for approval was approved 7:0. I think everyone on the Council was comfortable with a larger housing component in this project. For the reasons I explained in the preview, housing here is a positive. The lingering concern is if our ITOD zoning will ensure that we get a quality product that will enhance the area. We took a look at the three residential developments that have been built under our ITOD standards. Architecturally, I would say one is beautiful, one is adequate, and one leaves a lot to be desired.
6. A comprehensive update on items from Economic Development (18-094)
   The Council regularly asks the Economic Development Department to give updates. I'm interested to see what they are working on. Presentation only. I wish I could link to the presentation slides. I'll update this report if I get it. There is so much that has recently happened, is currently happening, and is in the works for Provo. We are in prosperous times.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



7. A discussion on an ordinance to amend the Zone Map Classification of approximately 5.89 acres of real property, generally located at 1437 East 2300 North from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential Agricultural (RA). Rock Canyon Neighborhood (PLRZ20180239)
   The property owner purchased the land in 2007 in order to create single family lots at a later date. The applicant has now applied for the necessary zone change and preliminary subdivision that would enable the property to be subdivided into three single-family lots. The property is currently a mostly vacant parcel that contains a storage building for the US Forest Service. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was previously heard by the Council, but sent back for review by the Planning Commission because of some changes regarding animal rights. Planning Commission recommended approval. My only concern was regarding the impact of agricultural animal rights on the nearby residential neighbors. If the applicant is willing to agree to animal rights equivalent to standard residential zones, then my concern is resolved. Presentation only. We just went over the changes in the proposal since it was last heard. The rezone was voted on and granted in the later meeting.



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.

Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• A presentation of the Employee of the Month for October 2018

Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

1. An ordinance to amend the General Plan Map regarding land west of the I-15 freeway and south of the Provo River. Lakewood, Sunset, Provo Bay, and Fort Utah Neighborhoods. (PLGPA20180225)
   On a vote of 5:2, the Planning Commission recommended that the Municipal Council adopt the General Plan Land Use Map for the Southwest Area Neighborhood Plan, based on the efforts made by the Committee, neighbors, and staff to address the future development of the area. The Planning Commission recommended that the RES designation on the Map be defined as four units per acre as a net acreage calculation, rather than a gross acreage calculation. This recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the West Side Advisory Committee. This had a first hearing at the October 23 Council meeting and was continued. There are many fine details that will need to be worked out in the future, and various concerns in the community about different aspects, but overall I think this proposal represents a good balance of many competing interests. Approved 7:0. This represents a major step forward in the planning for future development in west Provo. There is sadness and anxiety among many who love what this area once was, but even they recommended this map for approval, feeling that it was a good balance between the many competing interests in the area.
2. A resolution approving an Environmental Assessment and a proposed Land and Water Conversion Fund property conversion. (17-036)
   The public comment period was reopened for the draft environmental assessment for the Timp-Kiwanis Bounous property conversion. This is an update on the public comments received and a request to move it forward in the process. This will be a good transaction for the people of Provo. A motion to include the public comments given in this meeting in the Environmental Assessment and close the period for giving public comments, and that the resulting draft be brought back to the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. If we approve the Environmental Assessment next time, then the proposal will be submitted to the Federal Government for approval. If we get the green light, then we can try to negotiate the sale and then determine if it should be sold.
3. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 5.89 acres located at 1437 E 2300 N from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential Agricultural (RA). Rock Canyon neighborhood. (PLRZ20180239)
   This is item 7 on the work meeting agenda. As I said above, "My only concern was regarding the impact of agricultural animal rights on the nearby residential neighbors. If the applicant is willing to agree to animal rights equivalent to standard residential zones, then my concern is resolved." Approved 7:0. The applicant was willing and also waived any enhanced commerical rights that come with the RA zone.
4. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED** An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 15.03.020(3) to update 2018 standards to 2019 standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180348)
   This item was continued by the Planning Commission.
5. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN** An ordinance amending Section 14.06.020 to redefine "Family" to include four unrelated individuals. Citywide application. (PLOTA20180169)
   This item was withdrawn from the Planning Commission agenda.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 23 October 2018

In my opinion, the "Future Land Use Map" for southwest Provo is the most important item on the agendas.

I hope that everyone with lingering questions or concerns about the proposed bond will come to the town hall meeting at 7:30pm tomorrow. It's been a while so let me thank the Council Staff for putting together the agenda and the background information on each of the items. Only the "preview" sections (and later the "report") sections are my own writing.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

3:30 PM, Tuesday, October 23, 2018

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

Business



1. A discussion regarding public comments received from the Draft Environmental Assessment and an update on the Final Environmental Assessment preparation for the proposed Land and Water Conversion Fund property conversion (17-036)
   The public comment period was reopened for the draft environmental assessment for the Timp-Kiwanis Bounous property conversion. This is an update on the public comments received. It will be formally heard at the November 13 Council meeting. I still support this transaction. I believe we are nearing the point that we can submit our application for property conversion to the Federal Government. Then we wait some months to hear back from them whether or not we can proceed. Presentation only. Updates were made to address the public comments that were received. The updates were substantive enough to justify reopening the public comment period again. It will close in a couple of days. We will hear this again on the 13th of November and will be asked to approve its submission to the National Parks Service for their approval.
2. A discussion on the proposed language for the resolution supporting housing affordability in Utah County (18-070)
   Council reviewed an affordable housing resolution from the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce at the September 25 work meeting and wanted to consider additional revisions. This item was continued from two weeks ago when we first heard it in a Council Meeting. A new concern was raised about the commitment to "ensure." In the interim, the resolution was reworded to a commitment to "work towards the goal." A motion to remove “and fees” from line 40 of the draft resolution was approved 6:0, with Councilor Kay Van Buren excused. Yet again we left our afternoon work meeting feeling good that we had a consensus on this item. Read the report in the evening meeting to see how it unraveled yet again.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



3. A discussion for a request to rezone portions of the East Bay Golf Course from Regional Shopping Center (SC3) and Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) designations to Public Facilities (PF). East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180323)
   As a result of the negotiations with the developer of the Norda School of Osteopathic Medicine and the Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions to purchase a portion of the East Bay Golf Course, and at the request of the Provo Municipal Council, it was determined to be in the best interest of Provo City and the East Bay Golf Course that the golf course should be located in its entirety in the Public Facility Zone. This application essentially resolves current land use/zoning conflicts and results in the entirety of the current golf course and future expansion area being in the Public Facilities Zone. This is a good way to signal to developers and the broader community that we are not interested in redeveloping the rest of the Golf Course. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the October 23, 2018 Council Meeting. I found it interesting that the developers may request a "South Campus" zone for part of their property.
4. A discussion on a request to amend the General Plan Map regarding land west of the I-15 Freeway and south of the Provo River. Lakewood, Sunset, Provo Bay and Fort Utah neighborhoods. (PLGPA20180225)
   On a vote of 5:2, the Planning Commission recommended that the Municipal Council adopt the General Plan Land Use Map for the Southwest Area Neighborhood Plan, based on the efforts made by the Committee, neighbors, and staff to address the future development of the area. The Planning Commission recommended that the RES designation on the Map be defined as four units per acre as a net acreage calculation, rather than a gross acreage calculation. This recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the West Side Advisory Committee. This is the major milestone in a years-long process to plan for future development in west/southwest Provo. I feel that the committee has struck a good balance between the many competing interests for the area. I have requested some discussion on the Provo Trail corridor as well as the status of irrigation water at the meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the October 23, 2018 Council Meeting. The proposed map represents years of work and a good balance between many competing interests.
   
   In response to my questions, Public Works staff explained that less of the City's water is leased for irrigation water in west Provo, but that it hasn't been a policy decision or because of action by the City. Farmers have to get the water to their fields and they do that through canals (and canal co-ops to manage them). As some farmers have quit farming, the maintenance of these canals falls to fewer and fewer participants, until they are abandoned. Then farmers stop leasing water. The City acknowledged that some fields had been effectively watered by the high water table, which has dropped with the building of Lakeview Parkway and pumping of City wells inside what is now effectively a dike.
   
   I felt that everyone on the Council and in the Administration were in agreement that the Provo River Trail corridor needs to be preserved, particularly west of Lakeshore Drive.



Closed Meeting

5. 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. None requested.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action. Minutes Approved by unanimous consent.



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

1. A resolution adding the house generally located at 395 E 100 N to the Provo Landmarks Register. Joaquin Neighborhood. (PLLN20180305)
   Scott and Whitney Christopherson have nominated the house located at 395 East 100 North to the Provo Landmarks Register. All nominations to the register are reviewed by the Landmarks Commission for compliance with the requirements and standards set forth in Provo Code 16.05.020. Landmarks Commission recommended approval. As I said after the Work Meeting discussion, this is "a good addition to the Register." Approved 7:0. I'm grateful for the sense of history and heritage that our historic homes and buildings continue to provide to our community. I am also grateful for the individuals who voluntarily accept the additional regulations that come with historical listings. This truly is a great addition to the Register.
2. An ordinance to amend the General Plan Map regarding land west of the I-15 freeway and south of the Provo River. Lakewood, Sunset, Provo Bay, and Fort Utah Neighborhoods. (PLGPA20180225)
   This is item 4 on the work meeting agenda. This is the first hearing and possible formal vote after having discussed it in the work meeting. I wonder if we'll pass this on the first hearing, or if it'll come back next time. Here is what I said in the preview during the earlier Work Meeting, "This is the major milestone in a years-long process to plan for future development in west/southwest Provo. I feel that the committee has struck a good balance between the many competing interests for the area. I have requested some discussion on the Provo Trail corridor as well as the status of irrigation water at the meeting." Continued to the next Council meeting for a second hearing. It was a good discussion with many of the key stakeholders who help develop the map. There are some people requesting tweaks to the map. It was continued again to give the public a little more time to review and comment on the draft that we are considering for adoption.
3. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 77.5 acres of real property, generally located at 1860 South East Bay Boulevard, from Regional Shopping Center (SC3) and Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) to Public Facilities (PF). East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180323)
   This is item 3 on the work meeting agenda. This is the first hearing and possible formal vote after having discussed it in the work meeting. From my earlier preview, "This is a good way to signal to developers and the broader community that we are not interested in redeveloping the rest of the Golf Course." Approved 7:0.
4. A resolution regarding a pledge of support and to identify measures to be taken to address Utah's housing needs across the State and in Provo City. (18-070)
   Council reviewed an affordable housing resolution from the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce at the September 25 work meeting and made some revisions. From my earlier preview, "This item was continued from two weeks ago when we first heard it in a Council Meeting. A new concern was raised about the commitment to "ensure." In the interim, the resolution was reworded to a commitment to "work towards the goal"." A motion to continue this item to the November 13, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. I'd say the biggest concern I heard was that if we pass this resolution, there may be times in the future that people will use it against the Council to demand changes that are in their own interests but not the general interest of the residents of the City.
   
   I agreed to take it back again to see if we can find a consensus that will last through both meetings.
5. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED** McClean Properties LLC requests Ordinance Text Amendments to Sections 14.50 and 14.37.100 to allow for new Project Redevelopment Option Zone to permit six additional dwelling units on the property, and to allow for a one-way drive aisle for parallel parking spaces for property located at 385 N 500 W in the Residential Conservation Zone. Dixon Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180292)
   This item was continued by the Planning Commission.
6. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED** McClean Properties LLC requests a zone change for approximately one acre of property located at the 385 N 500 W from Residential Conservation to a Project Redevelopment Option Zone to allow for six additional dwelling units. Dixon neighborhood. (PLRZ20180293)
   This item was continued by the Planning Commission.
7. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN** The Provo City Economic Development Department requests a Code Amendment to Section 14.20.160(7) to increase the amount of residential development in a Regional Shopping Center Zone (SC3) Zone from 20% to 33%. Citywide application. (PLOTA20180231)
   This item was withdrawn from the Planning Commission agenda.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Town Hall on the Provo Police, Fire, and City Facilities Bond

7:30 PM, Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Town Hall Agenda



• Welcome by Council Chair
• A presentation on the bond, what it does, and what happens if it passes or fails
• A presentation/speaker for the bond
• A presentation/speaker against the bond
• Question and answer period
From what I've seen, there is general praise for how the Town Hall meeting turned out, by proponents and opponents of the bond alike. Watch it.


Adjournment

The Provo Police, Fire, and City Facilities Bond

"Shall Provo City, Utah be authorized to issue General Obligation Bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $69,000,000 million and to mature in no more than 20 years from the date or dates of issuance of such bonds for the purpose of paying all or a portion of the costs of: acquiring, constructing, and equipping in the downtown area a new police and fire headquarters, emergency dispatch center, and city hall; acquiring, constructing, and equipping a new fire station to replace the fire station on Canyon Road; and providing for related improvements in Provo City; and, to the extent necessary, for providing moneys for the refunding of general obligation bonds?"



This fall, Provo City is asking you to allow us to borrow up to $69 million dollars to replace our police, fire, and dispatch centers, city hall and city offices, and Firestation #2. This would raise property taxes on the median home in Provo by about $10 per month. This is not something that we did lightly and comes at the end of a very involved process of determining our needs and the most responsible way to meet them.

I invite everyone to learn about the bond and to make up their own minds whether or not it is justified. Here are some ways that you can do this:

• The City has assembled the factual information onto one website: VoteProvo.com. 
• The Mayor is in the middle of a listening tour, with the next stop at Dixon Middle School on October 17th at 7pm.
• The Council is hosting a Town Hall focused on the bond question. October 23rd at 7:30pm in the Council Chambers.
• Tours are being provided of the Police Station downtown and the Fire Station on Canyon road. The next tours are on October 16th from 6-8pm, and October 20th from 9-11am.

After reviewing all of the material and going on the tour, I am reluctantly yet resolutely supporting the bond. Asking for money from our citizens is never easy, but the needs are such that not acting would be irresponsible.

If, after reviewing the information, you agree that this is a necessary and critical need for Provo, I invite you to help out in the following ways.

• Add your name to the list of supporters.
• Request a lawn sign.
• Volunteer to knock doors in your area to raise awareness.*
• Donate to the campaign informing voters and encouraging them to vote yes.
• Encourage others to get informed.

*It's late notice but tomorrow, 13 October, 9am at the Pioneer Park Farmer's Market, we'll be starting a blitz to raise as much awareness as possible about the bond. Join us for the big kickoff.

Council Meetings - 9 October 2018

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, October 9, 2018

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. Brian Jones from Legal will update the Council on what is included in the current easement draft, and then Doug Robins from Parks and Recreation will present an alternative proposal. Afterwards, Erik Davis and Ginger Woolley from the Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance will respond. We've been working on this one for a while. RCPA raised half of the money to purchase this land. The easement will allow flexibility in the management of the site through the Rock Canyon Master Plan. It has been a very collaborative process that I support. Presentation only. This is a status update on the work between Parks and Rec and the RCPA. The proposed conservation easement is pretty much done and the final version will be presented to us around the end of the year along with the Rock Canyon Trail Head Master Plan.
2. A discussion on a Council Intent Statement regarding the City Center location and the use of land in the downtown Provo area (18-093)
   This is meant to convey Council’s intent regarding the proposed new facilities. The proposed statement makes clear the Council's intent regarding the location of the new facilities that would be funded by the bond (same site, unless something substantially better comes along) and the potential for new businesses and attractions on Center Street once the old facilities are removed. A motion to approve the intent statement as amended in the meeting was approved 7:0. After a couple tweaks the Mayor joined the Council in unanimously approving this Intent Statement.
3. A presentation on recommendations regarding a budget committee (18-075)
   Since January 2018, the Council’s Budget and Audit Committee has not met, partially because members of the Council have been satisfied with budget explanations from the Administration, and partially because the Mayor’s Office, as the fulfillment of a campaign promise, put together an ad hoc committee to make recommendations regarding the composition and function of a citizens’ budget committee. In other words, there was a committee in place whose purpose was to research and discuss budget committees. This is a continuation of the discussion from the September 25 Council work meeting. This committee recommended creating a new committee to improve our budgeting process and bring it more in line with best practices. It didn't say too much about a potential committee that would help the Council review tentative budgets as they are proposed each year. The process we used to pass the budget this last year had several improvements over past years. If the administration wants to follow this committee's recommendation, I will support their wishes. As for our review, I'm content to see if continuing to make small incremental improvements will meet our needs of oversight. An amended motion to eliminate the budget subcommittee and resort to the Council as a committee of the whole regarding budget issues was approved 7:0. The consensus was that between the department presentations throughout the spring and our capable policy analysts, the Council has a robust procedure to evaluate the proposed budget. We still have the ability to create a committee in times of need. I encouraged, and the Administration agreed, to carefully consider the Ad Hoc committees recommendations, as they were directed towards the process of creating the budget.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



4. A discussion on a zone change request for the property generally located at 1776 S. Buckley Lane from Public Facilities (PF) to R1.6PD to facilitate a 33-lot subdivision. Provost South neighborhood. (PLRZ20180224)
   This is the site of the former Utah County Jail. Provo City sought development proposals for the site and Gardner and Associates is currently under contract to purchase the site and construct 33 single-family homes. Planning Commission recommended approval. There is some irony that neighbors who have lamented the loss of young children in their schools and neighborhood due to some demographic shifts in the area are supporting a large development that would be restricted to the 55+ crowd.
   I'm not a fan of segregating people in housing, so I'm not wild about this idea. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the October 9, 2018 Council Meeting. I was able to voice my discomfort about the age restrictions, well aware that my displeasure wouldn't make a difference.
5. A discussion to add a home, located at 395 East 100 North, to the Provo Landmarks Register. Joaquin Neighborhood. (PLLN20180305)
   Scott and Whitney Christopherson have nominated the house located at 395 E 100 N to the Provo Landmarks Register I'm looking forward to the presentation, but, from all I've read, this looks like a great addition to the Register. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the October 23, 2018 Council Meeting. Definitely a good addition to the Register.



Closed Meeting

6. 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. None held.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A recognition of Wayne Parker for his 15 years of service at the City of Provo and 35 years of service in city management.
   Presentation only. In the absence of our chair, Gary Winterton, it was my pleasure to present this recognition. Mr. Parker has been a tremendous asset to Provo and her residents over this past decade and a half.
2. A presentation of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards for the Energy Department's building.
   Presentation only. LEED Gold is not an easy achievement. The building was award-winning, on-time, and under-budget. It sets a good standard for all future city facilities.



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 the presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.
Ben Stanley, one of two people from the County to be nominated for the new UTA Board of Trustees, introduced himself and talked about his vision for public transit in the State. He previously wrote an Op-Ed in the Herald.



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. Items on the consent agenda were approved 6:0 with Gary Winterton excused.
3. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council appointing temporary Justice Court Judges for the Provo City Justice Court. (18-089)
   State law allows for the appointment of temporary justice court judges when the regularly appointed justice court judge is absent or disqualified, including when he has recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. The statute requires that the governing body appoint temporary justice court judges. This is basically approving of the list of substitutes that can be called on when Judge Romney is unavailable.
4. A resolution reappointing Bob Conner as Provo City Constable to serve a four-year term. (18-091)
   According to amendments made to Utah Code 17-25a-1, it is a requirement that the term for appointing a constable be four years. The current constable’s term has expired and a new appointment needs to be made. The constable’s duties include security at the Provo Justice Court, transporting inmates to and from the County jail, and serving warrants. The Constable Nominating Commission recommends reappointing Bob Conner to continue in his role as constable. As I reported earlier, "This has worked very well for us in the past, and the Justice Court is happy to continue the relationship."



Action Agenda

5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 5.89 acres of real property, generally located at 1437 East 2300 North from Public Facilities (PF) to Agricultural 1 (A1.1). Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180239)
   The property owner purchased the land in 2007 in order to create single family lots at a later date. The applicant has now applied for the necessary zone change and preliminary subdivision that would enable the property to be subdivided into three single-family lots. The property is currently a mostly vacant parcel that contains a storage building for the US Forest Service. Planning Commission recommended approval. The question here is about animal rights. The plan for this location is residential, but the applicant has requested an agricultural zoning. There has been some concern about the compatibility of the animal rights that goes along with the agricultural zone with the surrounding residential properties. The discussions have been ongoing, so it'll be interesting to see where they are at tomorrow. A motion to continue this item to a future meeting to allow time for a proposal from the property owner was approved 6:0 with Gary Winterton excused. All feedback received from the surrounding neighbors was that they opposed having horses on the property (even though many love horses). It was clear that the Council was not going to proceed with the rezone under the requested conditions. The continuation allows the applicant to decide how and if they want to proceed.
6. A resolution appointing Hannah Salzl as Policy Analyst for the Provo City Municipal Council office. (18-092)
   Some positions within the Council office require a resolution as part of the hiring process. The Council relies heavily on the policy analysts to gather the information we need to do our jobs. Approved 6:0 with Gary Winterton excused. Ms. Salzl will make a great addition to our office.
7. A resolution regarding a pledge of support and to identify measures to be taken to address Utah's housing needs across the State and in Provo City. (18-070)
   Council reviewed an affordable housing resolution from the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce at the September 25 work meeting and made some revisions. Housing affordability is one of the most pressing issues that we face. We appreciate and support the Chamber's efforts to educate and build consensus across communities. After a few tweaks to the proposed resolution, I have no reservations about passing it. A motion to continue this item to a future meeting was approved 5:1 with Kay Van Buren opposed and Gary Winterton excused. I would have preferred to complete all the word-smithing during our work meeting two weeks prior. We had scheduled a 45-minute discussion, but only took like 10 because no one raised any objections and only spoke in support. But before the final vote some good suggestions were made for improvements, so we'll take it back for some more refining and will try again in a couple weeks.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 7.37 acres of real property, generally located at 1776 South Buckley Lane from Public Facilities (PF) to One-Family Residential Planned Development (R1.6PD). Provost South Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180224)
   This is item 4 on the work meeting agenda. This is the first hearing and possible formal vote after having discussed it in the work meeting. From my preview above, "There is some irony that neighbors who have lamented the loss of young children in their schools and neighborhood due to some demographic shifts in the area are supporting a large development that would be restricted to the 55+ crowd.
   "I'm not a fan of segregating people in housing, so I'm not wild about this idea." Approved 6:0 with Gary Winterton excused. This was presented by one of the Vice-Chairs from the Provost South Neighborhood. She responded directly to some of what I wrote in my preview, as well as to some of the comments I made earlier in the day. I'm glad that these previews and reports are at least occasionally read. I want to be as transparent as possible and make it as easy as possible to be informed and engaged.



Adjournment