Council Meetings - 23 January 2018

***Update: Other than the bumbled discussion of the Welcome Home resolution (Council Meeting Item #3), Tuesday's meetings went well. There is so much to do!***

There are a number of important decisions and discussions happening tomorrow: Committee assignments, Timp-Kiwanis (Bounous) Park update, East Center Street Design Corridor, Electronic Signs, a new department, and a call to action.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, January 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.

Approval of Minutes

• December 5, 2017 Work Meeting
• January 3, 2018 Work Meeting
  Approved by unanimous consent.

Business

0. A follow-up on the Priorities and Outcomes discussion (18-004)
   Council met on January 16 to discuss priorities and outcomes to focus on in the next 1-2 years. Preliminary suggestions were brought forward and the discussion will continue in this meeting and at a January 30 meeting. We will be diving back into this in a retreat next week, but this is an opportunity to remind councilors of the assignments and answer any questions that have come up. This item was replaced by one proposing to adjust Council committee structure. (See next Item)
1. A discussion regarding a proposed amendment to Provo City Code Section 2.50.110 adjusting Council Committee structure. (18-019)
   A motion to refer this item back to the Rules Committee for further discussion and direct that the Administration is part of the conversation before a proposal is returned to the Council was Approved 7:0. The Council has a number of committees, but they don't all function the same way. In some committees, counsilors are the only voting members. Other committees have voting members selected from the public. In some cases, who exactly are voting members isn't clear and may change over time. This proposal was designed to bring clarity to the issue by having the Council determine what type of committee we are establishing at the time of its creation. This proposal came out of the Rules Committee of which I'm a part.
   
   The Administration strongly objected to this proposal. The Rules Committee hadn't anticipated any concerns to what we considered an internal Council issue so we didn't reach out beforehand to get their opinion. I moved to return the item the Rules Committee to address their concern and see if we can find a mutually agreeable proposal.
2. A discussion on Council assignments for boards, committees, etc. (18-002)
   Each year the Council must set and approve the assignments for Council members working on various boards and committees. The chair and vice chair for each committee is also set at this time. Last year I served in RDA leadership, on the Rules, Development Approval Process Review, and West Side Planning committees, and on the Library Board. I feel that much of the impact that I had was through committee work.
   
   It will be interesting to see how the committee assignments play out. A motion to keep the mission statement and purpose of the Zoning Committee unchanged, with David Knecht as Chair and George Handley as Vice-Chair was Approved 7:0.
   
   A motion to name George Stewart as Chair of the Budget Committee with Kay Van Buren as Vice-Chair was Approved 7:0.
   
   A motion to approve all board appointments and liaisons as outlined in the document titled “2018 Council Assignments to Boards and Commissions” was Approved 7:0. We started out by accepting by motion each committee assignment, but then decided to accept the rest at the end of the discussion. Here is a spreadsheet that shows all the committee assignments from last year and this year. This is from my own records, but I believe it is complete and accurate.
   
   I received all of the assignments that I was hoping for. There were a few more that I am very interested in, but I didn't want to over-extend myself too much.
3. A discussion on a proposed franchise agreement with Comcast(18-010)
   This is a renewal of Comcast’s franchise agreement to be able to operate in Provo City. This franchise agreement is a little more interesting than most since Comcast is an important service provider for so many of our residents. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. My main concern, after perusing the contract, was that we don't tie our hands in a way that will give us less flexibility to work out the best arrangement possible with Google once the seven-year agreement expires. During the discussion, I received the answers I needed. (See my related report for item 2 in the later meeting)
4. A discussion regarding the proposed joint resolution in support of the LeRay McAllister fund. (18-009)
   This is a proposed joint resolution of the Mayor and Council to request that the Utah State Legislature sustain budgetary support of the LeRay McAllister Fund, created to help permanently protect Utah’s agricultural lands. This is being requested by the Sustainability Committee. This was also part of the West Side Development Policies that were developed and recommended by the West Side Planning Committee and adopted by the Council. A motion to strike “counties, and cities” from line 32 and revise that sentence to read “we call upon the state,” and to strike the last sentence of lines 42-43 was Approved 7:0. This motion approved the version of the resolution which would be presented as the implied motion for the item which was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. I appreciate the suggestions that Councilor Van Buren made. He brought up a couple details in the proposed resolution that made me think, "now why didn't I think of that?" I'm grateful that there are seven of us serving on the Council.
5. A discussion regarding the Timp-Kiwanis (Bounous) Park Land Water Conservation Fund conversion and the surplus of the property. (18-018)
   The purpose of this proposal is to bring the public and City Council up to speed on the Land and Water Conservation Fund conversion and proposed surplus of the Timp-Kiwanis Park property owned by Provo City. Over the past year the Parks and Recreation Department has been working with Clegg Consult and the State to remove the LWCF designation on Timp-Kiwanis Park. Upon approval of this conversion, Parks and Recreation proposes that the property is surplussed and sold to Provo School District. Provo School District needs the property to meet Title IX requirements. The proceeds of the purchase are required to be used to purchase land only. The School District and the City have been working on this for a long time. It was a very hot topic for a while, but has gone quiet for a few months. It'll be good to get an update on where they are in the process. A motion to move this item to the first available Council Meeting for a public hearing on a surplus of the property was Approved 7:0. I'm impressed at how closely the School District has listened to the concerns of the surrounding neighbors, and how much they've been willing to accommodate their concerns.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission



6. A discussion on a request for an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code sections related to Residential Design Standards. Citywide impact. (17-0024OA)
   Planning staff observed some inconsistencies in residential design standards and prepared this amendment to clarify design regulations. This doesn't appear to be a major change, but my reading of the proposal shows that there are some substantive changes. I look forward to the presentation. They usually make it a lot clearer. I'll have a few questions if it doesn't. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. These are not minor changes, but seem consistent with our overall goals, and are steps in the right direction. Community Development agreed to reach out to various builders who are active in these types of developments for feedback. We agreed to continue this item for two weeks in the later meeting (item 8).
7. A discussion on a request for an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code to add East Center Street as a Design Corridor. Joaquin, Maeser, Foothills, and Provost Neighborhoods. (17-0020OA)
   The four neighborhoods bordering East Center Street have collaborated with Planning staff to develop a draft design corridor ordinance for East Center Street from 200 East to the roundabout at Seven Peaks Boulevard. The additional design regulations would protect the unique character of the street. This item has been pushed along through the hard work of numerous residents from the Joaquin and Maeser neighborhoods. The City had called for a design corridor to be created, but hadn't gotten around to it. It looks pretty good to me, but, like the last item, I look forward to the presentation. I noticed a couple discrepancies between the proposed design corridor regulations and the Residential Design Standards proposed in the previous item. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it will be good to hear the reasoning behind it. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. The differences between the designs standards in this and the preceding item can be attributed to the difference of scope. The last one is for higher density housing and mixed use projects, while these standards are for all structures along East Center Street. (See also the report for item 9 in the later meeting)



Business



8. A presentation of the Utah Transit Agency BRT Economic Study results. (18-017)
   Utah Transit Authority (UTA) commissioned an economic analysis to study the economic impact completion of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will have on property values along the corridor. Current land values and projected land values have been examined. The purpose of the study is to aid cities plan for economic development and redevelopment. Presentation only. This one generated some buzz on Facebook. Here are the slides from the presentation, and here is the video. This is a report on a study into the economic impact of the BRT project. Not surprisingly, it focused on the economic impact. It didn't focus on non-economic aspects of the project. Overall, if found that the project will have only a small impact, mostly in the area directly around the stops. More granularly, it found the biggest impacts around the Provo Intermodal Hub and near 300 S and University Ave, and was very unlikely to have an impact on the stretch that wraps around BYU.
9. The Provo City Council Office requests ordinance amendments to Sections 6.06 and 14.38 for signage within the City. Citywide impact. (17-0019OA)
   Council had a first hearing of this item at the January 9 meeting and decided to continue it. This is a request to amend sections of the City Code to allow reasonable adjustments to the sign ordinance in relation to electronic messaging. The proposed amendments involve two separate Chapters of the Ordinance.
   
   The first is an addition to Title 6 “Business Licenses and Regulations, which adds Section 6.06 dealing with Use of Electronic Signs. It requires that any business operating an on-premises electronic display sign, comply with the requirements of the Chapter in order to qualify for a business license. This change provides a significant change in the enforcement capabilities of staff in regards to electronic sign violations.
   
   The second is to Chapter 14.38 “Signs and Outdoor Advertising” as contained in Title “Zoning.” Those changes principally relate to allowance for changing messages on electronic signs. These message changes are classified as low-churn and high-churn electronic signs, with generally greater restrictions on high-churn signs. This item was on the agenda last time. Here is what I wrote afterward, "I asked for some visuals for how it would impact Center Street between the freeway and 500 W. I may ask that this stretch be removed from the 'high churn' areas. Also, I'm not sure that 8 seconds is long enough in the 'high churn' area. I realize that it is the national standard, but what's good enough for interstate freeways may not be good enough for our city." Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. Community Development did not have the visuals that I had asked for. I still wonder if Center Street, between the Freeway and State Street should be removed from the high churn area. During our discussion, it was explained to me that the proposed ordinance didn't change what is allowed along this stretch. Businesses already can put in electronic signs that can change every 8 seconds. It's just that none have yet. I agreed to move forward with this proposal and then bring a new ordinance proposal forward if, after study, I feel that a change needs to be made.
   
   At the very end of the discussion, Community Development asked me what exactly I was looking for in the requested visuals. In restating what I was wanting, and how it might be accomplished, the Director said something that raised a concern that I hadn't thought of. The discussion was continued in the later meeting. (See item 7 below).



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, January 23, 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 presentation of the Popular Annual Financial Report (18-006)
   A high level summary of select portions of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the PAFR is like a “City Financial Report for Dummies.” Ever wonder where Provo City gets its money? Ever wonder how we spend it? If so, the PAFR is for you. Presentation only. Provo's RAFRs are recognized in the industry as great examples of making the financial information of the City available and digestible for the public.



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. No comments were given



Consent Agenda

Items on the consent agenda are generally routine in nature, have been fully vetted in other meetings, or do not need additional discussion. They are approved together as one item.


2. An ordinance renewing Comcast’s nonexclusive franchise to operate a cable system in Provo City, Utah.. (18-010)
   This is a renewal of Comcast’s franchise agreement to be able to operate in Provo City. As I wrote above, "This franchise agreement is a little more interesting than most since Comcast is an important service provider for so many of our residents." Approved 7:0. This one also generated some buzz on Facebook. Some people worried that this meant that Comcast would be taking over the former iProvo fiber network. This franchise agreement is simply a renewal of the long standing arrangement that allows Comcast to access the public right-of-way for things like utility poles.



Action Agenda



3. A joint resolution calling upon citizens to continue the tradition of welcoming and caring for others. (18-012)
   This is a proposed joint resolution of the Mayor and Council to go along with Provo City’s tagline of “Welcome Home.” Here is the wording:
   
   Provo is recognized as a great place to live, work, learn, and play. The secret to our success is the people who call this city home. We take seriously our individual responsibility as well as our responsibility to our community. We come from a long tradition of taking care of ourselves and caring for others.
   
   The Mayor and City Council call on the people of Provo to continue this tradition regardless of what may be happening elsewhere. Let us resolve to always be warm and welcoming; to be kind and caring in our interactions; to strive to understand each other; to be civil in public discourse; to communicate in a manner that is mutually respectful; and to protect against the persecution or alienation of people because of differences — real or perceived.
   
   To all people of goodwill, we say: “Welcome Home.” It's good to finally be acting on this. Provo is a special place, and it is the people that make it that way. People make Provo. Let's be the best we can be. A motion to continue the item indefinitely was Approved 4:3, with Council members George Handley, David Sewell, and David Harding opposed. I deeply regret the way this item played out. Two weeks ago, when we discussed this in the Work Meeting, we had unanimous (and mostly enthusiastic) support on the Council and from the Mayor. Just before we began our meetings a concern was raised. Without any time to work through the concern or consider how to handle it, some wanted to continue the item. I believe everyone was amenable to continuing it, but some thought it would be done after discussing the concern at the meeting and others thought it would be continued before the discussion. There was a lot of confusion and the discussion became very awkward.
   
   I am very hopeful that we will be able to work through the concern and will be able to pass this very positive resolution.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to create the Department of Customer Service (18-016)
   The Administration proposes changing the existing Customer Service Division of the Mayor’s Office as a fully functioning and independent department within the administrative departmental framework. This was discussed in the January 9, 2018, work meeting and announced by Mayor Kaufusi in her State of the City address. I support this. As I said previously, "In the past, functions have been brought under the Mayor's Office when they need extra attention, and then are spun out after they are fully better established. I think this is the case with our Customer Service division and the move to 311." Approved 7:0. This is a positive step for Provo.
5. A resolution adding the structure generally located at 957 East Center Street to the Provo Landmarks Register. Foothills Neighborhood. (17-0001LMN)
   This is a request to place a house on the Provo Landmarks Register. Provo City Landmarks Commission recommended approval. We heard this in the Work Meeting two weeks ago. This is what I said, "Both Staff and the Landmarks Commission recommended approval. They found that it meets all three of the primary inclusion criteria and four of the six secondary criteria. I'm personally grateful for individuals who are willing to register their historically significant homes and buildings for preservation." Approved 7:0.
6. A joint resolution of the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council urging sustained support and increases in the Annual State Budget allocated to the LeRay McAllister fund for the preservation of farms and open land in the State of Utah. (18-009)
   This is a proposed joint resolution of the Mayor and Council to request that the Utah State Legislature sustain budgetary support of the LeRay McAllister Fund, created to help permanently protect Utah’s agricultural lands. This is being requested by the Sustainability Committee. From agenda Item #4 in the earlier meeting, "This was also part of the West Side Development Policies that were developed and recommended by the West Side Planning Committee and adopted by the Council." Approved as amended 7:0. See the report for item 4 in the earlier meeting
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding signage. Citywide Impact. (17-0019OA,)
   Council had a first hearing of this item at the January 9 meeting and decided to continue it. This is a request to amend sections of the City Code to allow reasonable adjustments to the sign ordinance in relation to electronic messaging. The proposed amendments involve two separate Chapters of the Ordinance.
   
   The first is an addition to Title 6 “Business Licenses and Regulations, which adds Section 6.06 dealing with Use of Electronic Signs. It requires that any business operating an on-premises electronic display sign, comply with the requirements of the Chapter in order to qualify for a business license. This change provides a significant change in the enforcement capabilities of staff in regards to electronic sign violations.
   
   The second is to Chapter 14.38 “Signs and Outdoor Advertising” as contained in Title “Zoning.” Those changes principally relate to allowance for changing messages on electronic signs. These message changes are classified as low-churn and high-churn electronic signs, with generally greater restrictions on high-churn signs. From agenda item #9 in the earlier meeting, "This item was on the agenda last time. Here is what I wrote afterward, "I asked for some visuals for how it would impact Center Street between the freeway and 500 W. I may ask that this stretch be removed from the 'high churn' areas. Also, I'm not sure that 8 seconds is long enough in the 'high churn' area. I realize that it is the national standard, but what's good enough for interstate freeways may not be good enough for our city."" Approved 7:0. (This is actually incorrect. See my report) I actually voted against this. The proposal allows an electronic sign anywhere a backlit sign is allowed. The idea is that if electronic signs are kept static (changing no more than three times a day) they function like backlit signs but are easier to change (without getting out a ladder). I fully support this. In some commercial corridors in the City, the signs can change every 8 seconds. I am less comfortable with this, but it is already allowed in these corridors. The concern that was generated at the end of the discussion in the Work Meeting is that each sign, including secondary signs, can be converted to an electronic sign, and each electronic sign, for businesses in these 'high-churn' corridors, could be changing every 8 seconds. I don't know how likely this is, but I brought up Google Street View and counted 6 signs on one Center Street business.
   
   The general consensus on the Council seemed to be that we need to take a broad look at signs in our community, but that we can do this after passing this ordinance. I was torn about which way to vote, but my concern about multiple 'high-churn' signs per business was too great and I voted against it.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clean up inconsistencies and correct references to the Residential Design Standards. City-Wide Impact. 17-0024OA
   Planning staff observed some inconsistencies in residential design standards and prepared this amendment to clarify design regulations. From agenda item #6 in the earlier meeting, "This doesn't appear to be a major change, but my reading of the proposal shows that there are some substantive changes. I look forward to the presentation. They usually make it a lot clearer. I'll have a few questions if it doesn't." This item was continued for a second hearing at the request of a Council member. We'll return to this in two weeks after reaching out to multiple builders for comment
9. A discussion on a request for an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code to add East Center Street as a Design Corridor. Joaquin, Maeser, Foothills, and Provost Neighborhoods. 17-0020OA
   The four neighborhoods bordering East Center Street have collaborated with Planning staff to develop a draft design corridor ordinance for East Center Street from 200 East to the roundabout at Seven Peaks Boulevard. The additional design regulations would protect the unique character of the street. From agenda item #7 in the earlier meeting, "This item has been pushed along through the hard work of numerous residents from the Joaquin and Maeser neighborhoods. The City had called for a design corridor to be created, but hadn't gotten around to it. It looks pretty good to me, but, like the last item, I look forward to the presentation. I noticed a couple discrepancies between the proposed design corridor regulations and the Residential Design Standards proposed in the previous item. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it will be good to hear the reasoning behind it." Approved 7:0. In the meeting I remarked that this a great example of concerned residents seeing a problem and organizing themselves and working with the City Government to address the problem.



Adjournment