Council Meetings - 20 February 2018

***Update: I posted the time stamps in the Results of each item to make it easy to watch the item. Here are the slides that were presented in the Work Meeting. It has slides for the Wastewater, Stormwater, and Rental Law items.***

Provo has had a lot of good news lately. We are continually being recognized nationally for everything from our volunteerism to our quality of life and from our economy to how well the City is managed. I get the feeling that we'll be getting some bad news on Tuesday and that we will have some difficult and painful decisions to make. Over the decades, Provo City has done a great job keeping our taxes, fees, and rates very low. But we haven't always been great at properly saving for and reinvesting in our infrastructure. We've been playing catch up for a few years now, but I don't think we can see the light at the end of the tunnel yet.

In addition to the infrastructure items, I imagine that there will be interest in the Kiwanis-Bounous Park item and the Rental Contract Disclosure item.

As always, thanks to the stellar Council Staff who coordinate and assemble the agendas and documents, and prepare the background information. Really only the Previews and Reports (once they are written) are my own work.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, February 20, 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 motion to reschedule the March 20th meetings
   Precinct caucuses for upcoming elections have been scheduled for the evening of March 20. In order to allow participation in these caucus meetings, it is being proposed that the March 20 Council meetings be moved to another date. Council staff recommend moving the meetings to March 27. I know that the precinct caucuses for the Republican Party are being held that night. I couldn't find the dates for the United Utah Party caucuses or the Democratic Party caucuses. Do any other parties hold caucuses in our County? (Video) A motion to reschedule the March 20, 2018 Work & Council Meetings for March 27, 2018 was approved 6:0, with Council member George Stewart excused. It looks like the local caucuses for the Republican, United Utah, and Democratic parties will all be held that night.
2. A presentation and discussion on wastewater planning (17-131)
   A decision needs to be made regarding Provo City’s wastewater infrastructure, specifically regarding the wastewater treatment plant. The Public Works Department will present information regarding potential issues relative to the treatment plant and development on the west side of Provo. Our current wastewater treatment facility is half-century old and maintenance costs are increasing. New regulations are coming which would be very expensive to meet at our current facility. Public Works is exploring various options for the next half-century. We need to wisely select which path we'll take. None of the paths will easy or cheap. (Video) Presentation only. The options were more refined and I think we are narrowing in on the right choices. If we build a new plant, one option is to bond for the whole thing now. The financing costs are high, but we lock in the low rates which takes out much of the uncertainty. Also, the hard decision is made now and we don't have to just trust that future Councils will follow through with the plan. The other option is to build it in phases. Bonding will still be needed, but in smaller amounts and for shorter periods (5 years vs. 30 years). This option has greater risk, but likely avoids significant financing costs. There is also the option to do a major renovation of the current treatment plant. The upfront costs are lower, but some of the basic infrastructure is not feasible to replace on the fly. If we decide to go with a new plant, we will need to select from a few possible sites. Anyway we go, we'll need to double our sewer rates. It will be painful. Instead of thinking of as needing to pay high rates in the future, see the perspective that we've been underpaying for decades.
3. A presentation regarding a proposed appropriation to fund the demolition and construction of Block 90 (R.C. Willey Block) (17-106)
   Council, acting as the Redevelopment Governing Board, previously authorized funds for demolition of the former R.C. Willey building and others on Block 90 to facilitate construction of a temporary parking lot. This appropriation is to cover additional unexpected expenses. Why were the costs of asbestos abatement not anticipated? Were other bids received? Did the other bids anticipate asbestos removal? Did the accepted bid win because it didn't include these costs? Are we legally responsible to chip in the extra money? Are we morally obligated? What if we vote to not appropriate the extra funds? (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. I can't say I fully understood how this all transpired even after the presentation and lots of questions. Only part of the job was bid out. The other was handled by our partner in the project. If we don't appropriate the additional money then we will be left with a large hole.
4. A presentation regarding a proposed appropriation to the Housing Consortium Fund to pay for approved self-help projects. (18-025)
   In December of 2016, Rural Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), dba Self-Help Homes returned $150,000 to the RDA as a refund from funds that had been disbursed for the purchase of land in Salem to begin the Nebo Gateway housing project. The receipted funds were processed as a loan repayment instead of a refund, thereby reducing the budgeted amount available to continue the project. On February 5th, RHDC submitted a request reimbursement of $150,000 for improvements costs which alerted us to the funds not being available in the budget. These funds will be appropriated from available revenue received in the current fiscal year.
   
   After a reconciliation of department records with HUD systems, we identified $78,670 in HOME funds reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) that were allocated to RHDC and available in HUD systems, but have not been appropriated in the City budget. The funds were awarded for the construction of a new single-family housing project, which is now underway. These funds will be appropriated as budget authority against HUD’s line of credit for HOME projects. This sounds like a simple book-keeping issue, but I hope to understand it better after the presentation. (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. Yes, this is pretty much to fix some bookkeeping mistakes.
5. A discussion on revisions to the rental law ordinance (17-104)
   In November 2017, Council adopted an ordinance about rental law. In January 2018, the Council revisited the ordinance after several revisions were proposed. Since then, the Zoning Committee has considered the proposed revisions and would now like to recommend an updated version of the ordinance for the Council’s consideration. Some of the revisions include:
   • Changing the effective date from March 1st, 2018 to August 1st, 2018.
   • Changing the title from “Contract Required” to “Rental Disclosure Required.”
   • Adding “or lessor’s agent,” throughout in order to handle the property manager issue.
   • Adding an affirmative defense if the lessee has requested the disclosure in writing but has not been provided it.
   • Adding “acknowledging the lease of the property” to (4)(d).
   • Adding back language regarding “reasonable cause” to subsection (5).
   It sounds like the committee has made some good progress. I know this is a tough issue. I still think there needs to be a way to link the landlord to the current tenants in the case of a sublease where the original lessee is unavailable (out of town). And, because disclosures should be made before contracts are signed and not afterwards, I think the penalty should be a civil fine, imposed as soon as the violation is found (and repeated until the disclosures are properly signed), rather the stardard penalty and process that is used for zoning violations. The standard process is for violators to be given 30 days to come into compliance, if they do, there is no penalty. If this is the process that we use for the disclosure requirements, I fear that few of the disclosures will be given at the time of the contract and people will just wait until Zoning Enforcement contacts them. (Video) Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the March 6, 2018 Council Meeting. I explained that I am willing to support this proposal, even though I feel that more improvements can be made. I requested that we consider these additional changes if we find that ordinance isn't having as much of an impact as we would like once it is implemented and we gain some experience with it.
6. A discussion on the Storm Water Master Plan and Design (18-026)
   The Storm Water Division operates and maintains Provo City’s storm drains year-round to minimize flooding and water pollution within the city. The Storm Water Master Plan provides an overview of the various state and federal regulations that must be met and outlines the City’s efforts to plan, develop, implement, and enforce a plan that will satisfy those requirements. No associated documents were submitted so I'm not sure what the purpose of the discussion will be. (Video) Presentation only.
   
   Public Works gave us a hands-on demonstration about how the volume and rate of stormwater affects the capacity of our system.
   
   Most cities design their stormwater infrastructure so that it can handle a "10-year" storm without flooding. Provo designed ours for a "25-year" storm. Sounds good, right? But we also used a rain profile that is different than other cities, perhaps because we were one of the earliest to adopt these standards and they got to learn from our mistakes. Their profiles show a sharper spike while ours is more distributed across time. The end result is that our 25-year storm system has less capacity than their 10-year storm capacity. Public Works is still early in the process, but they will likely be proposing that we create more retension basins to protect from flooding when our stormwater system is overwhelmed.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

7. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the number of residential units needed for recreational amenities in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (16-00023OA)
   This is a request to change the ordinance in 14.21A.160 that requires new developments that have more than five units to provide ten percent of the gross floor area as amenity space. This would change the minimum of five units to twenty units for this requirement to apply. Other zones for low-density, medium-density, and high-density residential, as well as the Campus Mixed Use zone all have similar amenity space requirements, but only for projects with 20 or more units. Only DT1 and DT2 require it for projects with 5 or more units. I'm interested in the rationale for these requirements at all, and why the threshold of 5 was selected in the first place.
   
   Staff are recommending approval. No report of action for the Planning Commission was included, so I don't know their recommendation. (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. I think this is a good idea, but I still want to understand why this regulation was originally put into place and why our thinking has changed. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
8. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow Dental Laboratories as a permitted use in the Community Commercial (SC2) Zone. Citywide impact. (18-0001OA)
   This is a request to add dental labs as a permitted use in this zone. The current code allows for dental offices are listed, but not dental labs. The Standard Land Use (SLU) code 6515 normally consists of dental labs and drug rehabilitation. Since drug rehabilitation is not one of the uses being requested, it will be listed as SLU 6515 - Dental Lab Only. What are dental labs? Do they sell product or services from the lab? If not, why would we want them in a Community Shopping Center zone? (And why is dental labs and drug rehabilitation lumped into the same "land use" code?)
   
   Staff are recommending approval. No report of action for the Planning Commission was included, so I don't know their recommendation. (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. Dental labs are what they sound like, they make dental prostheses. They don't sell to the public. They would not add vibrancy to shopping centers, but compared to a vacancy, it could keep a shopping center viable. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
9. A presentation on the Redevelopment and Economic Development Departments and potential budget requests. (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. At a Priorities Retreat in January, the Council identified retail in Provo as an area they would like to tackle. The Economic Development and Redevelopment Departments in Provo City will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. We are receiving presentations for a number of departments (and offices and agencies). This presentation may be a little different because of our newly selected "Big Goal" of retail. (Video) Presentation only. They are not asking for additional money this year, but things may come up that they will ask for our support on. We did bring up the issue that we have been giving a lot of tax-increment incentives lately. The School District limits how much they will participate in property-tax-increment incentives to 5% of what they collect. We are pretty much at that limit. The last couple of deals have been sales-tax-increment in which only the City participates.



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, February 20, 2018

Opening Ceremony

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

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. Presentation of the Employee of the Month for February 2018
(Video) Presentation only. Congrats to Karyn Walker of our Legal Department!


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.
(Video)



Consent Agenda

2. A resolution appropriating $284,295 in the New Development Fund for funding demolition and construction of Block 90 (R.C. Willey Block) and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (17-106)
   Council, acting as the Redevelopment Governing Board, previously authorized funds for demolition of the former R.C. Willey building and others on Block 90 to facilitate construction of a temporary parking lot. This appropriation is to cover additional unexpected expenses. Depending on how the discussion goes in the earlier Work Meeting (item 3), I may be requesting that this item be removed from the consent agenda. See my preview for item 3 above. (Video) Approved 7:0. See the report for item 3 in the earlier meeting.
3. A resolution appropriating $228,670 in the Housing Consortium Fund for funding self-help projects applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-025)
   In December of 2016, Rural Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), dba Self-Help Homes returned $150,000 to the RDA as a refund from funds that had been disbursed for the purchase of land in Salem to begin the Nebo Gateway housing project. The receipted funds were processed as a loan repayment instead of a refund, thereby reducing the budgeted amount available to continue the project. On February 5th, RHDC submitted a request for reimbursement of $150,000 for improvements costs which alerted us to the funds not being available in the budget. These funds will be appropriated from available revenue received in the current fiscal year.
   
   After a reconciliation of department records with HUD systems, we identified $78,670 in HOME funds reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) that were allocated to RHDC and available in HUD systems, but have not been appropriated in the City budget. The funds were awarded for the construction of a new single-family housing project, which is now underway. These funds will be appropriated as budget authority against HUD’s line of credit for HOME projects. See my preview for item 4 in the earlier meeting. (Video) Approved 7:0. See the report for item 4 in the earlier meeting.



Action Agenda

4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City Corporation to negotiate and execute a Sales Tax Increment Reimbursement Agreement between Provo City Corporation and Woodside Capital Partners, LLC. (18-021)
   This was presented at the Council’s work meeting on February 6, 2018.
   
   The Economic Development Department is proposing a potential sales tax increment agreement with the new owners of the East Bay Shopping Center in order to provide retail incentives to offset certain costs in attracting new tenants to the shopping center. The purpose is to work with the new property owners of the East Bay Shopping Center to create an incentive agreement to backfill historically vacant storefronts.
   
   The model for this incentive would be similar to that used at the Parkway Village located on University Parkway. The agreement would allow the owners to recoup up to half of their out-of-pocket expenses and then share additional tax revenue if additional time remains on the term of the agreement, up to actual costs. We heard this in our Work Meeting on February 6th. Please read my preview and report on item four here. (Video) Approved 7:0. I chose to vote for this, but made it clear that I'm concerned about how much we are giving away and that we should be very judicious in what projects we incentivize.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 6.18 (Fire Alarm Regulations) and Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule to prevent over-frequency of false alarms. (17-133)
   This is the result of an in-depth review of Fire Department fees and it was recommended that a False Alarm Fee be added in order to strengthen enforcement of fire alarm regulations and prevent the frequent occurrence of false alarms. There is also a proposed amendment to Provo City Code regarding fire alarms that details the circumstances where a fee would be charged as well as the regulations regarding alarms. We last discussed this issue in the 5 December 2017 Work Meeting. Please read my preview on item three here. (Video) Continued by unanimous consent. The Fire Department was not ready to present.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the number of residential units needed for recreational amenities in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (16-00023OA)
   This is a request to change the ordinance in 14.21A.160 that requires new developments that have more than five units to provide ten percent of the gross floor area as amenity space. This would change the minimum of five units to twenty units for this requirement to apply. See my preview for item 7 in the earlier meeting. (Video) Continued due to Council Rules. Council rules say that we can only vote on a land use item during its first public Council meeting if the Planning Commission's Report of Action is published by 6pm on the previous Thursday. This didn't happen. See my report for item 7 in the earlier meeting.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow Dental Laboratories as a permitted use in the Community Commercial (SC2) Zone. Citywide impact. (18-0001OA)
   This is a request to add dental labs as a permitted use in this zone. The current code allows for dental offices are listed, but not dental labs. The Standard Land Use (SLU) code 6515 normally consists of dental labs and drug rehabilitation. Since drug rehabilitation is not one of the uses being requested, it will be listed as SLU 6515 - Dental Lab Only. See my report for item 8 in the ealier meeting. (Video) Continued due to Council Rules. Council rules say that we can only vote on a land use item during its first public Council meeting if the Planning Commission's Report of Action is published by 6pm on the previous Thursday. This didn't happen. See my report for item 8 in the earlier meeting.
8. A resolution to place approximately 12.33 acres of real property, generally located at 3278 North Timpview Drive on the surplus property list. Edgemont Neighborhood. (18-018)
   This resolution is to place the Timp-Kiwanis Park property on the surplus property list to allow it to be sold.
   
   Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) experts have indicated that this property is being increasingly used for Provo School District operations, which is inconsistent with LWCF requirements. 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, who needs the property to meet Title IX requirements. A compromise has been negotiated which would allow for the change of ownership while working with the community to maintain the property as a community park. The proceeds of the purchase are required to be used to purchase land only. This one has been in the works for a while. Sometimes I wonder if everything that can be said has already been said. Here is my preview of the item from 364 days ago (21 Feb 2017): "Bounous Park is adjacent to Timpview High. The school would like to purchase it in order to build a softball field on campus. Many neighbors are concerned about losing access to a nearby park. The School District has worked with neighbors to try to address their concerns and to find a solution that works for both the school and the community. One complicating factor is that the park property was originally purchased with LWCF monies. This presents significant hurdles before it can be sold. The money generated by the sale must be used to create a new park." (Video) Approved 5:2, with Council members David Sewell and David Knecht opposed. This was a three-hour item. With the School District's commitment to maintain community access to the property, the acceleration of the development of a new park just a couple blocks to the north, and a completely new park that must be created as part of the conversion process, this deal has the potential to be a true "win-win" situation. The biggest concern of the residents is whether the School District will live up to their commitment. I live across the street from an elementary school and a block away from a middle school. I know that the District isn't always the best neighbor. I ascribe this to their primary focus of providing the best education they can to our students -- community relations is sometimes an afterthought. I understand the neighbors' concern. One difference is that there will be an interlocal agreement between the District and the City. I am hopeful that not only will this improve their performance at this location, but all across the City.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 6 February 2018

The agenda for the Work Meeting seems pretty heavy, whereas the Council Meeting agenda is fairly light. Sometimes agenda items come with all of the material that will be presented already in the document packet, sometimes there are no associated documents. Most items being heard tomorrow only have a descriptive paragraph, which makes it harder to give a meaningful preview.

I'd say that the most interesting items are the two requests for less-common tax-increment incentives, the proposed apartment complex on South State Street, and the proposed changes to the major home occupation regulations.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, February 6, 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. An introduction of Karen Larsen, recommended Director of Customer Service (18-020)
   An ordinance was passed on January 23, 2018, creating the Department of Customer Service. It was previously a division under the Mayor’s office. Mayor Kaufusi is recommending the appointment of the current division head, Karen Larsen, as the department director. Consent of the Council is required for these appointments. This will be voted on in the regular Council meeting. Ms. Larsen has worked for Provo City for almost 30 years and aptly lead the Customer Service Division through its transition to the point now where it is ready to become its own department. I have full confidence in her. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 6, 2018 Council Meeting She'll (continue to) do great.
2. A presentation on the Provo Library and potential budget requests (18-005)
   The Council has asked to hear from various departments and have them share information on likely budget requests in advance of receiving the tentative Provo City budget in May. I served on the Library Board last year so I'm more aware of their challenges and budgetary needs than I would be otherwise. If you haven't checked out the library and the many services and events that they offer, you are missing out. Presentation only. The Library is funded through a separate property tax levy that residents voted for decades ago. The tax rate has fallen ever since then, due to (basically) inflation. They are still making the budget work and are properly maintaining their assets. The Library is an important part of our community and serves us well.
3. A presentation on the Administrative Services Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   The Council has asked to hear from various departments and have them share information on likely budget requests in advance of receiving the tentative Provo City budget in May. This is similar to the last item, except I am not as familiar with what is going on in this department. Presentation only. I was impressed by the breadth that this department covers: Information Services, Justice Court, Recorder's Office, Facilities, Human Resouces, and Finance. I hope I didn't miss anything.
4. A discussion on a post-performance sales tax increment agreement at East Bay Shopping Center (18-021)
   The Economic Development Department will present an overview and proposal for a potential sales tax increment agreement with the new owners of the East Bay Shopping Center in order to provide retail incentives to offset certain costs in attracting new tenants to the shopping center. The new owners will be present at the meeting to answer questions. The purpose is to work with the new property owners of the East Bay Shopping Center to create an incentive agreement to backfill historically vacant storefronts. The model for this incentive would be similar to that used at the Parkway Village located on University Parkway. The agreement would allow the owners to recoup up to half of their out-of-pocket expenses and then share additional tax revenue if additional time remains on the term of the agreement, up to actual costs. Development and commercial incentives can be powerful tools to create aspects of the community that wouldn't otherwise exist. The right incentive can create the right development or bring in the right anchor which draws in additional development or offerings. Done right, incentives return far more value than they cost. Done poorly, they simply increase the profit margin for a project that was going to happen anyway or displace another project that would have happened, that may have been more viable. The difficulty is in differentiating between the two. Savvy business leaders will make the case for why incentives are needed, whether they are or not.
   
   We approved an incentive for Parkway Village a year ago to help offset the cost of moving a building that allowed for a reconfiguration of an intersection. I believe we were told that the Provo used last used a sales-tax increment incentive 20 years ago. Now we are considering one a year later. Is this really a tool that we should be using more often? Presentation only. This item will be heard at the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. As I mentioned in the preview, I think tax increment incentives should not be over-used. We need to use them surgically to get the maximum impact at the lowest cost to the City coffers. When I tried to probe during the meeting I was reminded (rightly so because I had forgotten) that months ago the Council broadly signaled that we would be open to this kind of financing to attract the right kind of anchor to the area.
   During the discussion, an industry player stated that they operate up and down the Wasatch Front and estimated that 85% of localities are offering these types of incentives. He said this to assure the Council that we are not considering something that is unusual. But this is one of the main reasons that I struggle with the almost ubiquitous use of tax-increment incentives. If no one offers them then everyone is level in this regard. If 15% of cities offer them then those 15% really stand out and attract a lot of interest. If 85% offer them then it is the remaining 15% that stand out (and not in a good way) and are ignored by developers and brokers. If 100% of localities offer incentives then nobody stands out and everyone is level again. So what's the difference between 0% and 100%? Millions and millions of dollars are diverted away from the services cities provide.
   
   I absolutely believe that tax-increment financing is an important tool, when used correctly. I don't believe Provo is at fault in the over-use and zero-sum arms race with other communities. We are just starting to play catch up. Instead of trying to outcompete other cities by giving away more than they can, I hope we can be part of the solution in restoring some sanity in this area by cooperating with surrounding communities.
5. A discussion on aid to Construction Transfer Funding (18-024)
   An existing Provo Power customer is interested in expanding a data center in Provo, but requires a substantial amount of work to build up the electrical system for their needs. Because of the positive impact to the electrical system and the added economic benefit, the staff of the Energy Department has met with the City Administration to discuss options to encourage businesses such as this in the city but also address the possible budget risk. The solution recommended by the Energy Board is to fund upgrade costs for potential high load factor commercial customers by utilizing the 11% general fund revenue transfer. The contract would be for specific customers with a high load factor and paid under a specific term length. Speaking of obscure incentives, I've never heard of using a tax-increment incentive against the portion of our utility fees that are directed into our General Fund. The argument is that if this local business expands here, they will be using significantly more energy, which will help fund our General Fund, so it is in Provo's best interest to offer the incentive to ensure they expand here, rather than relocating somewhere else. On the flipside, if they are going to expand here with or without the incentive, then offering the incentive is just giving away future fees that would have helped fund the City. Presentation only. I feel better about this one because it targets a very particular type of customer who has a utilization rate over 90% (which means they cost the system little compared to the amount that they pay for their electricity). The incentive will be repaid in under two years.
6. A discussion on tools for implementing Westside Policies (17-129)
   At the November 14th Work Meeting, the Council discussed potential Westside policies (TDRs, open-space subdivisions, PDRs, etc.) The takeaway from that meeting was that Community Development staff would develop a land use map and survey farmland-owners on the west side, with the intent to return for a presentation at a Work Meeting in February. Gary McGinn and Bill Peperone have indicated that they are prepared to report their findings to the Council. I am looking forward to the findings, stay tuned for the report of what they actually are. Presentation only. The owners of the land marked in red have indicated that they would like to develop their land within the next five years. Land in green indicates that the owners plan to farm for another 10 years or more.
   
7. An update on affordable housing in Provo (18-023)
   Robert Vernon, Provo Housing Authority, will be proposing that the City and the Housing Authority develop a closer relationship/partnership to promote housing development for different market needs from starter homes to affordable housing. He will inform the Council about the Housing Authority’s current business and future plans and provide information on the state of the workforce housing market. I am looking forward to the presentation and the proposal, stay tuned to find out what will be proposed. Presentation only. Mr. Vernon proposed we develop a closer working relationship and consider some additional tools that the State has allowed cities to authorize housing authorities to use. I believe the City needs a clear articulable vision for what we are trying to achieve in our housing efforts.
8. A presentation on a project proposal for improvements on the south-side hill of Grandview South Neighborhood (18-022)
   The Grandview South Neighborhood is proposing a project to improve a hillside in their area. They are targeting some safety issues as well as appearance. They plan to apply for a matching grant through the Neighborhood Program but think additional funding might be needed. There is a good description of why the project is wanted, but without a map, I'm not exactly sure which hill is being discussed. One question to ask is whether the property is public or private. Presentation only. The hill of interest is north of the round-about on 820 North near Provo College. The land we are talking about is owned by Provo City.
   
   This project will cost a significant amount of money. This is an example of why I feel we need to implement a budgeting for priorities framework. There is no question that this is a good project. But how does it compare with other good projects competing for funding? What project gets cut to do this? Or do we raise taxes to do it?
9. A presentation on the Provo City Charitable Giving Campaign
   Presentation only. Karen Tapahe is leading the campaign for our office. The goal this year is 100% participation. I think we can do it.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission



10. Tim Soffe requests a General Plan Map Amendment from Commercial to Residential for 1.52 acres of land located at 490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood (17-0002GPA)
    This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. We have heard from the prospective neighbors who do not want this project to happen or who are asking for changes to the proposal. Community Development Staff has recommended approval. The Planning Commission has recommended approval, contingent on one of the neighborhood requested changes. Looking that the site plan, I don't like the giant parking lot fronting the neighborhood street with one of the buildings fronting the backyards of existing neighbors. CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting.
11. Tim Soffe requests a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) for 1.92 acres of land located at 422-490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
    This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. See the preview of the previous item. CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting.
12. John & Lara Johnson request Zoning Ordinance amendments to Section 14.41 Major Home Occupations to increase the number of students from 6 to 16 and to extend the hours of operation from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Citywide Impact (17-0025OA)
    This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, increasing the maximum allowed students from 6 to 16 and extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. It appears that this proposal has the support of the neighbors, which is really important. The difficulty is that the requested ordinance change would affect the whole city and doesn't have the support of the broader community because of what else it would potentially allow. This item was already been scheduled at the February 6, 2018 Council Meeting. A motion to continue the evening discussion and return the item to the Planning Commission for review was Approved 7:0. The applicants made a significant change to the request after it had been reviewed by Staff and the Planning Commission (and received a negative recommendation). Before deciding on the merits of the new request, we would like Staff and the Planning Commission to review it and update their recommendation.



Closed Meeting



13. 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

5:00 PM, Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Neighborhood Spotlight: Joaquin Neighborhood
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation on the Mayor's Award of Excellence
   Presentation only. Nedra Bell was recognized for decades of volunteer service improving mental health education in Provo. Read the Mayor's tweet.
2. A presentation of the 2017 Employee of the Year
   Presentation only. Officer Bushman, of the Provo City Police Department, was recognized as the Outstanding Employee of the Year.



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. We had a number of commenters this time. We were invited to the Provo Girls Summit (Marth 8th), lobbied to vote against some proposed apartments, and thanked for some recent sidewalk improvements.



Action Agenda

3. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of Karen Larsen as the Director Of Customer Service for Provo City. (18-020)
   An ordinance was passed on January 23, 2018, creating the Department of Customer Service. It was previously a division under the Mayor’s office. Mayor Kaufusi is recommending the appointment of the current division head, Karen Larsen, as the department director. Consent of the Council is required for these appointments. From item 1 in the above meeting: "Ms. Larsen has worked for Provo City for almost 30 years and aptly lead the Customer Service Division through its transition to the point now where it is ready to become its own department. I have full confidence in her." Approved 7:0. As I said above, "She'll (continue to) do great."
4. 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. Council heard this amendment at the January 23, 2018, Council meeting and requested information on how this would affect organizations like NeighborWorks and Habitat for Humanity that build homes for low-income recipients. This was heard two weeks ago. Community Development should be returning with additional builder feedback. A motion to send this item back to the Planning Commission after staff revises the design standards in light of affordability concerns was Approved 6:1, with Council member Kay Van Buren opposed. I liked how the motion was first worded, for the Planning Commission to weigh in on the revised design standard proposal, particularly in regards to affordability and quality.
   
   I appreciate Community Development's efforts to reach out to builders for feedback and their willingness to listen and incorporate the feedback. I also hope that they balance the needs for quality and for affordability. I believe that standards that raise the cost of construction by $1 don't necessarily make the project $1 more expensive. Some of that $1 will come out of the cost of land. Land values are dynamic and are based on the profit that can be made from developing or redeveloping the land.
5. A resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map designation for property generally located at 490 South State Street from Commercial to Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0002GPA)
   This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. From item 9 in the earlier meeting, "We have heard from the prospective neighbors who do not want this project to happen or who are asking for changes to the proposal. Community Development Staff has recommended approval. The Planning Commission has recommended approval, contingent on one of the neighborhood requested changes. Looking that the site plan, I don't like the giant parking lot fronting the neighborhood street with one of the buildings fronting the backyards of existing neighbors." CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting As I reported earlier, "The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting."
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 422-490 South State Street, from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
   This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. See the preview of the previous item. CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting As I reported earlier, "The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting."
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.41.060 (Major Home Occupations). Citywide Impact. (17-0025OA)
   This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, increasing the maximum allowed students from 6 to 16 and extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. From item 11 in the earlier meeting, "It appears that this proposal has the support of the neighbors, which is really important. The difficulty is that the requested ordinance change would affect the whole city and doesn't have the support of the broader community because of what else it would potentially allow." During the February 6, 2018 Work Meeting, this item was continued. As I reported earlier, "The applicants made a significant change to the request after it had been reviewed by Staff and the Planning Commission (and received a negative recommendation). Before deciding on the merits of the new request, we would like Staff and the Planning Commission to review it and update their recommendation."

Adjournment