Council Meetings - 6 March 2018

The future of our City is being created, bit by bit, in these really boring Council meetings where City policy is decided. In Tuesday's meetings, we'll be discussing updates to our General Plan, considering the adoption of "Complete Street" policies, and deciding how to encourage better compliance with our zoning ordinances, along with a number of other important decisions. I invite everyone to pay attention and provide us feedback on these proposals.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, March 06, 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 update on the Victim Services Grant (18-028)
   The Provo Police Victim Services Division is mostly funded by local, State, and Federal grants. They are required (as part of the grant) to provide the Council with two updates per year on the grants. Victim Services presents every six months. It is always a sobering presentation. On one hand, it is heartbreaking that this division directly serves more than 1% of our residents each year. On the other, it is inspiring to see the professional and compassionate service that this dedicated team provides. Continued to a future Work Meeting.
2. A discussion on a proposal on reestablishing a youth council program (18-030)
   Provo City has had a youth council program in past years; however, due to a lack of funding, the program was put on hold. Last year, the Council approved $2,500 its budget to reestablish the program. Since then, volunteers from Communities that Care have offered to provide a volunteer to recruit and oversee students who could serve on a youth council. I'm grateful for the community help to get this program up and running. A motion to proceed with implementation of the youth council program was approved 5:0, with Kay Van Buren and George Stewart excused. The proposal is to use the rest of the school-year and the summer to recruit and set up the program for a kick-off at the start of the next school-year.
3. A presentation on the Police Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. The Police Department will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. It is good to be frugal. It is also good to properly fund the critical services that we depend on. By just about every measure, our police force is stretched too thin. They are doing a valiant job with the resources they are given, but the service-call load per officer is multiple times higher than surrounding communities. We need to support our police force better if we hope to keep the level of protection and service we currently enjoy. A motion that public safety is the Council’s top budget priority for the General Fund out of those budget presentation made to the Council thus far was approved 6:0, with Kay Van Buren excused. By every metric I'm aware of, our police force is understaffed and underfunded. An extensive outside review 6 years ago recommended having 120 officers. We are still at 105. We have fewer officers per capita than SLC, Orem, Sandy, Ogden, St George, and on and on. Even more worrisome to me is the average number of calls for service each officer receives on a shift. It is two to four times the averages in other Utah cities. I hear great stories from the community about the caring and professional service they've received from our police force. Sadly, our officers are burning out from all the forced overtime and the heavy workload. Some are choosing to leave to other cities. I also hear complaints about the lack of traffic enforcement in the City. Traffic enforcement is one of the first areas to be vacated when more serious calls come in. The frequency of automobile-related crashes has gone up as the time spent on traffic enforcement has gone down.
   
   Cheif Furgeson has requested eight new officers, five of whom would be assigned to traffic enforcement. The other three would be assigned to either gangs or cyber crimes. This represents a significant increase in funding, but I believe it is needed and more than justified. If we approve such an increase, I expect that the community would notice a significant improvement in traffic enforcement. And I expect that the metrics will also show a significant improvement as well.
4. A presentation on the Fire Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. The Fire Department will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. I am interested in an update on the status of the Fire Department, but I believe we are doing better keeping up with the operations and short-term maintenance, but there are some long-term capital expenses that we have fallen behind on. Presentation only. The Fire Department is better off on staffing levels. Their needs are more in facilities. Beyond the critical need for a new Public Safety building (which would be shared with our Police Department and Emergency Dispatch), there is a need to rebuild Provo City Fire Station #2.
5. A discussion on an appropriation for the Fire Department (18-031)
   The Fire Department recently received compensation for helping fight fires in other locations during the past year. The compensation is greater than what Provo’s Fire Department had to spend on these other fires. As a result, the Fire Department staff would like to use the excess money to purchase equipment that will help them fight wildfires in the future. There are different ways that this 'excess' money could be used. This seems like a reasonable way to use it. It will grow our capacity for future needs. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting. I think this is another indication of the value we receive from our Fire Department. The "reimbursement" for the services rendered by our department were more than twice what we expended.
6. A presentation on the Innovation Program (18-029)
   As part of the FY2018 Budget, the Council approved $100,000 for an innovation program. The idea was that City employees could submit project proposals that would help improve City services and/or save money in the long run. The presentation will highlight the projects that received funding through the innovation program and how they were selected. There are many areas where I feel the City has erred on the side of saving pennies in ways that have cost us real dollars (see our crossing guard program). I love this program because it does the opposite. We are investing small amounts in pilot programs, some of which may fail, but collectively will save the City significant money while improving our services at the same time. Presentation only. The early results of this initiative have been remarkable. I know of a project that missed the cut but was deemed valuable enough by the department that they are shifting money around to fund it anyway.
7. A discussion on an amendment to the Provo City Code regarding recodification of the City Code. (18-033)
   In the past, the Provo City Code was not available online and was printed and distributed widely in a hardcopy format. Each year, a new volume of the City Code was published as the “Provo City Code, 2008 Edition,” the “Provo City Code, 2009 Edition,” etc. The first part of the code (Title1) would also be updated with the current volume’s year to say that the current version of the City Code superseded any previously codified version. Because the Provo City Code is primarily accessed online now, the Code can technically be updated after any Council meeting throughout a given year. As a result, staff are proposing that the Council alter the language of Title 1 to remove the year from the Title. This is a simple clean up; part of the transition from paper to electronic documents. A motion to place this item on the consent agenda for the next Council Meeting was approved 6:0, with Kay Van Buren excused.
8. A discussion on the General Plan update (18-032)
   Since December, Council members have been providing input on various updated drafts of the General Plan. With the support of the Policy Governance Committee, their feedback has been incorporated by staff into the most recent draft. The next step in updating the General Plan is to gather public feedback on the latest version. Staff will request Council’s permission to pursue public feedback on the current draft of the General Plan. This effort has consumed many, many hours of my time so far this year. And I still wasn't able to review the whole thing. We are making significant improvements. There has to be a balance between getting it done in a reasonable time period and making sure it is exactly right. I hope that the community will contribute significantly in the review and update effort. A motion to begin the public comment and outreach process was approved 6:0, with Kay Van Buren excused.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission




9. A discussion on 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. Items 9 and 10 are related and I will preview them together here. There is a housing shortage across the nation, throughout the state, and particularly here in Provo. We have an acute shortage of housing that meets the needs of married students. This acute need contributes to the market pressures that cause investors to buy up and sub-divide single-family-detached housing to rent (with varying degrees of legality). Our lack of married student housing is contributing to the housing shortage and instability in our neighborhoods.
   
   This proposed project would be a solid step in the right direction in this regard. Unfortunately, I feel the current proposal does not integrate well into the existing neighborhood. Part of the project fronts South State Street, where I think the scale and design are appropriate. But there is not a good transition or buffering as it interfaces with the community off of State. The second building is also four stories and is pushed back towards people's backyards. Instead of front doors and porches facing the second street (500 S), the neighbors are faced with a giant parking lot.
   
   I have received many concerned emails from nearby neighbors, have been in communication with the Maeser Neighborhood Chair, and attended the last Neighborhood Meeting to discuss this proposal. I also recently reached out to the applicant. I am hopeful that we can find a solution that will help address the housing shortages in Provo generally and will also be a boon to the immediate area.
   
   The Staff recommended approval. The Planning Commission recommends limiting the height of the buildings to three stories (rather than the proposed four stories). This would likely reduce the number of units to 48. Continued to the March 27, 2018 Work Meeting.


10. A discussion on 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 last item. Continued to the March 27, 2018 Work Meeting.
11. A discussion on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 14.41 Major Home Occupations to extend the hours of operation from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Citywide Impact. (17-0025OA)
    This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Everyone seems to be okay with the scaled-back request. Staff supports it. The Planning Commission actually recommends extending the period until 9:00 pm. I still have some concerns about unintended consequences, particularly because the change will apply across the City. I am hopeful that my concerns can be allieviated. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the March 6, 2018 Council Meeting, but it was anticipated that it would be continued. It was apparent that these regulations need a thorough review.
12. A discussion on a proposal to adopt by resolution a Complete Streets Policy and incorporate said policy as an appendix to the General Plan. Citywide impact. (PLGPA20180028)
    This item was continued by Planning Commission but Community Development staff believe that the Complete Streets Policy is significant enough for Council to learn about, even before Planning Commission is prepared to make a recommendation. The goal is to make Council members aware and better prepared to make a decision on the Complete Streets Policy in future meetings. This is a major piece of legislation with long-lasting impacts. Community Development wants both the Planning Commission and the Council to hear it over two separate meeting cycles. Take a look at the Planning Commission Report of Action. I have never seen the Commission so eager to support and move something forward. It's almost comical, well as comical as a dry meeting report can be. But the thing is that I am just as eager. I'm chomping at the bit to get this implemented. It will greatly impact the long-term health of our community. Presentation only. Like the Planning Commission, I think we are ready to move forward with this.



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

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 06, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation from Sarah Simons and Utah County Health Department regarding vaping.
Presentation only. The youth presenters did a great job explaining the harmful effects of vaping and pointing out the inconsistencies between the restrictions on smoking and vaping in public.
2. A presentation of the Golden Spoke Winter Bicycle Commuter Award
Presented by the Provo Bike Committee Presentation only. Congrats to Colby Sanford!
3. Presentation of the Employee of the Month for January 2018
Presentation only. Congrats to Robbie Lamb, our Utility Billing Manager, for being the Provo City Employee of the Month!
4. A presentation by the Covey Center of “Barefoot in the Park”
Presentation only. If you haven't seen a play in our Blackbox Theater, you are seriously missing out.


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 heard from Scott Tayson, Ben Free, and Diane Christensen. Ms. Christensen alerted the City to an abuse of a grading permit that was then investigated and shut down.



Action Agenda

5. ***CONTINUED***A resolution to adopt the Complete Streets Policy as a component of the Provo City General Plan. (PLGPA20180028)
   This was continued by the Planning Commission so it is not ready to be formally heard by the Council.
6. ***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending requirements for street access into buildings in the General Downtown (DT1) and Downtown Core (DT2) zones. Downtown, Timp, Joaquin, North Park, Maeser, Franklin, and Dixon Neighborhoods. (PLOTA20180032)
   This was continued by the Planning Commission so it is not ready to be formally heard by the Council.
7. 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. I've written about this for the 5 Dec 2017 meeting: "Some business owners have faulty fire alarm systems that frequently call out the Fire Department. Because there is no charge for the Fire Department responding to alarms, these business owners have no motivation (besides common decency) to fix their system and end these false alarms. The proposal is to start charging fees after THREE false alarms in a year. The Department is also requesting that commercial fire alarms be registered with the City, including a 24-hour contact person." Approved 7:0
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding major home occupations. Citywide Impact. (17-0025OA)
   This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. See my preview for item 11 in the earlier meeting. A motion to continue this item to the March 27, 2018 Work Meeting was approved 7:0. As I wrote earlier, "It was apparent that these regulations need a thorough review."
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the minimum number of residential units giving rise to a requirement 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. I think I will support this. From last time, "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."
   
   I have heard early reports on the Staff's investigation, and look forward to the discussion in the meeting. Approved 7:0 Five units was selected originally because anything less isn't considered an apartment building. I agree that a threshold of 20 makes more sense.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow Dental Laboratories as a permitted use in the Community Shopping Center (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. This had a first hearing at the February 20 Council meeting and was continued to allow for more input and review. This is what I wrote after the first hearing two weeks ago:"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."
    
    I will probably vote for this, but I'm not thrilled about it. If we aren't restricting our shopping centers to shopping then what else should we allow in? Continued prior to meeting.
11. 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. See the preview for Item 9 in the earlier meeting. Continued prior to meeting.
12. 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 for Item 9 in the earlier meeting. Continued prior to meeting.
13. An ordinance amending the previously enacted Ordinance 2017-51 regarding rental contracts. (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).
    From my last preview of this 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 standard 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."
    
    From my last report of this issue, "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." Approved 7:0. I felt that the original version was too blunt and burdensome on those who willingly comply without sufficiently motivating compliance from people willing to break the law. I feel that this version removes much of the unnecessary burden, but still inadequately motivates compliance.
    
    I did get a verbal agreement in the meetings from my fellow councilors to revisit this issue in the future if we find that it does not achieve its intended results.

Adjournment