Council Meetings - 11 September 2018

The big issues facing Provo are often addressed or exacerbated by hundreds of small policy decisions. The September 11th meetings have items that directly or indirectly affect housing affordability, parking, and use of public money.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, September 11, 2018

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

Business



1. An update on the Provo City Bond Election(18-073)
   This item was added at the last minute. I assume it will simply be a reminder of various deadlines and requirements along with a report on where we are in regards to meeting them. A motion to approve the ‘for’ statement with any minor grammatical adjustments necessary was approved 5:0, with Councilors David Sewell and George Handley excused. There was some final tweaking, and then we approved the statement as the Council's official position on the bond question.
2. A presentation on Sewer Infrastructure (17-131)
   This is a follow-up to a previous presentation on the sewer metering study at the August 7, 2018 Work Meeting. Public Works Director Dave Decker will present and intends to discuss next steps for sewer infrastructure planning and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project recommendations. Questions about what new infrastructure may be needed in west Provo prompted a study of sewer line capacity throughout the City. Preliminary findings were previously presented. This time a plan will be presented to address the needs. A motion to signal to Public Works that the Council is interested in exploring the possibility of a $120 million loan from the Utah State Division of Water Quality was approved 7:0. For several years the Council and Administration have set a course to reduce (and strive to eliminate) bonding in the City. The UTF has replaced road bonding. Our buildings and programs have corresponding funds to smooth out major equipment replacement and maintenance. (For example, our 5-year-old Rec Center hasn't had to replace a whole lot of equipment yet, but this will be needed in future years. We are setting aside money now from current revenue so these future expenses will be covered.
   
   Because of this emphasis, Public Works has explored ways to meet our sewer treatment plant needs with a minimum of bonding or borrowing money. So they wanted to discuss a course that would involve a significant loan, but still may be in the best interest of the City. The State has established a revolving loan fund to assist municipalities to upgrade their infrastructure to met State regulations and to help meet State goals. Our sewer treatment plant meets these criteria, and we could qualify for extremely favorable rates. This course could help smooth out sewer rates and rate increases for our residents while also accelerating the achievement of State goals like improving water quality going into Utah Lake (which also benefits Provo residents).
   
   There was enough to potentially like about this possible course to give Public Works our blessing to pursue it further with the State.
3. A discussion on Fire Station diesel emissions (18-087)
   Each of Provo’s Fire Stations is equipped with a mechanical system which removes diesel emissions created by the various fire engines and vehicles. Several stations throughout the City have failing systems, which have resulted in costly repairs over the last two years. Facilities and the Fire Department have explored new systems which would be less expensive and more reliable. Fire Chief Jim Miguel will present and share a request for an appropriation which would come to a future Council meeting for approval. Occationally fire truck idle while in the station bays. We have spent $21,705 over the last two years alone trying to maintain the failing systems, whereas new systems for Stations 3, 4 and 5 would cost $75,192 and will cost far less in the long run. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 25, 2018 Council Meeting. This is the responsible thing to do on many levels. It is doing right by our tax-payers and our firefighters. My one concern was about the timing of the request. We aren't too far removed from approving the yearly budget. Why wasn't it included there? The Chief explained that it was a known problem, but it was overlooked when assembling all the needs for the budget, and it really came to a head after the budget was prepared when the systems in two stations broke down again.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



4. A discussion on a request for a code amendment to Provo Code Chapter 14.20 (SC3 Zone) to establish an open space requirement for the residential portion of mixed-use developments within this zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180113)
   In medium and high-density zones in Provo, the City code requires a certain amount of open space or on-site amenities in a project. This ensures that a completed project offers amenities that contribute to a high quality of life for residents of the units. In January 2017, the Council approved a residential mixed-use element in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) zone. This proposal from the Community Development Department would ensure that any residential projects occurring in the SC3 zones in the City would have a similar open space/amenity requirement. The Planning Commission recommended approval. There are a lot of reasons why this is a good proposal and makes sense, including to make the requirements similar across similar zones. But at the same time, we are having discussions about housing affordability and the impact that zoning regulations have on the cost of housing. On-site gyms, pools, or rooftop gardens might be nice to have, but they do affect the cost of housing. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 11, 2018 Council Meeting. The proposal is straightforward. I expressed my support for the proposal but raised the discussion with the Council that this is an example of a local regulation that can increase the cost of housing.
5. A discussion on a request for a code amendment to Chapter 14.41 of the Provo City Code regarding various changes to the allowances and requirements of Home Occupations, including but not limited to the addition of certain definitions related to Home Occupations, limitations on promotional meetings, changes related to the number of customers and employees allowed with major home occupations, and the non-allowance for an accessory apartment and a major home occupation to be operated at the same time. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180109)
   A number of recent major home occupation requests have been controversial in their evaluation of possible impacts on their associated neighborhoods. After discussion in a work session, Council requested consideration of some amendments and this request was sent to the Planning Commission.
   
   At the Council work meeting on August 7, 2018, it was found that the version of the code amendment given to the Planning Commission was not the same version developed by the Council. To eliminate potential confusion as to the content of the document and what the Planning Commission had intended to recommend, the Council returned the initial draft to the Planning Commission. This Planning Commission staff report highlights the differences between the two versions. After reviewing the initial draft, the Planning Commission has recommended approval. We've been working on this one for a long time. Perhaps the most controversial aspect is the ban on a residence having both an accessory apartment and a major home occupation. On the one hand, the atmosphere of residential areas should be residential. Both home occupations and accessory apartments intensify the use. And we are talking about home occupations of the major variety. Is it unreasonable to say that you can add one secondary use or the other, but not both? On the other hand, if a property can meet the conditions of both uses separately, why shouldn't they be allowed to do both?
   
   As is the case with many hot topics in Provo, there is a parking component to this question. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 11, 2018 Council Meeting. We mostly reviewed what changes are being made, but we also discussed a specific flashpoint that was one of the reasons that we began reviewing our regulations of home occupations.



Business



6. An update on City budget carryovers (18-005)
   Finance Department will provide an update on how carryover money from the budget has been used or allocated. In order to avoid a rushed spending spree at the end of a fiscal year, we do not have a policy of "use-it-or-lose-it" in our budgets. This report will give us an accounting of what happened with money that was left-over in various budgets at the end of the last fiscal year. A motion to place $50,000 from the Council FY18 budget [appropriated for budgeting for outcomes] back into the General Fund balance was approved 7:0. There is a whole lot wrapped up in this small item. At the end of the budget year there are often small to medium amounts left over in funds. Organizations who automatically sweep those funds away can find that departments/individuals try to find ways to spend the money before the deadline, with a "use-it-or-lose-it" mentality. Provo's standard operating procedure is to consider how the money can best be "carried over" to the new budget year. For example, a department might budget a set amount each year for computer replacement. The amount should be equal to the average annual cost to keep their computers current. But there may be some up and down between different years. It makes sense to carry over money in a "down" year to help cover the costs in a future "up" year. Another example might be money that was budgeted for a project in one year, but the project isn't fully completed and continues into the next year. It makes sense to "carry over" the money into the next year to finish paying for the project.
   
   Sometimes, though, there are operational savings, that don't need to be carried over because the regular budget will cover future operating costs. Our practice for the past several years has been to split the "leftover" money 50-50. Half is returned to the General Fund, and half is put into a fund for employee incentives and recognition. This latter fund has been used for many things, like tuition reimbursement. The argument for this practice is that it incentivizes employees to be frugal with tax-payer money and to be as efficient as possible in the services they provide. They are incentivized to find ways to use funds more effectively, and the fruits of those efforts are split with tax-payers.
   
   The argument against this practice is that it can create incentives for actions that aren't in the communities best interest. These are extreme, worst-case, hypotheticals, but should be considered. Could employees be motivated to cut corners to save money, leading to poorer service being received by the public? Could departments error on the high side when submitting budget requests?
   
   Because I am more familiar with the Council budget (which is just one of many in the City), I looked carefully at the "carry-over" and the amount being split into the two funds. The amount being split was substantial. Much of that came from a half-year position that was never filled. More than a year ago, the Council voted to pull $50k out of the General Fund to hire an expert to work to redo the way we budget money, shifting to a more priority-based focus. For whatever reason, that hire never came to pass. We previously voted not to carry the money over to this year. Now, because of our practice, $25k was being returned to the General Fund, and $25k would be put into the incentive/recognition fund. That didn't sit well with the Council, and the Administration agreed to go back through the funds to look for similar items that weren't related to operational efficiencies. In the meantime we moved to place all of the $50k back into the General Fund -- basically a reverse appropriation.
7. A discussion on the Second Amended Interlocal Agreement between Provo City and Utah County regarding the West Side Connector. (18-085)
   The City often enters ‘interlocal agreements’ (ILA) with other government agencies, which outline how the agencies will work together on a particular cooperative effort, or how funding is to be allocated. When the Westside Connector was constructed, Provo City entered an ILA with Utah County which highlighted how County tax revenue for transportation would be allocated to reimburse City expenses associated with the Westside Connector. State Code (11-13-202.5(1)(b)) requires the City’s legislative body, in this case the City Council, to approve ILAs related to the construction of a facility or that provide for the sharing of tax revenues. The original agreement required that any future amendments should also be approved by the Council. The Council has an opportunity to review the amended ILA before authorizing execution of the agreement. Generally, the amendment will make adjustments to how we are reimbursed for the "West Side Connector (aka Lakeview Parkway south of the airport). I'm not sure what exactly the adjustments are, which is why we'll be discussing it in the Work Meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 11, 2018 Council Meeting. Basically the County put into the interlocal agreement which funds they planned to pull the money from. Now they want the flexibility to pull different amounts from their various funds than they anticipated. From the City's perspective, we don't care which funds they use, as long as the total amount that was agreed upon doesn't change.
8. A presentation by Hansen, Bradshaw, Malmrose & Erickson regarding the audit of the City's financial statements and activities for fiscal year 2018. (18-006)
   The City’s fiscal year concluded on June 30, 2018. In preparation for the annual audit of the City’s financial accounting and activities, the City’s auditors (Hansen, Bradshaw, Malmrose & Erickson) will present a brief report to the Council. The Council may also ask questions and discuss various aspects of the audit. There is not much to comment on, I haven't seen the audit or report yet. Presentation only. This was basically the kick-off meeting of the audit. As the governing body of the City, and in our role in providing oversight over public funds, the Council hires CPAs to audit all of the City's financial records. The auditor discussed the plan for the audit and asked us if there were any areas of emphasis that we'd like to see.



Closed Meeting

9. 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, September 11, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation introducing the Provo Youth City Council
   Presentation only. Provo City has historically had a Youth Council but it had gone inactive several years ago. It was revived earlier this year, and they came to report their progress. They have a heavy focus on community service and encouraging young people to be involved in their communities and local government.
2. A presentation by the Justice Court of the Annual Justice Court Report
   Presentation only. As in past years, Judge Romney reported the internal survey results of court "customers" regarding their satisfaction of their experience at court. The favorable ratings are quite impressive considering the circumstances that most individuals find themselves when they need to go to court. Overall, respondents felt they were treated fairly and with dignity by competent staff members. This year, Judge Romney, presented the history and cultural importance of the judicial robes.



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda



3. A public hearing regarding a proposed expansion of the Pleasant View permit parking program. (18-083)
   The Council received a petition from residents of the Pleasant View neighborhood regarding a parking permit program. This item is a public hearing to gauge public interest in the matter. The Council will determine whether or not to direct the Parking Committee to study the proposal and related issues. I still think we need to rethink how we do regulate on-street parking in Provo, but this request is for a fairly minor expansion of an existing program, and seems quite reasonable to me. A motion to direct that a study of the proposed parking area be undertaken was approved 7:0. I was struck by how geographically small the current program is. This expansion is only two streets in front of 11 residences, but will roughly double the size of the program.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish an open space requirement for residential portions of Mixed-Use Developments within the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. Citywide Impact. (PLOTA20180113)
   This is item 3 on the work meeting agenda. This is the first hearing and possible formal vote after having discussed it in the work meeting. Check out my preview for item 3 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. As I explained in my report on item 3 in the Work Meeting, I support the request and apparently the rest of the Council did too.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding allowances and requirements of Home Occupations. Citywide Impact. (PLOTA20180109)
   This is item 4 on the work meeting agenda. This is the first hearing and possible formal vote after having discussed it in the work meeting. Check out my preview for item 4 in the Work Meeting. Per Council Rules, during the first of two hearings of a Planning Commission item, any Councilor may request a continuance and have the request granted; Councilor David Knecht requested that this item be continued. This item will appear on the September 25, 2018 Council Meeting agenda for a second hearing. I don't think this was a routine and/or non-controversial item, so I support it being heard again in two weeks. There likely be some discussion in the meantime about whether there may be some areas of the City where the restriction on major home occupations at properties that have accessory apartments is inappropriate.
6. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to approve a Second Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Utah County regarding a highway project known as the "West Side Connector." (18-085)
   This is item 6 on the work meeting agenda. The Council will consider approving a resolution authorizing the Mayor to complete the amended agreement. Check out my preview for item 6 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. Simple item. See my report on item 6 in the work meeting for more details.
7. **CONTINUED TO A FUTURE MEETING** An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the amount of residential development in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. Citywide Impact. (PLOTA20180231) This item was previously noticed for this meeting and is not ready to be heard.



Adjournment