Council Meeting - 18 December 2018

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

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, December 18, 2018

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

Business



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

   Adjournment

Council Meetings - 11 December 2018

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, December 11, 2018

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

Approval of Minutes



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



Business



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




Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



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

Business



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



Closed Meeting



10. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. A closed meeting was held.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

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

Public Comment

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




Consent Agenda

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



Action Agenda



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



Adjournment