Council Meetings - 23 April 2019

The last few sets of meetings have been heavy on the afternoon Work Meetings and light on the evening Council Meetings. But because most items from the Work Meetings eventually make it to the Council Meetings, I knew they would eventually catch up to us. This set of meetings is heavy in the evening, heavy in the afternoon, and, just for fun, we through in a joint meeting with the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee!

The theme for the day appears to be rezone approvals. The Mill Race proposal (at 14 stories) is the largest. So far a small, single-family proposal near Rock Canyon elementary, seems to be the most controversial. And a request by the Mix to change the terms of their rezone is the one I'm most conflicted on. I've tucked several conceptual drawings into the previews for the rezones for your viewing pleasure.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Transportation Mobility Advisory Committee

12:00 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes. I served on the TMAC before joining the Council. They have a special place in my heart, and the impact of transportation decisions on our quality of life is still a major concern for me.

Business

1. An update from TMAC on the Transportation Master Plan process
   TMAC reported that they felt like the parts of the Transportation Master Plan that they reviewed have been good, but they felt like the review was far from complete. We were able to facilitate a dialogue between Engineering and TMAC and worked out a plan for how the Transportation Master Plan would be reviewed by various bodies, including the public, before being presented in final form.
2. A general update on TMAC projects and the committee's work
   TMAC expressed a desire for better feedback from the Council. They sometimes feel that they do a lot of work and send recommendations on to us but never hear anything back. We discussed ways to improve the two-way communication.
3. A discussion on e-scooters
   I was surprised to hear that we are only months away from getting a bike share and e-scooters in Provo. We talked about what other communities have learned as they have implemented similar programs and how we can avoid some of the mistakes they made.
4. Additional discussion of items of mutual interest as time allows
   



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

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 presentation regarding proposed changes to the Parking Enforcement Fee Structure. (19-046)
   Anew fee structure is proposed to comply with Utah Legislature HB0336 which modified the assessment of late fees for violations and will cause the City to be out of compliance as of July 1st, 2019. Also, an increase is proposed for all violation fees to cover expected Parking Enforcement operations costs.
   
   Parking Enforcement started the transition to become a stand alone function separate from Police and was officially under the oversight of the Customer Service Department in December of 2017. After a full year of analyzing the operations of Parking Enforcement, including staffing, rebranding, equipment, establishing routes, etc., as well as identifying potential immediate and future needs for the enforcement effort, an operating costs versus revenue analysis was completed. An increase in our current operating budget and the budget for the next few years will be necessary. A one-time increase of 25% for each violation fee is proposed. Violators will get an on-time discount instead of a late fee. But in the end, a ticket will now cost you around $40 if you pay it on-time rather than $25. Consistent, predictable parking enforcement, along with clear, reasonable parking regulations, will improve the quality of life in parts of Provo. Presentation only. We weighed in on which of the proposed fee sets that we preferred.
2. A discussion about the review of the Urban Deer Program. (19-147)
   In 2016, the City began an urban deer control program that will end on August 1, 2019. The Council has the opportunity to evaluate the program and determine whether to continue it. Public feedback was gathered on Open City Hall. We've learned a lot in the past three years, and have made several tweaks to the program. One thing that we've learned is that it is difficult to measure the success of the program. The program has cost roughly $300/deer removed. How much are we willing to spend going forward? I am liking the trap and euthanize option, because I think it can better target the urban deer. A motion to proceed with scheduling the necessary public hearings to begin the permit renewal process was approved 7:0. We are moving forward with what is necessary to renew our permit, but we are still deliberating over what the program will look like going forward.
3. A discussion about amending Ordinance 2019-01, previously approved on Jan. 22, 2019, with regard to the development agreement required in order for a zone change at 2300 N. University Pkwy to become effective. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ201800406)
   The Mix would like to rework the development agreement that was included as part of the rezone for the zone change to ITOD zone. This action is to reconsider that previous development agreement and the completion of a new development agreement. I have mixed feelings on this one. We increased the number and density of residential units allowed in the project. We have invested millions in infrastructure (like BRT) that this project is benefitting from. Addressing housing affordability is and has been a major goal for the council for years. We agreed with the terms proposed by the developer, and now they want to change the terms. A motion to make every effort to revise the language in section D [related to sewer improvements] before the Council Meeting on April 23, 2019, if at all possible, that was acceptable to the developer was approved 6:1, with Kay Van Buren opposed. There are two areas of the development agreement that the developer was uncomfortable with, though they had previously agreed to. The first area, regarding a component of the project that would be for moderate income housing, was fairly well defined. The other area, obligations to pay for upgrades to the sewer system necessary to accommodate the project, was much more fluid and changes were still being worked out. We requested that both sides try to work out an acceptible arrangement before the item was heard in the evening meeting.
4. A discussion regarding the policies and direction of the Foothills Protection Committee. (19-002)
   The Council recommends that Sign Committee suggested principles be implemented and return to Council with a code amendment at a meeting in May. The Foothills Protection Committee has met to discuss what can be done to protect the east bench of Provo City. As the conversation has progressed, the Foothills Protection Committee is prepared to come back to Council with a suggestion regarding protection of the foothills. the suggested ideas are: Require a project proposal with each grading permit, Increase the bonding requirements for grading permit projects, Require a landscaping plan as part of a project proposal. As Council continues to work on the Foothills Protection issues, they will meet with Salt Lake County experts and discuss what they have done to protect the east side of Salt Lake County. I don't understand the reference to the Sign Committee. It may be a typo.
   
   After our last bad experience with a grading permit/gravel operation, I think these are good ideas to explore. Presentation only. The council expressed approval for the direction that the committee proposed.



Budget Committee

5. A presentation on the Community Development Department and potential budget requests. (19-004)
   The Community Development Department will (1) report on how its operations contribute to City goals and objectives, and (2) identify potential budget needs for the department. This is the last week of the pre-budget season presentations. We have Community Development and Public Works. Presentation only. Community Development summarized many of the services that they provide.
6. A presentation on the Public Works Department and potential budget requests. (19-004)
   The Public Works Department will (1) report on how its operations contribute to City goals and objectives, and (2) identify potential budget needs for the department. This is the last week of the pre-budget season presentations. We have Community Development and Public Works. Presentation only. This is the final year on our 5-year plan to incrementally raise utility rates to a sustainable level. Previously we were not charging enough to properly maintain the infrastructure that we are using.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

7. A discussion about two ordinances the Zone Map Classification of approximately four acres from 500 S to 600 S and from 100 W to University Avenue. Downtown Neighborhood. (PLOTA20190046, and PLRZ20190047)
   Justin Earl is requesting approval of a new PRO zone called the Mill Race PRO. This zone is intended to be applied to the block between 500 South and 600 South, and 100 West and University Avenue. The City Council would need to amend the current zoning map to allow this development to occur. The applicant will still need to have a Project Plan approved by the DRC and Planning Commission after a decision is made on the PRO zone text amendment and zone map amendment for the property. The proposed project consists of a parking podium on the east half of the block, with an eight-story office building at the southeast corner, along 600 south and University Avenue; and a condo building on the northeast corner. The rest of the project will consist of two different five-story residential buildings with amenity space and open spaces in between. The zone will allow for buildings up to 195 feet. The proposed text amendment specifically addresses design standards and regulations for the proposed development. The main differences between the ITOD zone and the proposed PRO zone are an increased building height maximum, specifically defined parking standards, and the omitting of the minimum average unit size regulation. This proposal has caught the attention of many in the city. Here is a good story on it from the Daily Herald, which includes my thoughts on it. I have since heard from some of the neighboring businesses and building owners. They are generally in favor of the project, as it is proposed, but are fearful that they requested zoning language would allow for significant changes to what is being proposed. Presentation only. It seems that nearly everyone is excited by this project. The only major concern that I've heard is, "what happens if they don't build what they say they will." The zoning that they have requested, which accommodates their proposal, would also allow for significant changes that might not be as good for the community as their current proposal. For example, the current proposal calls for towers up to 14 stories tall next to the University Ave viaduct, and 5-story buildings on the western edge of the block, across the street from the smaller Startup buildings. The proposal is supported by the neighboring businesses, but they would not support 14-story towers on the western edge. The requested zoning allows for 14 story buildings, to accommodate what is proposed on the eastern half of the block, but does not restrict those buildings to the eastern half. Before I vote for the rezone, I need some assurances that we will actually get what is being proposed.
8. A discussion regarding an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 3.724 acres of property generally located 2400 N 650 E in the R1.10 Zone PD Performance to allow a Development Overlay Zone. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190029)
   This item is the approval of a PD Performance Development Overlay Zone on approximately 3.62 acres of property currently zoned R1.10 Residential. Approval of a PD Overlay Zone follows the same process as a rezoning, but requires a concurrent concept plan be approved in conjunction with the zoning overlay. A Performance Development Overlay allows two development options not otherwise allowed by the existing R1.10 Zone. First, it allows attached single-family units rather than requiring all units to be detached dwellings, in order to create an open space area on the property. Second, it allows a bonus density for additional units than would otherwise be realized within a standard subdivision. Details of the proposed project to be developed in conformance with the provisions of the PD Overlay are provided and discussed with the related item for the project plan. One aspect that we've talked about the housing crunch is having a broader mix of housing types in every neighborhood to accommodate people in different life stages. Many people in Provo love the neighborhood in which they live. Some stay in homes that are too large for their needs and wants, but they can't bear the thought of moving away. This proposal seems to offer a housing type that local empty-nesters could move into and still stay in the neighborhood. Presentation only. Please see my report of this item in the evening meeting, agenda item 11.
9. A discussion regarding amendments to the Provo City Code regarding the Board of Adjustment to comply with State Code. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190097)
   This item is an Ordinance Amendment to eliminate Subsection (4) from Section 14.05.010 Board of Adjustment Created. At issue is a conflict with the State Code, specifically Section 10.91-701(3)(b). The conflict that is obvious would be where a Board Member would act as part of the Appeal Authority over a decision made by them in their capacity as a Planning Commission member. A simple code correction to avoid conflicts of interest. Presentation only. This was just a quick explanation. We voted on this as agenda item 12 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. A closed meeting was held.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. An update on the City Center construction. (19-042)
   In 2018, Provo City held a General Bond election which was approved. Provo City has sold the bond and put out the request for proposal and is prepared to come before the Council and provide an update. I believe this will be an opportunity to introduce the architect and general contractor to the community. Presentation only. We met the newly selected architect and general contractor for the project. This is basically the team that built our beloved Recreation Center and our new Energy Building. I have a lot of confidence in them based on their past performance.
2. Utah Recreation and Parks Association Presentation to Provo Parks and Recreation. (19-049)
   Provo Parks and Recreation Department received an award to recognize its efforts in the field of municipal Parks and Recreation. Presentation only. This state organization raved how our Rec Center is held up as a model all around the country, and is the envy of the valley. We already know and appreciate how effective and beneficial our Parks and Rec department is, but it's also nice to hear it from outside observers. We had at least 100 department employees come to accept the award.



Action Agenda

3. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Conservation Easement Agreement regarding Provo City property located near the Rock Canyon trailhead. (17-085)
   Provo City has partnered with the Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance (RCPA) for several years to protect and preserve sensitive lands at the mouth of Rock Canyon. The RCPA has raised funds from local residents and contributed a 50/50 match to the City purchase of 18.75 Acres from the Lichtey family. This conservation easement memorializes an ongoing commitment to preserve and manage the site in an environmentally sustainable fashion. Like I said two weeks ago when we heard this in our Work Meeting, "I'm happy to support this next step and look forward to great things at the Rock Canyon Trailhead." Approved 7:0. I think this should be a case study for how community volunteers can engage with their city to achieve remarkable things to benefit the community for generations to come.



Redevelopment Agency Of Provo

4. A presentation from the Parks and Recreation Department and the Redevelopment Agency regarding creation of a redevelopment area near the East Bay Golf Course. (19-041)
   This topic was discussed at the Municipal Council's Joint Meeting with the Provo City School Board. The discussion centers around the tax increment that will be derived from the housing associated with the Noorda Rocky Mountain School of Medicine. The Parks and Recreation Department suggested the expansion of the Redevelopment Area to take tax increment to pay for a new golf facility they plan to build near the driving range. The topic will be introduced by the Parks and Recreation with further discussion and information to be presented by Redevelopment. As I've said in the past, I'm not comfortable with the current proposal to fund improvements to the golf course through tax increment redirection. I support the enhancements at the golf course, but the way it would be funded give me heartburn. I'll be voting for this item, because it is a necessary step to fulfill our commitments made earlier to the medical school. We will be able to continue our discussion about whether using the tax increment in this way is wise. Approved 7:0. Now comes the hard work of deciding how this redevelopment area will be used.
5. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer of the Provo City Redevelopment Agency to modify certain contracts with NeighborWorks Provo. (18-076)
   The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is looking to forgive the write-off amounts on all of the Neighborhood Housing Services loans and to determine whether the Council would like to establish criteria for writing off loans. The RDA provided Council with the letter from NHS and staff summed up the amounts and proposal that NHS has established. The write-off amounts of the loans vary and NHS has different proposals for each project they're seeking write off for. How many meetings in a row have I stated that I'm excited to get this resolved? It's only been languishing for 10 years. I am hopeful that this will be the lucky meeting when it's finally done. Approved 7:0. I'm looking forward to some great work by NeighborWorks, in partnership with Provo City, to help revitalize areas of our city.



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

6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish an Officer Rank of Deputy Chief of Police (19-048)
   Provo City Code 9.01.020 authorizes the Chief of Police, with the consent of the Mayor, to reorganize the Police Department including assigning any subordinate officer to any duty which in the judgment of the Chief the good of the service may require. The Chief of Police, with the consent of the Mayor, intends to appoint a Deputy Chief of Police to better manage the administration and operation of the Police Department. This ordinance amends PCC 9.01.080 to include a Deputy Chief of Police in the ranking of officers. Per past practice, the Occupational Index listed under PCC 4.04.060 Classes and Salary Ranges will be updated to include a Deputy Police Chief (with a pay grade of M2 under Law Enforcement) when the FY2020 Budget is adopted. This will free up the Chief to focus on bigger-picture issues while the deputy takes care of more of the administrative and operational issues. Approved 7:0. The position will be paid for out of existing funding for the remainder of the fiscal year, and then will be budgeted going forward. We were planning to increase funding for police staffing. This position will reduce the number of officers that we can add to the force, but the position should make the whole department more efficient and effective, providing better value and protection overall.
7. A resolution appropriating $2,490,000 funded by lease financing in the Vehicle Replacement Fund for the purchase of two fire apparatuses and related equipment applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-043)
   The Council is requested to approve the appropriation of the funds approved in the April 9, 2019 meeting for the lease-purchase financing of Fire Vehicles in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. This is part of an ongoing effort to maintain the fleet of Fire vehicles through lease-purchase agreements. This is the second part of the request. The first part was approved last time. This is an expected request and is part of the larger fleet replacement program. Approved 7:0.
8. An ordinance enacting the Mill Race PRO Zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (PLOTA20190046)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. This proposal has caught the attention of many in the city. Here is a good story on it from the Daily Herald, which includes my thoughts on it. I have since heard from some of the neighboring businesses and building owners. They are generally in favor of the project, as it is proposed, but are fearful that they requested zoning language would allow for significant changes to what is being proposed. Approved 7:0. We felt comfortable in creating this zone (which is this item), but we weren't ready to apply the zone (which is the next item).
9. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 3.7 acres of real property, generally located between 500 S. to 600 S. and from 100 W. to University Ave. from ITOD to Mill Race PRO Zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190047)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. This proposal has caught the attention of many in the city. Here is a good story on it from the Daily Herald, which includes my thoughts on it. I have since heard from some of the neighboring businesses and building owners. They are generally in favor of the project, as it is proposed, but are fearful that they requested zoning language would allow for significant changes to what is being proposed. Continued. We felt comfortable in creating this zone (which is this item), but we weren't ready to apply the zone (which is the next item).
   
   As I said earlier, "It seems that nearly everyone is excited by this project. The only major concern that I've heard is, "what happens if they don't build what they say they will." The zoning that they have requested, which accommodates their proposal, would also allow for significant changes that might not be as good for the community as their current proposal. For example, the current proposal calls for towers up to 14 stories tall next to the University Ave viaduct, and 5-story buildings on the western edge of the block, across the street from the smaller Startup buildings. The proposal is supported by the neighboring businesses, but they would not support 14-story towers on the western edge. The requested zoning allows for 14 story buildings, to accommodate what is proposed on the eastern half of the block, but does not restrict those buildings to the eastern half. Before I vote for the rezone, I need some assurances that we will actually get what is being proposed."
   
   This item was continued to see what the developer could work out with Community Development and concerned neighbors. I believe the developer will return with a development agreement that will ensure that certain aspects of the proposal will be built.
10. ***CANCELLED / DOES NOT REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL*** An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 4.00 acres generally located from 500 S to 600 S and from 100 W to University Ave to approve a PRO zone for a mixed-use development. Downtown Neighborhood. (PLPRO20190045)
    This was publicly noticed to be on the agenda, but does not need to be approved by the Council.
11. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 3.724 acres of property generally located at 2400 N 650 E to combine the Performance Development Overlay (PD) Zone with the underlying R1.10 zone. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190029)
    This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. One aspect that we've talked about the housing crunch is having a broader mix of housing types in every neighborhood to accommodate people in different life stages. Many people in Provo love the neighborhood in which they live. Some stay in homes that are too large for their needs and wants, but they can't bear the thought of moving away. This proposal seems to offer a housing type that local empty-nesters could move into and still stay in the neighborhood. Approved 4:3, with Kay Van Buren, David Sewell, and George Stewart opposed. We considered this item for three straight hours. In the end, we approved the application of the zoning overlay by a 4-3 vote. The proposal was recommended for approval by our community development staff and had a unanimous recommendation by our planning commission. The proposal is in line with the council's goals and priorities, as well as pressure that the state has been putting on cities to provide more housing diversity. The proposal also resonates with everything I've learned about smart growth and building healthy, resilient neighborhoods. BUT, the proposal was also opposed by 80+% of the nearby neighbors who I heard from that night in the meeting and by email in the run-up to the meeting. I believe in self-determination, on an individual level, but also on a community level. People should be able to decide what kind of community they want to live in. At the narrowest scope, this is a property rights question, but at the next step out, it's a question about the will of the neighbors, and further out we have the interests of the city and the state.
    
    I was among the four who voted to grant the rezone request.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the Board of Adjustment to comply with State Code. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190097)
    This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. A simple code correction to avoid conflicts of interest. Approved 6:0, with Kay Van Buren excused. This change makes sense.
13. An ordinance amending Ordinance 2019-01, previously approved on January 22, 2019, with regard to the development agreement required in order for a zone change at 2300 N. University Pkwy to become effective. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ201800406)
    This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. I have mixed feelings on this one. We increased the number and density of residential units allowed in the project. We have invested millions in infrastructure (like BRT) that this project is benefitting from. Addressing housing affordability is and has been a major goal for the council for years. We agreed with the terms proposed by the developer, and now they want to change the terms. A motion to place version 4A of the development agreement (which included a new affordability requirement and changes to the sewer provisions) as the exhibit to the ordinance was approved unanimously, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. I'm grateful for the developer's contribution towards affordable housing in Provo, even if it is a small fraction of what was agreed upon when the rezone took place. We need to decide whether inclusionary zoning will play a role in our housing affordability efforts.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 9 April 2019

There are no sensational or widely controversial items on tomorrow's agendas, just the typical, boring, incremental items that collectively, over the months and years, have a major impact on the community in which we live. Agenda items touch on commercial signs, tax increment diversion, the development approval process, conservation easements, and how we budget over $120,000,000 next year. Yet nothing will be very exciting, just the methodical plodding.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 9, 2019

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 regarding the proposed Conservation Easement for the Rock Canyon trailhead (17-085)
   Provo City has partnered with the Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance (RCPA) for several years to protect and preserve sensitive lands at the mouth of Rock Canyon. The RCPA has raised funds from local residents and contributed a 50/50 match to the City purchase of 18.75 acres from the Lichtey family. This conservation easement memorializes an ongoing commitment to preserve and manage the site in an environmentally sustainable fashion. I'm happy to support this next step and look forward to great things at the Rock Canyon Trailhead. Presentation only. This is a great partnership and I look forward to authorizing the easement.
2. A presentation from the Parks and Recreation Department and the Redevelopment Agency regarding creation of a redevelopment area near the East Bay Golf Course. (19-041)
   This topic was discussed at the Municipal Council's Joint Meeting with the Provo City School Board. The discussion centers around the tax increment that will be derived from the housing associated with the Noorda Rocky Mountain School of Medicine. The Parks and Recreation Department suggested the expansion of the Redevelopment Area to take tax increment to pay for a new golf facility they plan to build near the driving range. The topic will be introduced by the Parks and Recreation, with further discussion and information to be presented by Redevelopment. I have loads of questions on this item. Recent conversations make me think that the concept of "housing associated with the" medical school has evolved since the council last heard items about the school. Did we already make the commitment to direct the tax increment from the housing back to the school? Is it permissible to use tax increment to fund recreational infrastructure? Is it prudent to do so? I really like the presented enhancements at the golf course, I need some more convincing that we should redirect school tax dollars to fund it, rather than funding it through other avenues. A motion to place this item on the agenda on the Council Meeting on April 23, 2019 was approved 7:0. I love the proposed enhancements to the golf course. It'll make the course attractive to a broader swath of our residents. I still have serious concerns about the funding method. I understand and appreciate the creative approach to use money generated by the accommodations made by the golf course to be directed back into improvements in the golf course. But I think that the project is (and should be) sufficiently persuasive in its own right to be allocated the money through the standard methods. I'm even less comfortable asking the school district to redirect the new dollars generated back into a recreation amenity for the community.
3. A discussion on the street right-of-way typical cross-sections and their use in the Transportation Master Plan update (19-040)
   Public Works has contracted with Parametrix to update the Transportation Master Plan, which was last updated in 2013. This purpose of this presentation is to present the street right-of-way typical cross sections currently being used in that update and receive any feedback from the City Council. This information has been presented to the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee (TMAC) and the Planning Commission and their feedback has been incorporated. Once the cross sections are set, Parametrix can move forward with the draft master plan for eventual Council adoption. The actual street cross sections were not included in our document packet. I'm very curious to see what is being proposed. Street design heavily impacts our community. A motion to bring the street cross sections to a future Council Meeting after going to the Planning Commission was approved 7:0. It was very helpful to hear from a member of both the Planning Commission and TMAC regarding their evaluation of the proposal. The standard right-of-way will now be larger to include the park strip and the sidewalk. The actual asphalt widths are getting smaller.
4. A continued discussion regarding proposed organizational changes. (19-036)
   Following an extensive review of the effectiveness of the city organizational structure and processes, the Mayor wants to make several changes to streamline and improve development review processes and better align the city to improve the development experience. Three areas are proposed: 1) create a new Department of Development Services, 2) create a "one-stop shop" for development review processes, and 3) revamp the Coordinators' Review Council (CRC). At the last meeting, we ran out of time for this item. We completed the administration's presentation, but did not have any time for council discussion. This is a follow-up and will allow for that discussion. Discussion only. It was a light discussion. I floated my suggestion to name the departments, the "Development Department" and the "Community Department", but I don't think I swayed anyone. I think the administration is still thinking that I'm suggestion "Community Services Department" to go along with the "Development Services Department".
5. A discussion regarding the formation of the Sign Committee (19-002)
   The Council has interest in looking at the impact of signs in Provo City, the electronic sign ordinance, and whether there should be some changes. This discussion will allow Council to establish the intended goals and mission statement of this committee and what they would like to see accomplished through this effort. Signs have been a hot topic in some parts of Provo recently. I'm glad that some councilors are interested in rolling up their sleeves to dive into the topic to see if we can make some improvements. A motion to organize the Sign Committee as an ad hoc committee, with the mission statement: "Review sign ordinances and how they are applied and enforced in various areas of the city. Review design corridors and evaluate how the current sign ordinance aligns with the interests of these areas and evaluate the compatibility with other zones in surrounding areas. Study how the sign ordinance aligns with the General Plan. Recommend improvements as a result of lessons learned and input from committee members, Community Development, and stake holders including neighborhoods and business representatives. Bring legislative recommendations to the Council for consideration," and with Gary Winterton as Chair, David Sewell as vice-chair, and Kay Van Buren as a member of the committee was approved 7:0.
   
   A motion, “To further the goals of transparency and accountability to the citizens who elected us to serve them, I move that we ask Council attorney Brian Jones to prepare a draft statement for the benefit of the public who are concerned about the Blue Rock Medical sign. The statement would include a timeline and relevant facts pertaining to the decision to settle the lawsuit against the city by Blue Rock Medical. We ask that Mr. Jones consult with each Councilor, with Council staff, and with the Administration to prepare a draft statement that the Council could review by April 23rd – with the goal that, if approved unanimously, the statement would be released to the public shortly thereafter” was approved 7:0. We kicked off a new committee to review our signage policies.
   
   In an unexpected moment, Councilor Sewell requested, with council support, that our council attorney draft up a timeline to better communicate with the public about how the whole Blue Rock Medical sign fiasco has played out.



Budget Committee

6. A discussion regarding the Provo City Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2019-2020 (part 2 of 2). (19-035)
   The document and the presentation will lay out the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for each department. Information for each item includes a description of the project, funding status (funded, partially funded, unfunded), funding sources, cost elements, the projected budget through FY 2023-2024, which city goals are furthered, and an estimate of the general impact on operating budgets Part two will focus on non-Public Works projects. Presentation only. We were way behind at this point, and the presenter made up a half hour by quickly rolling through the document. I had previously reviewed it, and only had one question which was answered.
7. A presentation on the Energy Department and potential budget requests (19-004)
   The Energy Department will (1) report on how its operations contribute to City goals and objectives, and (2) identify potential budget needs for the department. The budget pre-season is nearing the end. In this meeting, we will get a preview from the Energy Department, Library Department, and the Mayor's Office. Presentation only. The past 12 months have been a little rough for our electrical service, but by all metrics, we are doing far better than the local "investor-owned utility".
8. A presentation on the Library Department and potential budget requests (19-004)
   The Library will (1) report on how its operations contribute to City goals and objectives, and (2) identify potential budget needs for the department. The budget pre-season is nearing the end. In this meeting, we will get a preview from the Energy Department, Library Department, and the Mayor's Office. Presentation only. It was great to see our Library Director again. He had been sidelined for a while with health issues. It was good to see the vision of the library going forward, and the fun things that they have been up to.
9. A presentation on the Mayor's Office and potential budget requests (19-004)
   The Mayor’s Office will (1) report on how its operations contribute to City goals and objectives, and (2) identify potential budget needs for the office. The budget pre-season is nearing the end. In this meeting, we will get a preview from the Energy Department, Library Department, and the Mayor's Office. Presentation only. The office is fairly small, and will shrink with the proposed department realignment.



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. A closed meeting was held.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. A presentation on funding for the Provo City Airport expansion. (19-028)
   At the most recent Utah State Legislative session, due to the anticipated growth in population there was some movement amongst some of the Utah County Legislators to get approval for funding to help facilitate the expansion of the Provo City Airport. The City was awarded a matching grant to pay for the construction of the apron that would run in front of the new terminal. However, the funding for the terminal building was still in question, this is why the City needed help from Utah State and County legislators. On March 12, 2019, the Utah County Commission committed $4.3 million to the terminal expansion project and on March 14, 2019, the Utah State Legislature appropriated $9 million as part of their upcoming budget. There was a whirlwind of activity to get the funding in place for a new terminal at the airport. This item will give us the opportunity to discuss this project with the administration so we can better understand the financial implications and the timeline of the project. Presentation only. This was an opportunity to explain to the public about how all the funding pieces of this project fit together.



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.




Redevelopment Agency Of Provo

2. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer of the Provo City Redevelopment Agency to modify certain contracts with NeighborWorks Provo. (18-076)
   There are a number of policy issues that need to be discussed relative to the recent proposal that Neighborhood Housing Services of Provo (NHS) made to the Council at the November 13, 2018 Work Meeting. RDA is seeking guidance from the Council about whether to forgive the write off amounts on all of the loans, the write-off amounts on some of the loans, and/or whether to establish a covenant between NeighborWorks and Provo City that would ensure the houses in question stay affordable. This item has dragged on for quite some time. I'm looking forward to getting it resolved. Continued. Each time I get excited to get it resolved, something comes up to push it back. I'm crossing my fingers for the 23rd.



Action Agenda

3. An ordinance granting New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC a non-exclusive franchise to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah. (19-009)
   Provo City and New Cingular Wireless PCS have come to terms on a Franchise Agreement. Pursuant to Provo City Code, “[n]o franchise contract shall take effect until it has been approved by the Municipal Council.” 5.03.020 (5). The parties are seeking the Council’s approval for the Agreement that they have reached.
   
   In addition to some minor changes, there are 2 notable changes in the Franchise Agreement from the template. The provisions relating to the City’s ability to conduct an audit are removed on the grounds that the Utah State Tax Commission already collects the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax on behalf of Provo and conducts periodic audits. Thus, additional audits by Provo were considered duplicative. The second notable change relates to the franchise fee. Under the template, the fee is collected in an amount equal to the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax. The Franchise Fee paid is then offset against the tax that would otherwise be due. In this agreement the issue is simplified and New Cingular Wireless would simply pay the tax. The amount of revenues that Provo receives would not be affected by this change. I appreciate that changes from the default template and hope that these changes can become part of the template going forward. Approved 7:0. This is the start of the "5G" "small cell" rollout. I mentioned that I liked the changes that were made, and suggested that Legal consider making them part of the template. I got the feeling that they weren't very interested in the idea.
4. A resolution approving the execution of a Master Tax-Exempt Lease Purchase Agreement for the purchase of Fire apparatus. (19-043)
   On a regular basis, Provo City uses lease-purchase financing for the acquisition of new fire vehicles. This resolution is a continuation of this policy that will allow us to continue to maintain the Fire Department's fleet. The council is requested to approve the lease financing for two new fire apparatus and related equipment for $2,490,000. I'm curious why it makes sense to lease the equipment rather than purchasing. Approved 7:0. I've already forgotten exactly how this all works out, but we are basically purchasing the apparatus, but it is called a lease, and mostly it is for bookkeeping purposes to spread the cost of the apparatus across its expected useful life.
5. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to create an interlocal agreement with Utah County for vote-by-mail election for municipal primary and general elections to be held on Tuesday, August 13, 2019 and Tuesday, November 5, 2019. (19-044)
   Provo City and Utah County will be working together to administer a vote-by-mail election for the 2019 City Municipal Election. The interlocal agreement specifies the responsibilities for each entity. In summary, Utah County will be responsible for printing and mailing ballots, providing manpower and equipment to process and count ballots, providing election returns, and postal permits for both outbound and return mail. Provo City will be responsible for administering candidate filings, candidate campaign finance reports, submitting all required notices, and proof of all election programming done for the 2019 City Municipal Election. As of March 1, 2019, there are 40,857 active voters in Provo City. The total cost of the election will not exceed $1.80 per active voter, per election. The total estimated cost would not exceed $147,085.20. I'm disappointed that we will not be using Ranked Choice Voting this fall. I bring it up because half of the $147k could have been saved by not having the primary.
   
   I am expecting a significantly improved voting experience this cycle as compared to the past two that the county conducted for us. Approved 7:0. It's official, the county will be administering our next election. I'm hopeful that it will go far smoother than the last two cycles.



Adjournment