Council Meetings - 23 July 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:30 PM, Tuesday, July 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 discussion regarding the creation of a Downtown Parking Committee. (19-002)
   Discussions about parking downtown have come up frequently in Council and committee discussions. The anticipated business and population growth as well as the relocation of the City Center building have made the need for a proactive approach to parking downtown more pressing. One option to address this need is to create a Downtown Parking Committee. I love Downtown Provo. One of the things I like about living where I do is that I can easily walk or bike to Downtown and avoiding the hassle and uncertainty of parking. Downtown parking is not a simple issue, but I think everyone can agree that there is plenty of room for improvement and that we are not utilizing our public resources as well as we should. A motion to create a Downtown Parking Committee, with the mission statement "To review the current state of and demand for public on-street and off-street parking in Downtown Provo, as well as the Strategic Parking Management Plan, in order to propose a vision for a functional, convenient, productive, and sustainable parking ecosystem and a high-level plan to bring about that vision.", with David Harding as chair, Gary Winterton as vice-chair, and with David Knecht as a committee member, was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. Downtown parking is not functioning optimally. This is a complex problem that we have been trying to address for a long time. I think we have done much of the background work. Consultants have created a "Strategic Downtown Parking Plan" which is more of a handbook which lays out many possible options. We have worked with the downtown business alliance. We have improved the consistency of parking enforcement. We have improved signage and communication. I feel that we are now in the position to create a master plan to guide our decisions and so we can proactively manage parking downtown. The difficulty in answering the request by the Blue Sky developers highlights the need for such a plan. With some effort, I believe that parking downtown can be a pleasant, convenient experience which will welcome rather than discourage visitors so that parking is no longer a hindrance to the economic vitality of downtown.
2. A discussion of proposed amendments to Provo City Code Section 15.03.035 (Grading) to clarify and change requirements related to grading and grading permits. (19-002)
   The Foothills Protection Committee has met for the last several months to discuss areas they can assist in the preservation and protection of the Provo City Foothills. This particular ordinance amendment stems from the discussion that Council had during the April 23, 2019, Work Meeting. This is the proposed legislation relating to the initial step that was discussed by the Committee to prevent grading issues in the future. The three things which are being discussed are:
   
   (1) Require a Project Plan Proposal with each grading permit. Currently, Provo City Code Section § 15.03.035(2) (Grading) indicates that grading permits can be “obtained at the office of the Provo City Engineer after completion of an application for permit complying with any and all permit requirements.” There are 12 requirements from in PCC § 15.03.035(2) for developers to fulfill. However, if developers were required to provide a plan to fulfill these requirements at the project proposal stage, they will be less likely to abandon grading projects. The additional effort on the part of those seeking a grading permit and gives additional information to Engineering in order to help them as they review projects.
   
   (2) Increase bonding requirements for grading permit projects. The grading permit requirements found in PCC § 15.03.035(4) currently require that:
   - the work is completed by a licensed qualified contractor,
   - payment of all required permit fees and bonds are received prior to commencement of any work, and
   - the project complies with any special conditions required by the City Engineer.
   The Foothills Protection Committee believes that the bonding requirements for grading permits should be increased. Any permit which requires cutting should be given special scrutiny to ensure that the projects are completed to the expected standards.
   
   (3) Require a landscaping plan as part of the project proposal. If each project has a landscaping plan, this would show the City the contractor intends to beautify the project upon completion and leave the project in better condition than when they began. This would also provide the Engineering Division additional information on how the contractor intends to beautify the area upon completion of the project. The landscaping component of the project proposal would also likely result in an increase of the bonding requirement. The City and nearby residents had a very bad experience a couple years ago with a grading project that turned into gravel operation. We had difficulties all along the way. This experience has led us to review the process that is in place that allowed the problems to occur. This committee is submitting these recommendations for changing the process. The discussion in the meeting will help me to better assess if these recommendations strike the right balance between ensuring that grading occurs responsibly and being too onerous. A motion to forward this for review by the Planning Commission was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. This looks good. I'm interested to see if the Planning Commission finds anything that causes concern. Good work, FPC!
3. A discussion of possible legislative efforts to be undertaken by the Foothills Committee of the Municipal Council. (19-002)
   Councilor Handley will review Provo City's current hillside code and the Salt Lake County ordinance on foothill protection to highlight what gaps the Foothills Protection Committee might address next. I really like the principles and balance struck in the Salt Lake County ordinance. I was a bit wary of how far this effort might try to go. Presentation only. The committee will continue to prepare policies and legislation, after which they will bring back future recommendations to the Council. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of this committee's efforts on broader foothill issues.
4. A discussion regarding a proposed Permit Parking Plan ordinance amendment. (19-002)
   In mid- to late-2018, the Policy Governance Committee began discussions to clean up and make amendments to certain elements of the Permit Parking code (see Provo City Code Chapter 9.80). The Permit Parking Areas currently in code have been subject to certain code language that has been outdated since the Parking Enforcement has gone 21st Century. There is no longer a need for actual permits due to the electronic system that Parking Enforcement has put in place. Then there were some procedural elements that the Policy Governance Committee chose to amend certain elements to tighten up the process and add a step for the Planning Commission to review the Permit Parking Area plans. This step is thought to help the Council obtain a land use perspective on these Permit Parking Area plans. Also, there is a fee added to the Consolidated Fee Schedule. This item was heard last time, but was continued to gather more information. Here is what I wrote last time: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.' A motion to refer this item back to the Policy Governance Committee and continue the item at the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019 was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. The Planning Commission indicated that they don't think they are in the best entity to review the applications. I agree, I think that this is more in the scope of the TMAC. The committee will take this back and will have these conversations before returning to the Council with an updated recommendation.
5. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a water carriage agreement with Central Utah Water and the US Department of the Interior. (19-083)
   The City utilizes A shared water conveyance pipe with other agencies in Provo Canyon. This agreement formalizes how the City will pay for its portion of related costs. We need to pay our share of the maintenance costs. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. This is a forty-year agreement. It is a great example of the boring, yet important work and collaboration between public entities that enables our reliable infrastructure.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

6. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with Mill Race Development, LLC for a project located between 500 S and 600 S, 100 W and University Avenue. (19-084)
   The Community Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation (RDA) purchased the property at 54 West 500 South in December of 2017 from Intermountain Farmer’s Association (IFA) in order to help IFA acquire their current location in the former OfficeMax building. This led to an opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the entire block and the RDA can now leverage their ownership of the existing IFA building into a larger development.
   
   RDA staff began to meet with the remaining property owners on the block to gauge their interest in participating with the RDA in the redevelopment of the block. Unbeknownst to staff, Mr. Justin Earl had begun negotiations to acquire the largest piece of property on the block. Once the transaction was finished, we had the opportunity to meet with him and ascertain that he would be interested in the redevelopment of the entire block of property.
   
   Mr. Earl met with his development team and presented a plan that will include an office tower, condominiums for sale and apartments for lease on the property. The development will also include meeting space and structured parking. Mr. Earl intends to offer some workforce housing as part of the office space. Should a firm lease space in the office tower, they would be able to contract for an apartment that would be available to their employees who make 60% of the area median income. Mr. Earl and his company have worked with the City’s Community Development department to provide both a Development Agreement and PRO Zone for this block and are now looking to have the attached Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in order to begin the construction process.
   
   The OPA provides for the transfer of property to Mr. Earl’s company with the requirement that the development could pay the RDA back after 10 years at the market value of $1,600,000 or pay the RDA back at a later date by appraising the development and paying the RDA one-fourth of the land value of the project, one-fourth being the RDA’s approximate holding in the block. The developer is also asking the RDA to consider providing tax increment to the project in exchange for public parking in the parking structure. I am comfortable in the delay of paying for the land. We purchased the land to spur development and that is exactly what is happening. I will feel more comfortable with the TIF request knowing that Provo will be better managing our public parking assets. Still, we need to make sure that the value that the public parking is providing the community is worth the taxes that will be offset. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. This agreement governs how the RDA property will be contributed in the project. The details of any TIF for the project will be worked out at a later date.
7. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
   Community Development has identified deficiencies in the Campus Mixed Use Zone pertaining to design regulation. The zone currently only requires one door on each street frontage, has no habitable first floor requirement or any regulation of windows and visual permeability at the first floor. Staff is studying amendments to the zone to provide sufficient regulation of these design elements. Staff has also integrated previously proposed amendments to the materials standards into these proposed amendments. The amendments under consideration include the following.
   A minimum habitable first floor depth as measured from the street facing façade. In the downtown this is 30’.
   A minimum number of pedestrian building entrances. For residential in the downtown an exterior entrance is required for each street facing unit.
   A minimum requirement for first floor windows and openings.
   
   Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. I support this effort to better define our design standards. I feel that we should be moving towards more form-based zoning requirements. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. The presentation only reinforced my impression from before. This is the direction that our zoning code needs to pursue.



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.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



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

1. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. (19-003)
   Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Stephen Mongie and James Hamula serve on the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. Their appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the Municipal Council and have been submitted to the Council for review. I served on the TMAC before I joined the Council, so it is near and dear to my heart. I served with fewer and fewer of the current committee members, but I'm grateful to the new members who are aptly stepping into our shoes. Approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. They will serve the City well.
2. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'I support this effort to better define our design standards. I feel that we should be moving towards more form-based zoning requirements.' Continued by Council Rules to the Council Meeting on August 6, 2019. These are good changes, but we wanted to give people who will be affected to have more time to learn and submit feedback before we make the decision.
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 9.80 to update language and amend procedures regarding permit parking areas. (19-002)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'This item was heard last time, but was continued to gather more information. Here is what I wrote last time: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.' Continued during the Work Meeting on July 23, 2019. See the report of agenda item #4 from the earlier meeting.
4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a water carriage agreement with Central Utah Water and the US Department of the Interior. (19-083)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'We need to pay our share of the maintenance costs.' Approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. This is what I wrote after hearing this item in the earlier meeting, 'This is a forty-year agreement. It is a great example of the boring, yet important work and collaboration between public entities that enables our reliable infrastructure.'



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

5. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with Mill Race Development, LLC to transfer Agency-owned property for a project located between 500 S and 600 S and 100 W and University Ave. (19-084)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'I am comfortable in the delay of paying for the land. We purchased the land to spur development and that is exactly what is happening. I will feel more comfortable with the TIF request knowing that Provo will be better managing our public parking assets. Still, we need to make sure that the value that the public parking is providing the community is worth the taxes that will be offset.' Approved 6:0, with David Harding excused. This item was actually heard last in the meeting, after the lengthy discussion on item #6. I stepped out to talk with the applicant of item #6 and missed this vote. I support their decision.
6. A resolution approving a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
   Staff has been working with McKay Christensen on a proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Center Street and 100 East. The ground floor will be commercial and the remaining floors will be residential with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Christensen intends to provide all the necessary parking for his project in a parking structure at the center of the complex. However, the cost to provide parking onsite for his commercial uses is proving to be cost prohibitive. Mr. Christensen is requesting he be allowed to utilize a portion of the 204 parking spaces allocated to the Redevelopment Agency in the Wells Fargo parking structure. The Redevelopment Agency previously approved 63 East using 40 of those spaces for the residents of 63 East. We last considered this request in a formal meeting about a month ago. This was the direct impetus for creating the Downtown Parking Committee. Here is what I reported after we heard the item last time, 'Parking is not well managed downtown. Provo's RDA has invested in parking projects, but others are managing the resources. I think that the city needs to rethink our approach to downtown parking. I fear that if we grant this request we'll be doubling down on the old, broken model, tying up these resources for a quarter-century for far, far below the value of the stalls. Also, the request for dedicated stalls is problematic and very inefficient.' A motion to amend the exhibit to the resolution was approved, after which a vote on a motion to approve the resolution as amended failed 3:4, with George Handley, David Sewell, and David Knecht in favor; and with George Stewart, Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton, and David Harding opposed. This is as narrow of a decision as they come. A new day is dawning for parking in Downtown Provo. By turning down this proposal, this development and all of Downtown will have an even better parking situation.



Adjournment

Council Meeting - 9 July 2019

It's been a couple years since I missed an official council meeting. I will be missing the meetings on Tuesday. Fortunately, it is a lighter day of meetings than we've had in a long time. Our Work Meeting is starting at 3pm. Even the councilors who have been serving longer than me can't remember ever starting that early.

The items that will likely generate the most public interest are the urban deer removal program and the resolution on changing the form of the county government.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

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

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

1. A discussion regarding a proposed Permit Parking Plan ordinance amendment. (19-002)
   In mid- to late-2018, the Policy Governance Committee began discussions to clean up and make amendments to certain elements of the Permit Parking code (see Provo City Code Chapter 9.80). The Permit Parking Areas currently in code have been subject to certain code language that has been outdated since the Parking Enforcement has gone 21st Century. There is no longer a need for actual permits due to the electronic system that Parking Enforcement has put in place. Then there were some procedural elements that the Policy Governance Committee chose to amend certain elements to tighten up the process and add a step for the Planning Commission to review the Permit Parking Area plans. This step is thought to help the Council obtain a land use perspective on these Permit Parking Area plans. Also, there is a fee added to the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
2. A discussion regarding a resolution of support for the recommendation from the Utah County Good Governance Board regarding the Utah County structure of government. (19-060)
   After several weeks of deliberation, on Monday, June 10, 2019, the Utah County Good Governance Board joined Strengthen Utah County in recommending that Utah County change its form of government from a three-person commission to a full-time mayor with seven part-time council members. Five council members would be elected in geographic districts, and two would be elected at large. The recommended change will be placed on the ballot this November 2019. This change is long overdue. There is consensus in the community that this should happen and should happen this fall. I strongly support the recommendations. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. See my discussion for item #4 in the evening meeting.
3. A discussion regarding the proposed Urban Deer Control Plan. (19-047)
   The Urban Deer program has received preliminary approval from the Council to progress to the point where an Urban Deer Control Plan has been put together, a budget has been prepared, and the Council needs to approve the final pieces in order to make the Plan operational. To do this this resolution takes three steps: 1. This is the second required public hearing to renew our Certificate of Registration with the Division of Wildlife Resources 2. This resolution approves the Urban Deer Control Plan, and 3. Appropriates the needed funds to make it operational. The COR from the Division of Wildlife Resources will be authorized for another three-year period. This is the final step in making the Urban Deer Program move forward in the process. We've run this program for three years, but it is difficult to get good measurements as to what the impact has been. As we renew the program, we have an opportunity to make improvements based on what we've learned.
   
   The non-lethal portion of the old program was expensive, unsafe for the workers, and too often ended in death for the translocated deer. I don't believe the council will continue this portion. The lethal portion can only be used in the less populous areas of the city, where the urban deer mix with the mountain deer. This year there is a new option, it traps, like the old non-lethal option, but instead of transporting the deer they are euthanized. This option can be used in the denser parts of the city where the urban deer hang out. I believe the council will be renewing the program without the old non-lethal option. I hope that the council focuses on the new trap-and-euthanize option, but gives the operator enough flexibility to adjust to what makes the most sense. A motion to replace the text beginning in line 9 of the resolution with the text from the second paragraph of Exhibit A was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. A motion to change the language to read 'up to$15,000' for the appropriation was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. Clarifications were made to better communicate that the target of this program are the urbanized deer -- deer that live year-round in the city -- and not mountain deer who just visit the city looking for food in the winter, and to communicate that the main motivation for the program is to improve public safety.
4. A discussion regarding proposed amendments to Personnel Policies in Title 4. (19-082)
   As the Administration was preparing for implementing changes to leave policies that were proposed with the annual budget this year, a number of inconsistencies between current practices and some older provisions of the Municipal Code in Title 4 were noted. Many of the personnel provisions in Title 4 are no longer in alignment with standard personnel policies and administrative practices and are somewhat antiquated. A few of these include:
   • A provision that 'total remuneration' to employees cannot exceed the amount in the pay plan - for many years bonuses, temporary acting pay, sick leave buy back and other programs technically haven’t been in alignment with the code
   • Leave administration practices that have evolved over time that are no longer technically in compliance with older provisions of the code
   • A requirement that all new employees start at step 1 of their ranges - for at least 20 years starting wage for a new employee has been based on experience, market and other factors that have helped attract and retain quality employees. The police lateral program established last year, for example, would not be in keeping with the strict interpretation of Title 4.
   I believe Provo City Code is too specific and rigid when it comes to employee compensation. It should establish broad principles and policies and leave plenty of room for the administration to adopt best practices and adapt to the changing labor market to remain competitive and attract and retain quality employees to serve our residents. Presentation only. This item will return to the Council at a future date. The council discussed personnel compensation policy with the administration in broad terms, to try to come to an understanding regarding the level of specificity that should be targeted in the code re-write.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

5. A discussion regarding a proposed amendment to Provo City Code 14.50(30) to amend the title, purpose, and objectives to the 50 East Project Redevelopment Option Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLOTA20190170)
   The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the text of the existing 14.50(30) PRO Zone to allow the zone to be more adaptable to the proposed 64-unit condo project and potential future projects in other areas focused on entry-level housing. The existing language is specific in title, as well as, the purpose and objectives to a project that was not constructed. Planning Commission recommended approval. This won't change any of the regulations. It changes the descriptive language identifying the zone. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. Instead of creating a new zone, Community Development worked with the developer to find an existing PRO zone that was close to what they are planning to create. The one they found had been established years ago, but the project that it was created for was never built. This action just changes the description in the zone to make it applicable to this project and keeps it broad so that it will be applicable to possible future projects as well.



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, July 9, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

1. Introduction of the new Foothills Neighborhood Chair, Ruth Thomas.
   
2. Introduction of the new North Park Neighborhood Chair, Eric Chase.
   
   

   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 resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (19-003)
   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:
   • Kris Whitehead - Airport Board
   • Adam Robertson - Airport Board
   • Scott Glenn - Arts Council
   • Jeff Ringer - Landmarks Commission
   • Diane Christensen - Landmarks Commission
   • Susan Fales - Landmarks Commission
   • Jaisa Bishop - Landmarks Commission
   • Jennifer Wright - Library Board
   • Rebecca Burton - Library Board
   • Cynthia Gagon - Library Board
   • Allyssa Pike - Library Board
   • Andrew Renick - Board of Adjustment
   Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I am grateful to the many people who volunteer their time to serve on our various boards and commissions. Their work is essential in the function of the city and is an important way for decisions to be made with broad public input.
4. A resolution supporting the Utah County Good Governance Advisory Board's proposal to include the change of government question on the November 2019 ballot. (19-060)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. Like I said in the Work Meeting preview, 'This change is long overdue. There is consensus in the community that this should happen and should happen this fall. I strongly support the recommendations.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. "The big news is that earlier in the day a Commissioner surprised the community with a maneuver that may effectively scuttle the effort to change the form of county government. The State Legislature created a provision in the law designed to prevent a County Commission from blocking the people's efforts to change the form of government. This provision was abused to do what it was designed to prevent. This Daily Herald editorial does a good job laying out the background of the situation. I am pleased that the Council passed this resolution of support and am still hopeful that the people of Utah County will get to vote this fall on whether to change the form of county government."
5. A resolution authorizing submission of a final Urban Deer Control Plan and authorizing the request for the Certificate of Registration ('COR') from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (19-047)
   This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I said earlier on this item, 'We've run this program for three years, but it is difficult to get good measurements as to what the impact has been. As we renew the program, we have an opportunity to make improvements based on what we've learned.
   
   The non-lethal portion of the old program was expensive, unsafe for the workers, and too often ended in death for the translocated deer. I don't believe the council will continue this portion. The lethal portion can only be used in the less populous areas of the city, where the urban deer mix with the mountain deer. This year there is a new option, it traps, like the old non-lethal option, but instead of transporting the deer they are euthanized. This option can be used in the denser parts of the city where the urban deer hang out. I believe the council will be renewing the program without the old non-lethal option. I hope that the council focuses on the new trap-and-euthanize option, but gives the operator enough flexibility to adjust to what makes the most sense.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. From the earlier meeting: 'Clarifications were made to better communicate that the target of this program are the urbanized deer -- deer that live year-round in the city -- and not mountain deer who just visit the city looking for food in the winter, and to communicate that the main motivation for the program is to improve public safety.'
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Division of Community and Neighborhood Services and Department of Development Services. (19-036)
   During the Mayor's State of the Union in January 2019, she announced that the Administration would be restructuring to create two separate departments in order to provide better service delivery to residents in the form of a one-stop shop for development. The two departments--Dept. of Community and Neighborhood Services and Dept. of Development Services--would be created by taking the tasks held in Economic Development, Redevelopment Agency, and then divvying up some of the services from Community Development and Public Works to get the employees for these departments. The Administration will address the Title 2 amendments necessary to formally create the Division of Community and Neighborhood Services and the Department of Development Services. Like I said earlier, 'This is a pretty big deal, and is the culmination of years of effort. I believe this restructuring will better serve the interests of Provo.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I am looking forward to improved services for both the neighborhoods as well as developers.
7. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code 14.50(30) to amend the title, purpose, and objectives to the 50 East Project Redevelopment Option Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLOTA20190170)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. From the earlier meeting, 'This won't change any of the regulations. It changes the descriptive language identifying the zone.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. From the earlier meeting, 'Instead of creating a new zone, Community Development worked with the developer to find an existing PRO zone that was close to what they are planning to create. The one they found had been established years ago, but the project that it was created for was never built. This action just changes the description in the zone to make it applicable to this project and keeps it broad so that it will be applicable to possible future projects as well.'
8. ***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending the General Plan designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R) for approx 0.78 acres of real property generally located at 862 E Quail Valley Drive. Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190009)
   This item was not ready to be heard
9. ***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approx 0.78 acres of real property, generally located at 862 East Quail Valley Drive, from Public Facilities (PF) Low Density Residential (LDR). Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180430)
   This item was not ready to be heard
10. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.285 regarding the design standards for buildings in the Campus Mixed Use Zone. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190025)
    This item was not ready to be heard



Adjournment