Council Meetings - 16 June 2020

Tomorrow's meetings are very full. I'm afraid we will go well into the evening. We will be voting on additional regulations for brewpubs, zoning changes for Christensen Oil, and the Foothills Overlay. One hot local topic that we won't be addressing is a Parking Permit Program for Joaquin. I set off a bit of a controversy last week when I was interviewed by a reporter for the Daily Universe about a proposal that is being developed. I didn't include all of the details and the story raised the concerns of many people. Take a look at this post for more information.

Work Meeting Agenda
1:00 pm, Tuesday, June 16, 2020

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 potential updates to the budget. (20-008)
   This is the Council's opportunity to make any changes to the budget before the second of two required hearings in the Council Meeting this evening. The Council has discussed carryovers in the past, and final language must be determined before the resolution adopting the budget is approved. There was a very short time frame in which to address this concern. Basically, the State Code says that all unspent and unencumbered money (meaning that a P.O. or contract has already been executed to spend the money) lapses at the end of the year and must be returned to the General Fund. There is concern that this encourages a "use it or lose it" mentality that is not fiscally prudent. The "Carry-over" Committee is recommending that the Council collaborate with the Administration to address this concern in a way that respects both the role of the Administration and the role of the Council and the checks and balances that have been put into place between the equal branches of our city government. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. We basically punted on the "Carry-over" question, but it will need to be revisited before we continue the practice of past years.



Administration

2. A presentation regarding an update on the Innovation Grant Fund Program. (20-096)
   The Innovation Grant Fund Program was created several years ago to encourage our employees to think outside the box and be innovative in their approach to their jobs or challenges. The program successfully launched one round of initiatives/ideas. However, the program was not implemented in fiscal year 18/19. In late 2019, the program was re-initiated and the program began promoting and soliciting Provo City employees to submit innovative ideas. The criteria for selecting an innovative idea were as follows:
   
   
   
   • cost savings to Provo City as a whole
   
   
   
   • cost savings to individual departments
   
   
   
   • service and quality improvement to Provo residents
   
   
   
   • increased efficiency
   
   
   
   • contribution to public safety or quality of life and finally
   
   
   
   • innovation or a compelling concept
   
   
   
   
   
   The Administration will present three brief updates from Police, Fire, and Community and Neighborhood services on the innovative submissions from these departments. I am very supportive of the Innovation Grant Fund Program. I think the first year was highly successful and look forward to the innovations that the current program will produce. Presentation only. The projects that were reported on this year seem a bit more like implementing best practices developed elsewhere, things which we should be funding from the regular budget. I appreciated the projects that were funded last time, I felt they better fit the "innovation" focus of the program.



Business

3. A presentation regarding the State Auditor's Office Fraud Risk Assessment. (20-012)
   On January 7, 2020, the Council heard a presentation in a Work Meeting regarding the Utah State Auditor's Office Fraud Risk Assessment for Municipalities. This is a follow-up presentation to inform the Council of updates on the City's activities and progress related to filling out this assessment to determine the level of Provo City's fraud risk. The State recommended some practices that would reduce the risk of fraud in local governments. I am grateful for the way the Administration took ownership of issue and has been working to fully implement the recommendations. They are returning to report to the Council the results of their efforts. Presentation only. Serious kudos to Mr. Borget and the Administration for taking this as an opportunity to seriously evaluate the system Provo had in place and to look for ways where we can do things even better.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

4. A discussion regarding a Letter of Intent with PEG Development. (20-097)
   The Redevelopment Agency has been working with PEG Development for a facility that would provide additional Class A office space in the downtown and also meet the RDA's obligation to Utah County to provide 350 parking spaces for the Utah County Convention Center. PEG has encountered difficulties in getting sufficient commitments of the office space to allow their construction lender to release the financing to commence construction. PEG has asked the Agency to consider leasing enough space to reach the 60% threshold and obtain the financing. This is scheduled to be heard at the July 7 Council meeting. I see this as a win-win proposal. It allows the developer to move forward with the project, which is also needed by the Convention Center. It accommodates the developer's needs, but holds tax-payers harmless and keeps the developer motivated to fill the space because the money for the lease is diverted from the money they would be receiving for building the parking lot. Presentation only. We will move forward on this.
5. A resolution approving a substantial amendment to the Program Year 2019 Annual Action Plan to incorporate additional funds from the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act into the Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus funds. (20-093)
   In response to the pandemic caused by the spreading of the Corona Virus COVID-19, the federal government provided an economic stimulus package through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). This act made available, at the first tranche, $5 billion in supplemental CDBG-CV funding to prevent prepare for and respond to the coronavirus. The funds are administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which has notified Provo City of an expected allocation of $745,997 in CDBG-CV grant funds. To use the funding, the City is required to amend the most recently approved Annual Action Plan (AAP), which for Provo City is the PY2019 AAP. The CARES Act provides flexibilities and waivers for CDBG grantees to make it easier to use CDBG-CV grants for coronavirus response, including amending the City’s Citizen Participation Plan to suspend regulatory requirements associated with CDBG funds, such as a reduced comment period, opportunity to hold virtual public hearings and citizen participation reasonable notices and opportunities to comment. A duly noticed Public Comment Period from June 11, to June 16, 2020 is conducted for citizens, partner agencies, and other interested parties to review and comment on the Plan’s proposed amendment. Electronic copies of the Plan are available for public review at the City’s website. The public hearing on June 16, 2020 will close the Public Comment Period, present the Plan (Exhibit A) to the Municipal Council and public in general, show proposed uses to the recommended projects for CDBG-CV funds (Exhibit B), and an opportunity for the Municipal Council to make final funding determinations for the CDBG-CV uses and approve the Substantial Amendment to the Plan The bulk of the money will go to small business support, but there is a variety of other uses from rent and mortgage relief to social services. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for item 9 in the evening meeting.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt additional regulations for the Class "F" Beer License for restaurants with ancillary breweries. (20-098)
   The Council approved restaurants with ancillary breweries (brewpubs) on February 18, 2020 on the condition that a license be adopted. On April 14, the Council approved a simple license for brewpubs (Class "F" Beer License). Since then, the Alcohol Licensing Committee has worked to draft additional regulations for brewpubs to promote safety without unduly burdening prospective brewpub owners. The proposed regulations received support from the Council in previous Work Meeting discussions. I don't think that any of these provisions hurt, but I also don't think they really add anything. As a quick example, a restriction is proposed to forbid brewpubs from storing equipment and ingredients outside. This type of storage is already forbidden in the three zones where brewpubs are allowed. Does it hurt to have outside storage forbidden in two places? Does it help? As a member of the committee, I have reviewed and can recommend the langauge that was drafted to fulfill the F-license Restrcitions proposal supported by the Council, even if I still question the value of some of the provisions. A motion to amend the proposed language from 2 to 1, to read: “No more than one premises located within the same contiguous incidence” of the relevant zones, was approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for item 10 in the evening meeting.
7. A resolution approving and adopting the Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan and Budget for the Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-094)
   Qualtrics seeks to expand their offices and employees here in Provo. They will be adding at least 150,000 square feet of office space and two parking structures. Qualtrics will make some of the parking available to other visitors to the Riverwoods Business park. They will also hire an additional 1,000 employees over the next ten years, with an average annual payroll of $80,000 per employee. I'm struggling with this item. I think Qualtrics is a great local company and has greatly benefitted our community. I am thrilled that they are cementing their commitment to the area and are expanding their operation here. But we don't typically thank companies by rebating the taxes they pay. *IF* this expansion is enabled by TIF then it is a wise investment in our future. *IF* the expansion would happen anyway then (for example) the Provo City School District will now have half a million dollars less to educate our children, including the children of the 1000 additional employees that Qualtrics will be bringing on. Wouldn't it be better to show our appreciation to the company by providing the very best education possible for their employee's children? Wouldn't it be better to provide top-notch city services and public amenities like parks? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for item 7 in the evening meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to permitted uses and yard requirements of the M1 Light Manufacturing Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200117)
   This is the second hearing for this item. Previous hearings were held on May 5, 2020 and May 19, 2020. The proposed Ordinance Text Amendment is a staff-initiated amendment to add “Petroleum bulk stations and terminals (only as to the sale of petroleum products listed in the International Fire Code as combustible liquid classifications Class II, IIIA, and IIIB” as a permitted use in the M1 Zone. The text amendment also adds, “Petroleum bulk station and terminals for the sale of petroleum products in flammable classifications Class IA, IB, and IC of the International Fire Code” as a conditional use with specific conditions; removes natural or manufactured gas storage as a permitted use and instead adds it as an accessory use only; and, adds language to Section 14.27.080 to allow the Development Services Director or designee to modify the yard requirements. While the proposed text amendment will apply to all M1 Zones in the City, the impetus for the amendment is the Christensen Oil Site at 595 S 200 E in the Maeser Neighborhood. In 1935 the property located at 600 South and 200 East was occupied by Utah Oil Company, a petroleum distribution company. Owen Christensen began working there in the 1940’s and bought them out in 1973. Christensen Oil was established in 1973 as a petroleum product wholesaler. The property has several land uses including corporate headquarters for Christensen Oil and Crest Convenience Stores, warehousing and storage, and petroleum bulk station and terminal. Planning Commission recommended approval.
   
   Updated Christensen Oil site plan.
   
   Draft land use and site improvement agreement This is a tricky issue with many points of disagreement and conflict over the years. I believe the proposed text amendment to the M1 zone, along with the Land Use and Site Development Agreement, removes as much uncertainty as possible for the neighbors, the City, and the company. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for item 11 in the evening meeting.
9. A discussion regarding updates to ordinances amending Provo City Code to establish a Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone and applying the zone to multiple areas on the East Bench. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200077 and PLRZ20200078)
   This item was continued from the Council Meeting on April 14, 2020, after which it was discussed in a Town Hall on May 7, 2020 and by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2020 and June 10, 2020. The greatest change since the Council last heard this item is that the overlay zone will be applied on a much smaller scale. The zone already exempts platted and developed properties, and so those properties have been removed from the area to which the zone would be applied. Following discussions after complications with the gravel pit, the Foothills Protection Committee and Planning staff prepared a proposed set of hillside requirements and development standards to help protect hillside areas of Provo City. Staff felt that an overlay zone approach was best for adding hillside requirements. The proposed requirements and standards would overlay the existing zoning of a property; in other words, this proposal would add additional zoning requirements for a given parcel in addition to the requirements of the underlying zone. Feedback from multiple City departments was considered in the drafting of this proposal. The proposal includes, among other things, requirements related to limits of disturbance or LOD (identification of the limited area of a lot that can be encroached upon by development activity), slope protection and stability, detention basin design, ridgelines, trails, streets and access, fences, vegetation protection, stream corridor and wetlands protection, design standards, and development clustering. Multiple graphical illustrations of requirements are included in the proposal for the sake of facilitating comprehension of the requirements. Further, this proposal has a companion zone map 2 amendment application. With the zone map amendment application, staff has proposed the inclusion of certain properties in the CH Zone. Included in the proposal is an amendment to Chapter 14.01, Provo City Code, to limit development east of the proposed CH Zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval with one condition and staff have requested a motion from the Council to direct the creation of a Northeast Area Plan, which includes the foothills. The Commission also noted some items to be addressed. I see this mainly as a balancing act between different interests. It appears that this latest revision strikes a good balance, but I am looking forward to the discussion tomorrow to get a better feel for it. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for items 12 & 13 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. None requested.

Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation regarding the 2020 Census update and Mayor Kaufusi's Census Challenge Video. (20-028)
   Presentation only. Have you filled out the online census form? Is there anyone you know that might need help filling it out? An elderly relative or neighbor? An English language learner? Someone who doesn't have an Internet connection?
   
   

   Public Comment

   Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.
   
   Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:
   
   Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.
   
   Please limit your comments to two minutes.
   
   State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.




Action Agenda

2. A public hearing on transferring utility revenues to the General Fund and other funds. (20-008)
   State law requires that Provo City provide an annual disclosure of funds transferred from the utility enterprise funds to the General Fund. Historically, Provo has budgeted for the transfer of 10% of utility fund revenues to the General Fund as a "dividend" to Provo taxpayers as the result of the taxpayers' investment in the City's utility infrastructure. These funds are used each year to help cover the costs of important City services like police, fire, parks and recreation, and other city functions. The utility transfer, together with franchise fees, helps keep property taxes in Provo low. If City utility services were provided by private utility owners, these dividends would instead be paid to investor-owners. Because Provo taxpayers are the investor-owners, these dividends are used to offset what otherwise would be a significant increase in property tax rates. The 10% transfer totals $11,490,397 in the proposed 2021 budget. Since 2013, a 1% transfer from utility fund revenues has been transferred to the General Fund to be used to enhance available funding for road maintenance. The 2021 budget proposes that $1,149,041 be transferred to the General Fund. The transfers from utility fund revenues to the General Fund total $12,639,438 in the proposed FY2021 budget. Almost all of our utility rates are equal to or less than the average for this area, and our service is better. Our tax-exempt community members are getting a better utility deal than they would in other nearby cities, but they still are contributing to the other city services they enjoy (like Police and Fire protection) through this enterprise fund transfer. Public hearing only. The State requires this in the name of transparency. I think it is also a great way to highlight what a great deal our residents and other community members are receiving from Provo utilities.
3. An ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021 in the amount of $292,939,096 and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (20-008)
   This is the last of two public hearings on the budget. The Council will vote on approving the budget and the updated Consolidated Fee Schedule. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. In addition to the link in the background, I recommend reading the Citizen's Budget document. Approved 7:0. We did our best at this stage. We will likely need to be nimble and make adjustments as the fiscal year progresses and we see how the pandemic affects our revenues and expendatures.




Stormwater Service District

4. A public hearing on transferring Stormwater fund revenues to the General Fund and other funds. (20-010)
   State law requires that Provo City provide an annual disclosure of Stormwater funds transferred from the utility enterprise funds to the General Fund. Historically, Provo has budgeted for the transfer of 10% of utility fund revenues to the General Fund as a "dividend" to Provo taxpayers as the result of the taxpayers' investment in the City's utility infrastructure. These funds are used each year to help cover the costs of important City services like police, fire, parks and recreation, and other city functions. The utility transfer, together with franchise fees, helps keep property taxes in Provo low. If City utility services were provided by private utility owners, these dividends would instead be paid to investor-owners. Because Provo taxpayers are the investor-owners, these dividends are used to offset what otherwise would be a significant increase in property tax rates. See my Preview for item 2. Public hearing only. See my Report for item 2.
5. A resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021 in the amount of $6,704,839. (20-010)
   This is the last of two public hearings on the budget. The Council will vote on approving the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This budget is much smaller and simpler than the main budget. Approved 7:0. See my Preview for this item.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

6. A resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021 in the amount of $1,171,617. (20-009)
   This is the last of two public hearings on the budget. The Council will vote on approving the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This budget is much smaller and simpler than the main budget. Approved 7:0. See my Preview for this item.
7. A resolution approving and adopting the Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan and Budget for the Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-094)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 7 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. I was able to express the concerns I described in my Preview: "I'm struggling with this item. I think Qualtrics is a great local company and has greatly benefitted our community. I am thrilled that they are cementing their commitment to the area and are expanding their operation here. But we don't typically thank companies by rebating the taxes they pay. *IF* this expansion is enabled by TIF then it is a wise investment in our future. *IF* the expansion would happen anyway then (for example) the Provo City School District will now have half a million dollars less to educate our children, including the children of the 1000 additional employees that Qualtrics will be bringing on. Wouldn't it be better to show our appreciation to the company by providing the very best education possible for their employee's children? Wouldn't it be better to provide top-notch city services and public amenities like parks?"




Action Agenda

8. A resolution adopting the Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan for the Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-095)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 7 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. This is related to the previous item.
9. A resolution approving a substantial amendment to the Program Year 2019 Annual Action Plan to incorporate additional funds from the Coronavirus Aid Relief & Economic Security Act into the Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus funds. (20-093)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 5 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. Staff did a great job quickly yet carefully drafting a plan for using the federal COVID relief funds that we were given.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt additional regulations for the Class "F" Beer License for restaurants with ancillary breweries. (20-098)
    This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 6 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. The Council made a change to the proposal earlier in the day, to limit the number of brewpubs in each instance of a permitted zone to 1. This means that there can only be 6 brewpubs in Provo. Considering that there are only two in the entire county, I will be surprised if we even hit two in the next 5 years.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to permitted uses and yard requirements of the M1 Light Manufacturing Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200117)
    This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 8 in the Work Meeting. Implied motion approved as amended 7:0. I feel that this is the best possible outcome from this difficult situation. The decades-long disagreement about what the law allows and what the judgement allows is over. The company is agreeing to abandon all previous claims and to fully conform to the current zoning. The company, the city, and the neighbors now have some assurance as to what to expect.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200077)
    This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. This created the overlay, and had comparably little discussion this time. Most of the discussion was had on the map of where the overlay would be applied, which is the next item.
13. An ordinance amending the Provo City Zone Map to include multiple east bench properties in the Critical Hillside (CH) Overlay Zone. Citywide application. (PLRZ20200078)
    This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. Implied motion approved as amended 6:1, with David Sewell opposed. The main discussion revolved around whether the overlay should apply to land where development has already occurred beyond it on the mountainside, and how small of pockets it should apply to.
14. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 18.5 acres of real property generally located at 901 W 1560 S from Residential Agricultural (RA) and Agricultural (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.7). Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200079)
    The Community and Neighborhood Services Department on behalf of the Provo Municipal Council has requested to amend the Provo City Code to add the Very Low Density Residential (14.14F) zone. There is no proposed development requesting to utilize this zone. The proposed zone would have a minimal impact on a neighborhood due to the density limitation and could be a buffer between One Family Residential (14.10) and Low Density Residential (14.14A) zones. The proposed zone would require the residential units to follow the Residential Design Guidelines which would result in a higher quality of product within the neighborhood. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was first heard by the Council at their June 2 meeting and was continued to allow for more input. Input was taken on Open City Hall. We continued this item after hearing it in our last Council Meeting. Here is what I reported on this item, "I believe this is the first major rezone request for land west of I-15 since the West Side Development Policies were adopted by the Council a few years ago. It aligns pretty well with the policies. The continuation will allow for more resident input and for getting some questions answered."
    
    The main question that I have is how the property around the existing structure will be treated in the future. The structure is old and will sit on 1 acre of land. If it is redeveloped, will the parcel be subdivided? How will that work with the proffered development agreement? If it is subdivided, how will it be integrated into the rest of the neighborhood? Implied motion approved as amended 7:0. I was able to get my questions answered. The 1-acre lot was not included in the other density calculation so as long as it is not redeveloped into more than four properties then the overall density should work out.




Adjournment

Joaquin Neighborhood Parking Permit Proposal Under Development

More than a year ago a committee started working to develop a parking permit program that could be used in the densely populated area of Provo south of BYU.

Last week I was interviewed over the phone by a reporter with the Daily Universe about the proposal that is being developed. The article was published yesterday.

The article prompted a discussion on the Provo Forward Facebook group. I wanted to answer some of the questions and fill in some of the details. Here is what I wrote:

Ms. Andersen did a great job writing this up. There is a limit to the amount of information that can be transferred in a quick phone interview and a single newspaper article, so hopefully, I can address some of the questions and fill in some of the details.

There are a lot of good questions here. And there will be plenty of opportunities to learn more about the draft proposal and to help shape the final form of the proposal. Most of the work took place last year, and the pandemic has put a hold on the effort, but so far we have used student and resident surveys, focus groups, stakeholder groups, and leaned heavily on a committee composed of students, landlords, and non-student residents of the neighborhood.

Why not use a regular parking permit program? Most parking permit programs are used to keep commuters or patrons of a nearby attraction from taking up all of the parking in front of residences. (There is a philosophical question about whether a public resource like on-street parking should be reserved for only some members of the public. This was asked in a comment above, and is a valid question to ask. But the public generally feels that residents should get priority over commuters for on-street parking. I feel that this proposal does a decent job of balancing these interests). This area of the City is somewhat unusual because it has so many residents compared to off-street spots that the on-street parking demand of just the residents outstrips the supply. This is compounded by commuters who choose the free parking on the streets and then walk or catch transit to campus.

So what do you do when resident demand outstrips supply? You can still allow all residents to obtain a permit, but, in this case, this will certainly lead to more permits than parking spaces. As one commenter complained above, it is frustrating to buy a permit and still regularly not have a spot to park in. If you want to not over-subscribe the program, then what is the best way to limit the permits? We could just have a hard limit, and sell them first-come-first-served. Hopefully, everyone can see why this would be a bad idea. Or we could use price the permits high enough that it dissuades enough residents from buying the permit. That certainly would create a lot of revenue for the City, but the point of this effort is to address a major hindrance to the quality of life in this area, not to create a new one.

There is a regulation that applies to all of Provo and has been around for several decades. It is that every property should provide enough off-street parking for every automobile operated from the premise. If this was the case in Joaquin then there wouldn't be a problem to address. One option to fix the on-street parking problem is for the City to try to enforce that regulation. But I can't imagine that that would be too popular. The proposal that is being developed currently is based on the concept of augmenting the off-street parking that every property should have, with some of the parkable frontage.

I should note that property owners (which include landlords) are not being offered the parking spaces in front of their properties. Permits would be valid anywhere in a fairly large area (perhaps a two-block radius). The number of permits that they can buy would be less than the amount of parkable frontage they have. This would under-subscribe the permit program, in other words, the number of permits sold will be less than the total number of on-street parking spaces. This ensures space for visitors. ANYONE can park in ANY open on-street space. If the license plate is not associated with a permit then payment will be required. There are a ton of details to work out, but the first half-hour or hour is likely to be free. We have received presentations and proposals from several companies and are looking across the country for the most convenient systems to manage on-street parking. It will be license-plate based. It will allow for payments by app, web, or over the phone. The pay-by-the-hour price will be adjusted as frequently as needed and will vary across the neighborhood. Parking occupancy will be constantly measured as the parking enforcement license plate readers count the number of parked cars on each block as they drive by. The price will be set to try to always have one spot open during the most congested times.

The price of the permits would be fixed and would just cover the cost of administering the program. This will be WELL below market value. The only way this program would raise rents generally is if even more people want to live in the area once the parking headache is resolved. Simple supply and demand.

As it is now, the "free parking" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking) skews the rents in the area and benefits complexes will little off-street parking and penalizes complexes with adequate off-street parking. It also leads to the inefficient use of parking as Celeste mentions above. This proposal will level the playing field. Some older properties have little off-street parking and are effectively being subsidized. They may need to lower their rent if this proposal is implemented, because they can't offer a parking spot to all of their tenants. Some complexes may choose to decouple the cost of parking from their rent. This would provide opportunities for savings for tenants who don't have cars, and would encourage residents to have fewer cars. Some property managers might even try to buy permits from other properties. This is part of leveling the field, will encourage more efficient use of parking, and may encourage the redevelopment of the underutilized properties.

Anyway, I look forward to the broader public engagement phase of this effort. Hopefully, we will have a completed draft of the proposal ready to publish soon.

Council Meetings - 2 June 2020

It feels like there is so much going on in the world right now.

Be safe. Be kind. Don't give up.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, June 2, 2020

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 from the Provo School District. (20-092)
   The Superintendent of Provo School District will be giving an update about what is happening with the district. He will talk about the impacts the district is dealing with and how they plan to move forward in fall with classes. I am a fan of having a smaller school district that shares boundries with our city. The school board is elected by the same people who elect city leaders. We serve the same people and are funded by the same people. While we have different roles, it seems that this arrangement should make it easier to have good coordination between the District and the City.
   
   The District is facing some unusual and difficult challenges with the pandemic and the school building needs. Presentation only. Much of the time was spent on explaining the plan to do a phased rebuilt of Timpview High.
2. A discussion on the proposed FY 2021 budget. (20-008)
   The Council has adopted the FY 2021 tentative budget and continues to review items in the budget. One item of discussion is the Tier II retirement enhancement for public safety, and the City’s contribution to that. It's been a tough year to budget, but I feel we are getting close. There were some meetings last week to discuss some policy tweaks, but I don't know if we will be ready to present in this meeting or if it'll need to wait for two more weeks. A motion that Provo City Municipal Council directs that the City “pick-up” (that is, pay) the required member contribution, which will be designated as employee contributions, on behalf of employees serving as a Public Safety Officer or as a Firefighter that are members of the Public Safety and Firefighter Tier II Hybrid Retirement System was approved 7:0. This is in response to changes made by the State Legislature and was recommended by the City Administration. It was built into the proposed budget.
3. A discussion regarding beer licensing regulations and density restrictions. (20-077)
   Staff is working with Council on their preferences in regard to the different proposals put forth by the brewpub licensing subcommittee. The goal of this discussion is to give direction to the subcommittee so they can move forward. This has been a difficult and unusual issue. The way the committee work has been handled by the Council has also been unusual and I feel it has added to the difficulty. Hopefully we will get to a decision soon. A motion to strike restaurant regulations from any further discussion in the committee was approved 4:3, with Bill Fillmore, David Sewell, and David Harding opposed. This has been such an exhausting issue to work through. The Council Staff prepared a survey that all the councilors filled out before the meeting, with the hope that it would speed our discussion along and so we could understand which provisions of the proposals had majority Council support. This backfired a bit because the survey showed that a couple of provisions had 4:3 support, but in the meeting they ended up having 3:4 support (i.e. majority opposition). It was a painful process to get to that understanding because the survey showed the opposite.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

4. Chris Ensign requests a zone change from Residential Agricultural (RA) and A1.5 to R1.7 for property located at approximately 901 W 1560 S. Lakewood Neighborhood (PLRZ20200079)
   This item is the proposed rezoning of approximately 18.5 acres from the RA residential agricultural and the A1.5 agricultural zones to the R1.7 single family residential zone. The rezoning would facilitate the development of a residential subdivision that would contain approximately 54 single-family residential lots. The current land use designation for the project is residential, as shown on both the General Plan Map and the Southwest Area Land Use Map. The proposed concept plan would comply with the maximum density of 4 units per acre (net) called out in the Westside Development Policies. The Westside Development Policies, though not yet adopted, were considered and used in the development of the adopted Southwest Area Land Use Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. "I feel that this proposal is about as good as we can expect. I think the committee that drafted the broad development policies for west Provo had hoped for even better, with a variety of housing types sprinkled in, but we, as the government, failed to create zones that would actually allow that kind of variety. I do think it is unfortunate that a more recent neighborhood meeting wasn't held. I don't know if that is enough to change my vote." Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 2, 2020. See my report of item 3 in the evening meeting.
5. An Ordinance Text Amendment request to add the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) zone to the Provo City Code as Chapter 14.14F. Citywide application (PLOTA20200120)
   The Community and Neighborhood Services Department on behalf of the Provo Municipal Council has requested to amend the Provo City Code to add the Very Low Density Residential (14.14F) zone. There is no proposed development requesting to utilize this zone. The proposed zone would have a minimal impact on a neighborhood due to the density limitation and could be a buffer between One Family Residential (14.10) and Low Density Residential (14.14A) zones. The proposed zone would require the residential units to follow the Residential Design Guidelines which would result in a higher quality of product within the neighborhood. Planning Commission recommended approval. The idea behind this new zoning option was suggested in a Council Meeting by a member of the public. I think it is a great idea and will help diversify our housing stock while keeping projects compatible with the surrounding areas. This zone has the density of an R1.6 zone but the flexibility of the LDR zone.
   
   There are a couple of proposed provisions that I have questions about, but overall I'm excited to see this come to fruition. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 2, 2020. See my report of item 2 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, June 2, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.

Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda: Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.



Action Agenda

1. A resolution creating a Public Infrastructure District for the medical school and associated housing. (20-090)
   The developer of the medical school and associated housing would like to speak with the Council about creating a Public Infrastructure District (PID) to provide a financing mechanism for the removal of former landfill debris and the installation of utilities and infrastructure. The letter of intent and the draft policy document for the consideration for creating PIDs (included in the supplemental materials) was reviewed in a CRC meeting on May 6, 2020, that was attended by all of the development review departments. None of them expressed any concerns. There was a question about scope and size of these types of developments. The answer is that this type of funding mechanism really only makes sense for large developments – such as a medical school and associated multiple family housing. It was also noted that should Provo consider the creation of PIDs, that single-family detached residential development would not likely be considered for approval. The Council has heard a presentation on the creation of Public Infrastructure Districts to create discrete districts to apply to specific parcels of ground that, with the creation of the PID, self-impose an additional property tax levy, the proceeds of which are used to construct public infrastructure such as water, sewer, storm drain and roadway improvements. I think this is a great application for this new tool given to us by the State Legislature. At this point, I feel it is just a matter of ensuring it is implemented properly. Approved 7:0. The Staff and consultants were well prepared and had everything in order.
2. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to enact the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) zone as Chapter 14.14F. Citywide Application (PLOTA20200120)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 5 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. I'm excited to see when this new zoning option will be first used.
3. An ordinance amending the zone map classification from Residential Agricultural (RA) and A1.5 to R1.7 for approximately 18.5 acres of property located at 901 W 1560 S. Lakewood Neighborhood (PLRZ20200079)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 in the work meeting. A motion to continue this item and to put it on Open City Hall was approved 7:0. I believe this is the first major rezone request for land west of I-15 since the West Side Development Policies were adopted by the Council a few years ago. It aligns pretty well with the policies. The continuation will allow for more resident input and for getting some questions answered.
4. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to permitted uses and yard requirements of the M1 Light Manufacturing Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200117)
   This item was not ready to be heard.
5. A public hearing and an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in the amount of $292,939,096. (20-008)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This is the first hearing on the main budget. I've talked a lot about this budget over the past two months. The plan is to pass it on the 16th of June. There may be a small tweak or two before that happens. Public hearing only. A second public hearing has already been scheduled for June 16, 2020. Here is the proposed budget.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

6. A public hearing and a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in the amount of $1,299,333. (20-009)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This is the first hearing on the RDA budget. It will also likely be passed on the 16th. Public hearing only. A second public hearing has already been scheduled for June 16, 2020. This does not include any CARES Act or Pandemic-related programs that we have been considering recently. Any changes will be made by future action.




Stormwater Service District

7. A public hearing and a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $6,704,839 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021. (20-010)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This is the first hearing on the storm water budget. It will also likely be passed on the 16th. Public hearing only. A second public hearing has already been scheduled for June 16, 2020. The storm water budget typically isn't too contraversial.




Adjournment