Council Meetings - 27 November 2018

After a couple months of "lighter" meetings, our agendas seem to be getting heavier again. Could it be holiday weight gain?

I usually try to highlight a few of the most impactful or interesting items. We don't have any blockbusters, but several could have a significant lasting impact. Should Provo have its own disaster recovery fund? The State thinks so and has incentivized us to do so. What about large-scale private energy production that interfaces with our grid? What can we/should we do about rising housing costs? Impact fees play into the housing affordability conversation. Some advocate for low/no impact fees, but does that doesn't make the related costs go away, it only shifts the costs to others. Finally, there is a newly added item that would raise the bar for homes eligible for home-purchasing assistance.

These should be some of the more interesting meetings to watch.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 27, 2018

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

Business



1. A discussion on the proposed Council Meeting schedule for 2019
   The Council is required to publish a schedule for the next calendar year. A draft has been put together for Council to consider. The schedule looks good to me...but as Vice-Chair I've already seen it and have given my input. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. We aim for the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month, but about a third of the time we shift to the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays because of scheduling conflicts.
2. A presentation on the option for municipalities to create a local government disaster fund
   A presenter from the Division of Emergency Management under the Utah Department of Public Safety will speak to the Council about the option in State Code for municipalities to create a local government disaster fund. The State wants local governments to take on a more active role in preparing for disaster, rather than just assuming that the state or federal government will swoop in a fix everything. They have created an incentive to encourage local governments to create their own disaster fund. From one perspective, this is a horrible time for Provo City to try to set aside even more money. After decades of letting tax and utility revenue dwindle, we have been playing catch up to responsibly maintain our services and infrastructure. From another perspective, though, if we can't set money aside for disaster recovery in the midst of this period of lauded prosperity, we never will. I've very torn on this. Presentation only. As the presenter said, there are major problems with this program, no one is using it, and they will be fixing it in the coming legislative session. They asked for our feedback and ideas on how it should work. We will give our suggestions and then will look into the topic again once the changes have been made.
3. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify that unauthorized energy generation shall not receive any rate or bill credits
   Provo City Code prohibits self-generation of electric energy unless the generation is licensed by the Provo City Energy Department. Additionally, licenses for electric self-generation by industrial and commercial customers have only recently been authorized by the code. Because self-generation without a license it prohibited, such generation would not qualify for any rate or bill credits. However, with rising interest in self-generation by residential, commercial, and industrial customers, the Energy Department believes it would be prudent to add language to the code explicitly stating that entities that engage in unauthorized self-generation shall not receive any rate or bill credits. This seems a bit unnecessary, but clarity is good. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. There were several points of clean up, but really no substantive changes.
4. A presentation about the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce
   Councilor David Harding asked Rona Rahlf, President of the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce, to present to the Council about the Chamber's efforts on affordable housing. She will also provide an overview of their Valley Visioning initiative. Initially this started with me reaching out to our local Chamber about the Housing Resolution that the Salt Lake Chamber was asking us to pass. From this discussion, I learned that the Utah Valley Chamber has a number of initiatives of their own that they are pursuing to help address the threat of rising housing costs to our business environment. Presentation only. The UVCC supports the resolution proposed by the Salt Lake Chamber, but is in the initial stages of a major effort to help communities around the Valley to coordinate our efforts to address housing affordability. Here is a link to a survey to help inform the process.
5. A presentation on the Timp Kiwanis Bounous Park (TKP) LWCF Final Environmental Assessment Review (17-036)
   This update covers the last of the public comments received as part of the process. I believe this will be the final draft which, if approved, will be submitted to the federal government for their review. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. The Parks and Rec Department pushed back on suggestions that the Environmental Assessment was rushed or sloppy. They reviewed the purpose and scope of the document and how it fulfilled them.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



6. A discussion on a request for amendments to Section 15.03.020(3) to update 2018 standards to 2019 standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180348)
   Each year, the Provo Public Works Departments updates utility construction standards, street design standards and other development standards. Staff is particularly interested in those standards which have a visible impact on the built environment and clearly fall within the purview of the Planning Commission. The standards under consideration for revision are generally related to underground utility construction. The current street design standards are not proposed for revision because an update to the Transportation Master Plan is currently in progress. These street design standards will come before the Planning Commission as part of the review of the Transportation Master Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is a routine update. I didn't see anything consequential, but I'll ask this question during the presentation. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. As we transition to a new document handling system, the actual changes were not included in our document packet. We eventually (in the evening meeting) continued the item until next time so that we can review the proposal.
7. A discussion on a request for an Ordinance Text amendment to Section 14.34.350 Recreational Vehicle Storage and Towing Impound Yards to increase buffering requirements when adjacent to a Residential Zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180216)
   Provo City Code has a section that identifies zones where impound yards can be and are subject to a conditional use permit (CUP). Some of the zones allow impound yards as a Permitted Use which is conflicting with 14.34.350. A number of existing impound yards in the City have been identified. Many existing impound yards are adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone. The applicant has expressed concerns with the existing buffering requirements of impound yards near residential zones. Staff finds that there are inconsistencies in the zoning code related to impound yards and where they are Permitted or Conditional Uses. Staff has proposed ordinance revisions to clean up the inconsistencies and move towards having them be permitted uses subject to meeting established criteria that the Planning Commission feels would mitigate impacts related to these land uses. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support removing inconsistencies from the Code. I support adequate buffering between recreational vehicle storage and towing impound yards and residential areas. I am a little wary of moving these uses from conditional to permitted. I'll need to feel comfortable that the "established criteria" will indeed properly "mitigate impacts related to these land uses". Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. What is the right width of the buffer? What is the right fencing?
8. A discussion on a request for a zone change from R1.10 to Low Density Residential (LDR) for 2.94 acres of land, located at approximately 1080 E 1320 S to facilitate a 44-unit townhome development. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180102)
   The applicants obtained the property in the last year with the intent to build a townhome project. The request comes with a concept of a 44 unit townhome project. The proposal has met all zoning requirements of the LDR zone and has satisfied the majority of city department issues. The remaining concern is that the roads to access the site are not completed at this time. This will have to be done before the final project plan is approved, and will be tied to that application. The adopted Southeast Neighborhoods Plan appendix of the General Plan shows the subject property as part of the LDR zone in the Future Land Use map. The LDR zone allows for townhomes with a maximum density of 15 units per acre. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm interested in this item, and looking forward to learning more and possibly asking questions during the presentation. I believe this is in the area that we signaled an interest in developments targetting our young single professional population. I'm curious if the developer is tailoring the proposal to better fit the needs and desires of this group. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. This is next to, but not a part of the area we highlighted for developers as a possible place for YSP-focused development. It fits with the neighborhood plan and the vision for this area.



Business



9. A report on the impact fee review process (18-099)
   There is a clear cost of growth in any community. A city's infrastructure provides a given quality of life in a community, and growth can put strain on that infrastructure. Water, electricity, sewer, street systems, and more must be modified to address the needs resulting from new growth. State law provides a mechanism, called impact fees, to collect funds to offset the City's cost of accommodating that growth. Provo City's ordinance provides that impact fees and capital facilities plans should be reviewed on five year intervals. The Impact Fee Review Committee (comprised of Council members, City staff, developers, and community members) has been meeting since early 2017 and working with a consulting firm to bring forward updated recommendations. The results of their work was presented at an Impact Fee Open House on November 8, 2018. Council will be holding public hearings at the November 27 and December 11 meetings and will then vote on the adoption of updated impact fees. Current impact fees are listed on the consolidated fee schedule. I think it is wise to account for the public costs that come with growth. I think it is reasonable to expect the people creating the costs to pay for the costs. I also think that there may be reasons why we wouldn't want to charge the full amount. This should be a good discussion. Presentation only. A presentation on this item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. The public hearing on this item will be held at the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. The proposal is for a 60% increase in overall impact fees. These fees haven't been adjusted since 2004 and at the time they were set below cost. I want to commend the committee that spent more than a year on this effort, and included stakeholders from across the spectrum. No one likes increasing fees, but the consensus is that these fees are fair and accurately reflect the costs created by development.



Closed Meeting



10. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. None requested.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• A presentation of the Employee of the Month for November 2018
• A presentation on the establishment of the proposed impact fees (18-099)
  There is a clear cost of growth in any community. A city's infrastructure provides a given quality of life in a community, and growth can put strain on that infrastructure. Water, electricity, sewer, street systems, and more must be modified to address the needs resulting from new growth. State law provides a mechanism, called impact fees, to collect funds to offset the City's cost of accommodating that growth. Provo City's ordinance provides that impact fees and capital facilities plans should be reviewed on five year intervals. The Impact Fee Review Committee (comprised of Council members, City staff, developers, and community members) has been meeting since early 2017 and working with a consulting firm to bring forward updated recommendations. The results of their work was presented at an Impact Fee Open House on November 8, 2018. Council will be holding public hearings at the November 27 and December 11 meetings and will then vote on the adoption of updated impact fees. Current impact fees are listed on the consolidated fee schedule. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I think it is wise to account for the public costs that come with growth. I think it is reasonable to expect the people creating the costs to pay for the costs. I also think that there may be reasons why we wouldn't want to charge the full amount. This should be a good discussion."
  
  The actual vote won't take place until 11 December at the earliest. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled to be heard and voted on in the following meeting (11 Dec). The one thing I asked them to look into was tiering the price for residential water based on connection size. This would lower the impact fees on 3/4" connections and raise the fees on 1" connections. The current proposal is for them to be the same.

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. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to Public Works standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180348)
   This is item 6 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "This is a routine update. I didn't see anything consequential, but I'll ask this question during the presentation." A motion to place this item on the consent agenda for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. The continuation will allow us to review the documents before voting.
2. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.94 acres generally located at 1080 E 1320 S, from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180102)
   The is item 8 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I'm interested in this item, and looking forward to learning more and possibly asking questions during the presentation. I believe this is in the area that we signaled an interest in developments targetting our young single professional population. I'm curious if the developer is tailoring the proposal to better fit the needs and desires of this group." Approved 7:0. The proposal fits the vision and plan.
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase buffering requirements and transitional standards when certain uses are adjacent to a Residential Zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180216)
   This is item 7 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I support removing inconsistencies from the Code. I support adequate buffering between recreational vehicle storage and towing impound yards and residential areas. I am a little wary of moving these uses from conditional to permitted. I'll need to feel comfortable that the 'established criteria' will indeed properly 'mitigate impacts related to these land uses'." Continued to the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. Community development is reworking the width of the buffer area.
4. A resolution approving an Environmental Assessment regarding a proposed Land and Water Conversion Fund property conversion (17-036)
   This is item 5 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I believe this will be the final draft which, if approved, will be submitted to the federal government for their review." Approved 7:0. I've written so much on this item already. It has been a painfully long process so far. I do support the neighborhood being made whole overall.
5. A resolution approving a substantial amendment to the program year 2018 annual action plan, fourth year update to the five-year consolidation plan, as amended (18-100)
   HOME Program regulations state that Participating Jurisdictions (PJ) utilizing HOME funds for activities assisting homebuyer and/or homeowner rehabilitation must use the Affordable Homeownership Limits (AHL) provided annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Alternatively the regulations allow the PJ to determine its own AHL by conducting a market analysis. City staff has conducted an analysis of the current local market in Utah County shows that the AHL provided by HUD, do not reflect the trends of the local market, limiting the choice of available homes for low-income families and individuals. The City, as Lead Entity of the HOME Consortium, is proposing to adopt its own AHL which reflect an increase of about 29% over the HUD limits. Increasing the AHL will enlarge the pool of available homes to low-income families and individuals and allow the PJ and partner non-profit agencies to better assist them. This is the first that I've heard about this item. I'm surprised that it is not on the Work Meeting. Well, I guess we'll see what it is about. The support documents are helpful. Approved 7:0. This won't change who qualifies, but what houses these programs can be used on. The use of this program has dropped over the past couple of years as fewer and fewer homes qualified for the programs.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 13 November 2018

In my estimation, the most important items on tomorrow's agendas are development related. During the Work Meeting we'll be discussing possible changes to the zoning for "The Mix". In the evening meeting we will be considering the adoption of the Future Land Use Map for Southwest Provo.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, November 13, 2018

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

Business



1. Approval of minutes
   Approved by unanimous consent.
2. A report from Downtown Provo, Inc. (18-027)
   A semiannual update from Downtown Provo Inc. on their current initiatives and successes, as well as updates on any programs or projects. I haven't heard as much from DPI in the last little bit, so it'll be good to get up to speed on their current efforts. Presentation only. There is a lot of energy and excitement in Downtown Provo. DPI is in good hands.
3. A presentation on OnBase, the Council's new agenda management software (18-095)
   As part of the City's Provo360 project, the Council made a transition from SIRE to OnBase Agenda Management as the primary software to manage Council agendas. The system introduces many new features which will help Council staff and other city staff to work more effectively to conduct city and Council business. The presentation will cover how the public and Council will use the available resources to access Council agendas and materials. I've been looking forward to this day for a couple years now. I'm trying not to have unreasonable expectations, but I am hopeful that this transition will provide the public with all the information they need to follow the business of the Council in a way that is easy to access and navigate.
   
   Go to documents.provo.org to get started. Presentation only. So far the public interface seems fairly comparable to the old SIRE site. I believe the links to documents won't change with every minor update, so that is definitely an improvement. I would really love to get links to the presentation slides that are used in the meetings. I'm not sure that will happen, though.
4. A discussion on a proposal related to Neighborhood Housing Services of Provo and homes purchased with CDBG/HOME Dollars (18-076)
   Several years ago, Neighborhood Housing Services (now known as NeighborWorks) purchased and rehabbed several houses using funds borrowed from the Redevelopment Agency that originally came from the Federal Government. Based on the type and amount of funding used, the homes were required to remain affordable for specific durations of time. Recently, there has been interest in forgiving some of the loans. The RDA is concerned that should some of these houses no longer remain affordable, the Federal Government (HUD) could demand the funds back from Provo that were originally used to rehab them. The 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. If I understand this correctly, this has been an unresolved issue for many years now. I am hopeful that we will have everyone and all the information together in the same room so that we can get to the bottom of it and can resolve it once and for all.
   
   Questions I have include: Was the original expectation that the loans would be paid back in full? Are there ways to ensure the units remain "affordable" during the required period? How is it in the public's best interest to forgive these loans? A motion to request RDA staff to make amendments to the contracts and documents to implement the changes discussed and to bring to a future Council Meeting was approved 7:0. The discussion was very helpful. While some of the rehabilitation projects may pay for themselves, that is not the main purpose of doing the project. As an example, shortly before I moved to Provo a dozen years ago, a house in my neighborhood was rehabbed by NHS. It had been the source of much crime and many calls to police. Meth had been cooked there. No private investor would buy and rehab the place because it was a money-losing proposition. But unless it was rehabbed, it would remain a source of problems and blight. It was very costly for Provo's emergency services to continually respond and had a significant negative impact on the quality of life of all the neighbors. The house was rehabbed and sold. The sales price may not have covered the cost to purchase and rehab the house, when the larger City and societal costs are considered, this was a valuable project.
   
   We discussed the importance of good communication, which has been improving, and for clear expectations when entering into these projects. I am optimistic that these problems are behind us and that we will be able to move forward with a valuable partner.
5. An update on the Interim Transportation Oriented Development (ITOD) zone as it relates to The Mix (18-097)
   This update is about potential changes to the ITOD zone in the area of The Mix development. (Supplemental Background from the Staff Report:) "The property owners of The Mix had planned to build retail and office space but have decided to build retail and housing instead due to a surplus of office space on the market. They will need to rezone the area from SC-3 to SC-2 and ITOD. The retail portion would remain about the same. The developer would more than likely bring a residential partner into the project to do that portion."
   
   There is high market demand for housing. We say we want more housing. We say we want housing that is more affordable for those living in Provo. We say we want density were density makes sense. We also value our role as being a business hub and office space is important for that. But if there is a current surplus of office space, I don't see much downside to allowing higher density residential into this space (assuming it is done well). A motion to request staff to prepare a rezone from SC3 to SC2 and ITOD and to begin the process of moving this forward for approval was approved 7:0. I think everyone on the Council was comfortable with a larger housing component in this project. For the reasons I explained in the preview, housing here is a positive. The lingering concern is if our ITOD zoning will ensure that we get a quality product that will enhance the area. We took a look at the three residential developments that have been built under our ITOD standards. Architecturally, I would say one is beautiful, one is adequate, and one leaves a lot to be desired.
6. A comprehensive update on items from Economic Development (18-094)
   The Council regularly asks the Economic Development Department to give updates. I'm interested to see what they are working on. Presentation only. I wish I could link to the presentation slides. I'll update this report if I get it. There is so much that has recently happened, is currently happening, and is in the works for Provo. We are in prosperous times.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



7. A discussion on an ordinance to amend the Zone Map Classification of approximately 5.89 acres of real property, generally located at 1437 East 2300 North from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential Agricultural (RA). Rock Canyon Neighborhood (PLRZ20180239)
   The property owner purchased the land in 2007 in order to create single family lots at a later date. The applicant has now applied for the necessary zone change and preliminary subdivision that would enable the property to be subdivided into three single-family lots. The property is currently a mostly vacant parcel that contains a storage building for the US Forest Service. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was previously heard by the Council, but sent back for review by the Planning Commission because of some changes regarding animal rights. Planning Commission recommended approval. My only concern was regarding the impact of agricultural animal rights on the nearby residential neighbors. If the applicant is willing to agree to animal rights equivalent to standard residential zones, then my concern is resolved. Presentation only. We just went over the changes in the proposal since it was last heard. The rezone was voted on and granted in the later meeting.



Closed Meeting

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

Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• A presentation of the Employee of the Month for October 2018

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. An ordinance to amend the General Plan Map regarding land west of the I-15 freeway and south of the Provo River. Lakewood, Sunset, Provo Bay, and Fort Utah Neighborhoods. (PLGPA20180225)
   On a vote of 5:2, the Planning Commission recommended that the Municipal Council adopt the General Plan Land Use Map for the Southwest Area Neighborhood Plan, based on the efforts made by the Committee, neighbors, and staff to address the future development of the area. The Planning Commission recommended that the RES designation on the Map be defined as four units per acre as a net acreage calculation, rather than a gross acreage calculation. This recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the West Side Advisory Committee. This had a first hearing at the October 23 Council meeting and was continued. There are many fine details that will need to be worked out in the future, and various concerns in the community about different aspects, but overall I think this proposal represents a good balance of many competing interests. Approved 7:0. This represents a major step forward in the planning for future development in west Provo. There is sadness and anxiety among many who love what this area once was, but even they recommended this map for approval, feeling that it was a good balance between the many competing interests in the area.
2. A resolution approving an Environmental Assessment and a proposed Land and Water Conversion Fund property conversion. (17-036)
   The public comment period was reopened for the draft environmental assessment for the Timp-Kiwanis Bounous property conversion. This is an update on the public comments received and a request to move it forward in the process. This will be a good transaction for the people of Provo. A motion to include the public comments given in this meeting in the Environmental Assessment and close the period for giving public comments, and that the resulting draft be brought back to the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. If we approve the Environmental Assessment next time, then the proposal will be submitted to the Federal Government for approval. If we get the green light, then we can try to negotiate the sale and then determine if it should be sold.
3. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 5.89 acres located at 1437 E 2300 N from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential Agricultural (RA). Rock Canyon neighborhood. (PLRZ20180239)
   This is item 7 on the work meeting agenda. As I said above, "My only concern was regarding the impact of agricultural animal rights on the nearby residential neighbors. If the applicant is willing to agree to animal rights equivalent to standard residential zones, then my concern is resolved." Approved 7:0. The applicant was willing and also waived any enhanced commerical rights that come with the RA zone.
4. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED** An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 15.03.020(3) to update 2018 standards to 2019 standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180348)
   This item was continued by the Planning Commission.
5. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN** An ordinance amending Section 14.06.020 to redefine "Family" to include four unrelated individuals. Citywide application. (PLOTA20180169)
   This item was withdrawn from the Planning Commission agenda.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 23 October 2018

In my opinion, the "Future Land Use Map" for southwest Provo is the most important item on the agendas.

I hope that everyone with lingering questions or concerns about the proposed bond will come to the town hall meeting at 7:30pm tomorrow. It's been a while so let me thank the Council Staff for putting together the agenda and the background information on each of the items. Only the "preview" sections (and later the "report") sections are my own writing.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

3:30 PM, Tuesday, October 23, 2018

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

Business



1. A discussion regarding public comments received from the Draft Environmental Assessment and an update on the Final Environmental Assessment preparation for the proposed Land and Water Conversion Fund property conversion (17-036)
   The public comment period was reopened for the draft environmental assessment for the Timp-Kiwanis Bounous property conversion. This is an update on the public comments received. It will be formally heard at the November 13 Council meeting. I still support this transaction. I believe we are nearing the point that we can submit our application for property conversion to the Federal Government. Then we wait some months to hear back from them whether or not we can proceed. Presentation only. Updates were made to address the public comments that were received. The updates were substantive enough to justify reopening the public comment period again. It will close in a couple of days. We will hear this again on the 13th of November and will be asked to approve its submission to the National Parks Service for their approval.
2. A discussion on the proposed language for the resolution supporting housing affordability in Utah County (18-070)
   Council reviewed an affordable housing resolution from the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce at the September 25 work meeting and wanted to consider additional revisions. This item was continued from two weeks ago when we first heard it in a Council Meeting. A new concern was raised about the commitment to "ensure." In the interim, the resolution was reworded to a commitment to "work towards the goal." A motion to remove “and fees” from line 40 of the draft resolution was approved 6:0, with Councilor Kay Van Buren excused. Yet again we left our afternoon work meeting feeling good that we had a consensus on this item. Read the report in the evening meeting to see how it unraveled yet again.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



3. A discussion for a request to rezone portions of the East Bay Golf Course from Regional Shopping Center (SC3) and Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) designations to Public Facilities (PF). East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180323)
   As a result of the negotiations with the developer of the Norda School of Osteopathic Medicine and the Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions to purchase a portion of the East Bay Golf Course, and at the request of the Provo Municipal Council, it was determined to be in the best interest of Provo City and the East Bay Golf Course that the golf course should be located in its entirety in the Public Facility Zone. This application essentially resolves current land use/zoning conflicts and results in the entirety of the current golf course and future expansion area being in the Public Facilities Zone. This is a good way to signal to developers and the broader community that we are not interested in redeveloping the rest of the Golf Course. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the October 23, 2018 Council Meeting. I found it interesting that the developers may request a "South Campus" zone for part of their property.
4. A discussion on a request to amend the General Plan Map regarding land west of the I-15 Freeway and south of the Provo River. Lakewood, Sunset, Provo Bay and Fort Utah neighborhoods. (PLGPA20180225)
   On a vote of 5:2, the Planning Commission recommended that the Municipal Council adopt the General Plan Land Use Map for the Southwest Area Neighborhood Plan, based on the efforts made by the Committee, neighbors, and staff to address the future development of the area. The Planning Commission recommended that the RES designation on the Map be defined as four units per acre as a net acreage calculation, rather than a gross acreage calculation. This recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of the West Side Advisory Committee. This is the major milestone in a years-long process to plan for future development in west/southwest Provo. I feel that the committee has struck a good balance between the many competing interests for the area. I have requested some discussion on the Provo Trail corridor as well as the status of irrigation water at the meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the October 23, 2018 Council Meeting. The proposed map represents years of work and a good balance between many competing interests.
   
   In response to my questions, Public Works staff explained that less of the City's water is leased for irrigation water in west Provo, but that it hasn't been a policy decision or because of action by the City. Farmers have to get the water to their fields and they do that through canals (and canal co-ops to manage them). As some farmers have quit farming, the maintenance of these canals falls to fewer and fewer participants, until they are abandoned. Then farmers stop leasing water. The City acknowledged that some fields had been effectively watered by the high water table, which has dropped with the building of Lakeview Parkway and pumping of City wells inside what is now effectively a dike.
   
   I felt that everyone on the Council and in the Administration were in agreement that the Provo River Trail corridor needs to be preserved, particularly west of Lakeshore Drive.



Closed Meeting

5. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
   Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. None requested.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action. Minutes Approved by unanimous consent.



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 adding the house generally located at 395 E 100 N to the Provo Landmarks Register. Joaquin Neighborhood. (PLLN20180305)
   Scott and Whitney Christopherson have nominated the house located at 395 East 100 North to the Provo Landmarks Register. All nominations to the register are reviewed by the Landmarks Commission for compliance with the requirements and standards set forth in Provo Code 16.05.020. Landmarks Commission recommended approval. As I said after the Work Meeting discussion, this is "a good addition to the Register." Approved 7:0. I'm grateful for the sense of history and heritage that our historic homes and buildings continue to provide to our community. I am also grateful for the individuals who voluntarily accept the additional regulations that come with historical listings. This truly is a great addition to the Register.
2. An ordinance to amend the General Plan Map regarding land west of the I-15 freeway and south of the Provo River. Lakewood, Sunset, Provo Bay, and Fort Utah Neighborhoods. (PLGPA20180225)
   This is item 4 on the work meeting agenda. This is the first hearing and possible formal vote after having discussed it in the work meeting. I wonder if we'll pass this on the first hearing, or if it'll come back next time. Here is what I said in the preview during the earlier Work Meeting, "This is the major milestone in a years-long process to plan for future development in west/southwest Provo. I feel that the committee has struck a good balance between the many competing interests for the area. I have requested some discussion on the Provo Trail corridor as well as the status of irrigation water at the meeting." Continued to the next Council meeting for a second hearing. It was a good discussion with many of the key stakeholders who help develop the map. There are some people requesting tweaks to the map. It was continued again to give the public a little more time to review and comment on the draft that we are considering for adoption.
3. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 77.5 acres of real property, generally located at 1860 South East Bay Boulevard, from Regional Shopping Center (SC3) and Planned Industrial Commercial (PIC) to Public Facilities (PF). East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180323)
   This is item 3 on the work meeting agenda. This is the first hearing and possible formal vote after having discussed it in the work meeting. From my earlier preview, "This is a good way to signal to developers and the broader community that we are not interested in redeveloping the rest of the Golf Course." Approved 7:0.
4. A resolution regarding a pledge of support and to identify measures to be taken to address Utah's housing needs across the State and in Provo City. (18-070)
   Council reviewed an affordable housing resolution from the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce at the September 25 work meeting and made some revisions. From my earlier preview, "This item was continued from two weeks ago when we first heard it in a Council Meeting. A new concern was raised about the commitment to "ensure." In the interim, the resolution was reworded to a commitment to "work towards the goal"." A motion to continue this item to the November 13, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. I'd say the biggest concern I heard was that if we pass this resolution, there may be times in the future that people will use it against the Council to demand changes that are in their own interests but not the general interest of the residents of the City.
   
   I agreed to take it back again to see if we can find a consensus that will last through both meetings.
5. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED** McClean Properties LLC requests Ordinance Text Amendments to Sections 14.50 and 14.37.100 to allow for new Project Redevelopment Option Zone to permit six additional dwelling units on the property, and to allow for a one-way drive aisle for parallel parking spaces for property located at 385 N 500 W in the Residential Conservation Zone. Dixon Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180292)
   This item was continued by the Planning Commission.
6. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED** McClean Properties LLC requests a zone change for approximately one acre of property located at the 385 N 500 W from Residential Conservation to a Project Redevelopment Option Zone to allow for six additional dwelling units. Dixon neighborhood. (PLRZ20180293)
   This item was continued by the Planning Commission.
7. **THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN** The Provo City Economic Development Department requests a Code Amendment to Section 14.20.160(7) to increase the amount of residential development in a Regional Shopping Center Zone (SC3) Zone from 20% to 33%. Citywide application. (PLOTA20180231)
   This item was withdrawn from the Planning Commission agenda.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Town Hall on the Provo Police, Fire, and City Facilities Bond

7:30 PM, Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Town Hall Agenda



• Welcome by Council Chair
• A presentation on the bond, what it does, and what happens if it passes or fails
• A presentation/speaker for the bond
• A presentation/speaker against the bond
• Question and answer period
From what I've seen, there is general praise for how the Town Hall meeting turned out, by proponents and opponents of the bond alike. Watch it.


Adjournment

The Provo Police, Fire, and City Facilities Bond

"Shall Provo City, Utah be authorized to issue General Obligation Bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $69,000,000 million and to mature in no more than 20 years from the date or dates of issuance of such bonds for the purpose of paying all or a portion of the costs of: acquiring, constructing, and equipping in the downtown area a new police and fire headquarters, emergency dispatch center, and city hall; acquiring, constructing, and equipping a new fire station to replace the fire station on Canyon Road; and providing for related improvements in Provo City; and, to the extent necessary, for providing moneys for the refunding of general obligation bonds?"



This fall, Provo City is asking you to allow us to borrow up to $69 million dollars to replace our police, fire, and dispatch centers, city hall and city offices, and Firestation #2. This would raise property taxes on the median home in Provo by about $10 per month. This is not something that we did lightly and comes at the end of a very involved process of determining our needs and the most responsible way to meet them.

I invite everyone to learn about the bond and to make up their own minds whether or not it is justified. Here are some ways that you can do this:

• The City has assembled the factual information onto one website: VoteProvo.com. 
• The Mayor is in the middle of a listening tour, with the next stop at Dixon Middle School on October 17th at 7pm.
• The Council is hosting a Town Hall focused on the bond question. October 23rd at 7:30pm in the Council Chambers.
• Tours are being provided of the Police Station downtown and the Fire Station on Canyon road. The next tours are on October 16th from 6-8pm, and October 20th from 9-11am.

After reviewing all of the material and going on the tour, I am reluctantly yet resolutely supporting the bond. Asking for money from our citizens is never easy, but the needs are such that not acting would be irresponsible.

If, after reviewing the information, you agree that this is a necessary and critical need for Provo, I invite you to help out in the following ways.

• Add your name to the list of supporters.
• Request a lawn sign.
• Volunteer to knock doors in your area to raise awareness.*
• Donate to the campaign informing voters and encouraging them to vote yes.
• Encourage others to get informed.

*It's late notice but tomorrow, 13 October, 9am at the Pioneer Park Farmer's Market, we'll be starting a blitz to raise as much awareness as possible about the bond. Join us for the big kickoff.

Council Meetings - 9 October 2018

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, October 9, 2018

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

Business



1. A discussion on a conservation easement for Rock Canyon (17-085)
   The Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance has presented the idea of placing a conservation easement on Rock Canyon to preserve the property’s natural habitat in the future. Brian Jones from Legal will update the Council on what is included in the current easement draft, and then Doug Robins from Parks and Recreation will present an alternative proposal. Afterwards, Erik Davis and Ginger Woolley from the Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance will respond. We've been working on this one for a while. RCPA raised half of the money to purchase this land. The easement will allow flexibility in the management of the site through the Rock Canyon Master Plan. It has been a very collaborative process that I support. Presentation only. This is a status update on the work between Parks and Rec and the RCPA. The proposed conservation easement is pretty much done and the final version will be presented to us around the end of the year along with the Rock Canyon Trail Head Master Plan.
2. A discussion on a Council Intent Statement regarding the City Center location and the use of land in the downtown Provo area (18-093)
   This is meant to convey Council’s intent regarding the proposed new facilities. The proposed statement makes clear the Council's intent regarding the location of the new facilities that would be funded by the bond (same site, unless something substantially better comes along) and the potential for new businesses and attractions on Center Street once the old facilities are removed. A motion to approve the intent statement as amended in the meeting was approved 7:0. After a couple tweaks the Mayor joined the Council in unanimously approving this Intent Statement.
3. A presentation on recommendations regarding a budget committee (18-075)
   Since January 2018, the Council’s Budget and Audit Committee has not met, partially because members of the Council have been satisfied with budget explanations from the Administration, and partially because the Mayor’s Office, as the fulfillment of a campaign promise, put together an ad hoc committee to make recommendations regarding the composition and function of a citizens’ budget committee. In other words, there was a committee in place whose purpose was to research and discuss budget committees. This is a continuation of the discussion from the September 25 Council work meeting. This committee recommended creating a new committee to improve our budgeting process and bring it more in line with best practices. It didn't say too much about a potential committee that would help the Council review tentative budgets as they are proposed each year. The process we used to pass the budget this last year had several improvements over past years. If the administration wants to follow this committee's recommendation, I will support their wishes. As for our review, I'm content to see if continuing to make small incremental improvements will meet our needs of oversight. An amended motion to eliminate the budget subcommittee and resort to the Council as a committee of the whole regarding budget issues was approved 7:0. The consensus was that between the department presentations throughout the spring and our capable policy analysts, the Council has a robust procedure to evaluate the proposed budget. We still have the ability to create a committee in times of need. I encouraged, and the Administration agreed, to carefully consider the Ad Hoc committees recommendations, as they were directed towards the process of creating the budget.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



4. A discussion on a zone change request for the property generally located at 1776 S. Buckley Lane from Public Facilities (PF) to R1.6PD to facilitate a 33-lot subdivision. Provost South neighborhood. (PLRZ20180224)
   This is the site of the former Utah County Jail. Provo City sought development proposals for the site and Gardner and Associates is currently under contract to purchase the site and construct 33 single-family homes. Planning Commission recommended approval. There is some irony that neighbors who have lamented the loss of young children in their schools and neighborhood due to some demographic shifts in the area are supporting a large development that would be restricted to the 55+ crowd.
   I'm not a fan of segregating people in housing, so I'm not wild about this idea. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the October 9, 2018 Council Meeting. I was able to voice my discomfort about the age restrictions, well aware that my displeasure wouldn't make a difference.
5. A discussion to add a home, located at 395 East 100 North, to the Provo Landmarks Register. Joaquin Neighborhood. (PLLN20180305)
   Scott and Whitney Christopherson have nominated the house located at 395 E 100 N to the Provo Landmarks Register I'm looking forward to the presentation, but, from all I've read, this looks like a great addition to the Register. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the October 23, 2018 Council Meeting. Definitely a good addition to the Register.



Closed Meeting

6. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
   Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. None held.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A recognition of Wayne Parker for his 15 years of service at the City of Provo and 35 years of service in city management.
   Presentation only. In the absence of our chair, Gary Winterton, it was my pleasure to present this recognition. Mr. Parker has been a tremendous asset to Provo and her residents over this past decade and a half.
2. A presentation of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards for the Energy Department's building.
   Presentation only. LEED Gold is not an easy achievement. The building was award-winning, on-time, and under-budget. It sets a good standard for all future city facilities.



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 the presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.
Ben Stanley, one of two people from the County to be nominated for the new UTA Board of Trustees, introduced himself and talked about his vision for public transit in the State. He previously wrote an Op-Ed in the Herald.



Consent Agenda

Items on the consent agenda are generally routine in nature, have been fully vetted in other meetings, or do not need additional discussion. They are approved together as one item. Items on the consent agenda were approved 6:0 with Gary Winterton excused.
3. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council appointing temporary Justice Court Judges for the Provo City Justice Court. (18-089)
   State law allows for the appointment of temporary justice court judges when the regularly appointed justice court judge is absent or disqualified, including when he has recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. The statute requires that the governing body appoint temporary justice court judges. This is basically approving of the list of substitutes that can be called on when Judge Romney is unavailable.
4. A resolution reappointing Bob Conner as Provo City Constable to serve a four-year term. (18-091)
   According to amendments made to Utah Code 17-25a-1, it is a requirement that the term for appointing a constable be four years. The current constable’s term has expired and a new appointment needs to be made. The constable’s duties include security at the Provo Justice Court, transporting inmates to and from the County jail, and serving warrants. The Constable Nominating Commission recommends reappointing Bob Conner to continue in his role as constable. As I reported earlier, "This has worked very well for us in the past, and the Justice Court is happy to continue the relationship."



Action Agenda

5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 5.89 acres of real property, generally located at 1437 East 2300 North from Public Facilities (PF) to Agricultural 1 (A1.1). Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180239)
   The property owner purchased the land in 2007 in order to create single family lots at a later date. The applicant has now applied for the necessary zone change and preliminary subdivision that would enable the property to be subdivided into three single-family lots. The property is currently a mostly vacant parcel that contains a storage building for the US Forest Service. Planning Commission recommended approval. The question here is about animal rights. The plan for this location is residential, but the applicant has requested an agricultural zoning. There has been some concern about the compatibility of the animal rights that goes along with the agricultural zone with the surrounding residential properties. The discussions have been ongoing, so it'll be interesting to see where they are at tomorrow. A motion to continue this item to a future meeting to allow time for a proposal from the property owner was approved 6:0 with Gary Winterton excused. All feedback received from the surrounding neighbors was that they opposed having horses on the property (even though many love horses). It was clear that the Council was not going to proceed with the rezone under the requested conditions. The continuation allows the applicant to decide how and if they want to proceed.
6. A resolution appointing Hannah Salzl as Policy Analyst for the Provo City Municipal Council office. (18-092)
   Some positions within the Council office require a resolution as part of the hiring process. The Council relies heavily on the policy analysts to gather the information we need to do our jobs. Approved 6:0 with Gary Winterton excused. Ms. Salzl will make a great addition to our office.
7. A resolution regarding a pledge of support and to identify measures to be taken to address Utah's housing needs across the State and in Provo City. (18-070)
   Council reviewed an affordable housing resolution from the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce at the September 25 work meeting and made some revisions. Housing affordability is one of the most pressing issues that we face. We appreciate and support the Chamber's efforts to educate and build consensus across communities. After a few tweaks to the proposed resolution, I have no reservations about passing it. A motion to continue this item to a future meeting was approved 5:1 with Kay Van Buren opposed and Gary Winterton excused. I would have preferred to complete all the word-smithing during our work meeting two weeks prior. We had scheduled a 45-minute discussion, but only took like 10 because no one raised any objections and only spoke in support. But before the final vote some good suggestions were made for improvements, so we'll take it back for some more refining and will try again in a couple weeks.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 7.37 acres of real property, generally located at 1776 South Buckley Lane from Public Facilities (PF) to One-Family Residential Planned Development (R1.6PD). Provost South Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180224)
   This is item 4 on the work meeting agenda. This is the first hearing and possible formal vote after having discussed it in the work meeting. From my preview above, "There is some irony that neighbors who have lamented the loss of young children in their schools and neighborhood due to some demographic shifts in the area are supporting a large development that would be restricted to the 55+ crowd.
   "I'm not a fan of segregating people in housing, so I'm not wild about this idea." Approved 6:0 with Gary Winterton excused. This was presented by one of the Vice-Chairs from the Provost South Neighborhood. She responded directly to some of what I wrote in my preview, as well as to some of the comments I made earlier in the day. I'm glad that these previews and reports are at least occasionally read. I want to be as transparent as possible and make it as easy as possible to be informed and engaged.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 25 September 2018

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Energy Board

1:00 PM, Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes.I've sat in on Energy Board meetings before and I believe the first two items are fairly standard for them. They need to be looking to the future to ensure that they are positioning the Energy Department accordingly. Past reliability reports have shown what great electrical service we get here in Provo.

1. A discussion on SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis for strategic planning
2. A discussion on reliability
   
3. A discussion on time-of-use rates
   This discussion was at my request. I think it is best to align the financial incentives between the consumers, the Energy Department, and the Umbrella power agency, and then let the consumers decide if they want to make any changes to lower their bills. Three options were presented, going from complicated and well aligned to simple and a rough approximation. We need more study to determine what is best for the residents of Provo, but honestly, any of the three options would be better than the structure we have now.
4. A discussion on resources and Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA)
   We received a preview of some exciting announcements regarding solar. The details are still being finalized, and it looks like the big announcement will come next month, but since it was a public meeting, you are welcome to watch the video of the meeting to hear what they said.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, September 25, 2018

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

1. A presentation on recommendations regarding a budget committee (18-075)
   Since January 2018, the Council’s Budget and Audit Committee has not met, partially because members of the Council have been satisfied with budget explanations from the Administration, and partially because the Mayor’s Office, as the fulfillment of a campaign promise, put together an ad hoc committee to make recommendations regarding the composition and function of a citizens’ budget committee. In other words, there was a committee in place whose purpose was to research and discuss budget committees. Administration will present the recommendations regarding the citizens’ budget committee. This one is back on the agenda. The last time we were supposed to hear it was in July. This is what I said then, "For six months now, we've been in a bit of a limbo with regards to Council created committees. Our Budget Committee didn't even meet throughout the whole budget season this year. I am hopeful that we can soon come to a resolution that (1) serves the Administration's needs, (2) serves the Council's needs, and most importantly (3) best serves the public's interests." Presentation only.
   Council requested that staff distribute the committee recommendation from the Administration for review. This item will be scheduled for the October 9, 2018 Work Meeting for further Council discussion. This was a really robust discussion without out any clear ideas or consensus on how to move forward. We are doing some extra study between meetings and will pick this back up on Tuesday.
2. A discussion regarding the Salt Lake Chamber's Affordable Housing Resolution (18-089)
   Brynn Mortensen, Public Policy Analyst with the Salt Lake Chamber, came to the August 7 Work Meeting and presented on issues that Provo City could address, including information on the way we handle land use and housing policy at the local level. She presented the research from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, which included actionable steps that cities, towns, and counties can take to examine their housing policies and make a difference.
   
   The Affordable Housing Resolution is the next step that the Salt Lake Chamber is asking cities to take. They have indicated there will be a public list of cities that approve the resolution and include those that did not approve the resolution. Thus far, there have been three passed in the state at the local level: Draper City, Farmington City, and Box Elder County.
   
   At the September 18 Housing Committee meeting, the Committee discussed the action steps and proposed making slight amendments to the wording and gave general consensus based on this recommendation. Housing affordability is a critical topic right now. I feel that Provo is already fulfilling much of what is being asked of us in this proposed resolution and that the whole Valley would be better off if all the cities joined us. But I am uncomfortable making all of those commitments because there are reasons for some of those actions.
   
   As part of the Housing Committee, I was able to participate in the discussion that lead up to our recommendation. It was neat to see it all come together. I feel very good about it as the best way forward. A motion to move the resolution as amended to the October 9, 2018 Council Meeting agenda was approved 7:0. I believe we scheduled 45 minutes for discussion on this topic, but everyone liked the committee recommendation and it resolved all the concerns, so we were done in 5. Basically, we struck the requested language about impact fees and zoning. Unless we provide less of the services (parks, clean water, etc) that impact fees pay for, reducing or eliminating impact fees only shifts the burden from new housing (which is causing the need to create new parks and water lines) to existing housing. It may make new housing more affordable, but would negatively impact the affordability of current housing.
3. A discussion regarding public comments received from the Draft Environmental Assessment and an update on the Final Environmental Assessment preparation for the proposed Land and Water Conversion Fund property conversion (17-036)
   The draft environmental assessment for the Timp-Kiwanis Bounous Park conversion finished its public comment period and those comments will be discussed in addition to next steps for the process. We are nearing the point where we can send this off to the Feds to get their approval. Presentation only. Some fairly significant changes where made based on the comments collected during the public comment period, so a new public comment period will be held starting on 3 Oct and continuing for 30 days.
4. A discussion on temporary Justice Court judges (18-089)
   State law allows for the appointment of temporary justice court judges when the regularly appointed justice court judge is absent or disqualified, including when he has recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. The statute requires that the governing body appoint temporary justice court judges. This will add to the list of backups for our Justice Court Judge. A motion to place this item on the consent agenda for the October 9, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. I'm not thrilled with just approving a whole laundry list of back up judges.
5. A discussion on the appointment of a Justice Court Constable (18-091)
   According to amendments made to Utah Code 17-25a-1, it is a requirement that the term for appointing a constable be four years. The current constable’s term has expired and a new appointment needs to be made. The constable’s duties include security at the Provo Justice Court, transporting inmates to and from the County jail, and serving warrants. The Constable Nominating Commission recommends reappointing Bob Conner to continue in his role as constable. The report says that the current constable has provided great service in the past and that the Court is content to continue on with the constable into the future. A motion to place this item on the consent agenda for the October 9, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. This has worked very well for us in the past, and the Justice Court is happy to continue the relationship.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



6. A discussion on a request for a Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) to Agriculture 1 (A1.1) for 5.89 acres located at 1437 E 2300 N. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180239)
   The property owner purchased the land in 2007 in order to create single family lots at a later date. The applicant has now applied for the necessary zone change and preliminary subdivision that would enable the property to be subdivided into three single-family lots. The property is currently a mostly vacant parcel that contains a storage building for the US Forest Service. Planning Commission recommended approval. My only concern is that the General Plan calls for this area to be residential, not agricultural. I want to make sure that there aren't any problems in the future because agriculturally permitted uses are causing a nuisance for nearby residents. A motion to prepare an ordinance authorizing the negotiation and execution of a development agreement and approving the rezone, effective once the development agreement has been executed, was approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the September 25, 2018 Council Meeting; this ordinance replaces the version referenced by the implied motion. This item seemed to be on track to sail through with no opposition and little scrutiny. Once the question was raised about the compatibility of agricultural uses next to existing residential, there has been a flurry of activity. The applicant may be proposing additional restrictions on otherwise allowed animal rights. It'll be interesting to see if the now aware and concerned neighbors will be comfortable with the terms.
7. A presentation on ranked choice voting by FairVote (18-088)
   Ranked choice voting was recently discussed by the Policy Governance Committee. FairVote was asked to present more information. Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of choice. If your top candidate can’t win, your vote counts for your next choice, until someone wins with a majority. Utah passed legislation earlier this year to allow cities to pilot ranked-choice voting. This is my item. I get to introduce it and lead the discussion afterward. I'm excited about this opportunity that the State Legislature has given us. I feel RCV offers several significant advantages. Presentation only. We held a mock election using RCV where Raspberry Ice Cream was selected to be the dessert served at an upcoming fictitious gathering. Using our traditional form of voting, Fudge Brownie would have won, because the ice cream vote was split by Cookies 'n Cream, and the fruity ice cream vote was split by Strawberry Ice Cream. Also, the more health-conscious voters were able to put Tropical Fruit Salad as their first choice without worrying that, by not voting for a fruity ice cream, their vote would actually help Fudge Brownie to the victory.
   
   After the presentation by FairVote, which I didn't hear much of because I was counting the ballots and determining the winner, the Council decided to study it for another month before decided if and how to proceed.



Closed Meeting

8. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
   Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. None requested.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. Neighborhood spotlight - Rock Canyon Neighborhood
2. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for September 2018



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 authorizing certain Provo City Administrative Services and Finance personnel to continue to manage the Public Treasurer's Investment Fund. (18-090)
   The Utah Office of the State Treasurer is rolling out a new online Public Treasurer’s Investment Fund account management platform and the Council is required to authorize the individual Provo City employees who will be able to make changes to the City’s PTIF accounts. This must be done via resolution. Bureaucratic administration. Approved 7:0. We've now designated who has access to this bank account.
4. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 5.89 acres of real property, generally located at 1437 East 2300 North from Public Facilities (PF) to Agricultural 1 (A1.1). Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180239)
   This is item 6 on the work meeting agenda. This is the first hearing and possible formal vote after having discussed it in the work meeting. As I said above, "My only concern is that the General Plan calls for this area to be residential, not agricultural. I want to make sure that there aren't any problems in the future because agriculturally permitted uses are causing a nuisance for nearby residents. Continued per Council Rules at the request of Councilor George Handley. We'll see what self-proposed restrictions the applicant offers, and what the neighbor response is. This area is designated to be residential in the General Plan. It is reasonable for the neighbors to have an expectation that the land will be developed as residential. The neighbors should be okay with going in a different direction before we approve it.
5. **ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED**An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase buffering requirements and transitional standards when certain uses are adjacent to a residential zone. City-wide Impact. (PLOTA20180216)
   This was not ready to be heard. Item was previously continued.
6. **ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED**An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the amount of residential development in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. City-wide Impact. (PLOTA20180231)
   This was not ready to be heard. Item was previously continued.
7. **ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED**An ordinance to amend the General Plan regarding the future Land Use Map that included Provo City Land west of the I-15 freeway, and south of the Provo River. Lakewood, Sunset, Provo Bay, and Fort Utah Neighborhoods. (PLGPA20180225)
   This was not ready to be heard. Item was previously continued.
8. A resolution appropriating $75,000 in the Fire Department, General Fund for fire station equipment improvements applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (18-087)
   Each of Provo’s Fire Stations is equipped with a mechanical system which removes diesel emissions created by the various fire engines and vehicles. Several stations throughout the City have failing systems, which have resulted in costly repairs over the last two years. Facilities and the Fire Department have explored new systems which would be less expensive and more reliable. This is a request for the funds to purchase the equipment. We heard this two weeks ago in our Work Meeting. This is what I said in my report: "This is the responsible thing to do on many levels. It is doing right by our tax-payers and our firefighters. My one concern was about the timing of the request. We aren't too far removed from approving the yearly budget. Why wasn't it included there? The Chief explained that it was a known problem, but it was overlooked when assembling all the needs for the budget, and it really came to a head after the budget was prepared when the systems in two stations broke down again." Approved 7:0. This will save us money in the long run, and, more importantly, it will keep our firefighters safe.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 14.41 (Home Occupations) to better preserve the residential character of Neighborhoods. (PLOTA20180109)
   A number of recent major home occupation requests have been controversial in their evaluation of possible impacts on their associated neighborhoods. After discussion in a work session, Council requested consideration of some amendments and this request was sent to the Planning Commission.
   
   At the Council work meeting on August 7, 2018, it was found that the version of the code amendment given to the Planning Commission was not the same version developed by the Council. To eliminate potential confusion as to the content of the document and what the Planning Commission had intended to recommend, the Council returned the initial draft to the Planning Commission. This Planning Commission staff report highlights the differences between the two versions. After reviewing the initial draft, the Planning Commission has recommended approval.
   
   This had a first hearing at the September 11 Council meeting and a request was made to continue it for more discussion. After we continued it, here was my report, "I don't think this was a routine and/or non-controversial item, so I support it being heard again in two weeks. There likely be some discussion in the meantime about whether there may be some areas of the City where the restriction on major home occupations at properties that have accessory apartments is inappropriate." Approved 7:0. There wasn't interest by the majority of the Council to make the adjustments for accessory apartments in the RC zone, so it passed in the form we had worked out months ago.
10. **ITEM TO START AT/AFTER 6:30 PM** A public meeting allowing for the presentation of arguments for and against the proposition to issue up to $69 million of general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing the costs of acquiring, constructing, and equipping in the downtown area a new police and fire headquarters, emergency dispatch center, and city hall; acquiring, constructing, and equipping a new fire station to replace the fire station on Canyon Road, and providing for related improvements in Provo City. (18-073)
    This and the following items on the agenda are steps required as part of the process of Provo City placing a general obligation bond on the ballot. More information on the proposed Provo Police, Fire & City Facilities Bond can be found at VoteProvo.com. I will be chairing these item because Chair Winterton was the author of the "Statement For" passing the bond. This item will be for the presenting of arguments on the bond generally. The next two items are specific to the economic impact of the project on the private sector and certain procedures relating to the bond election. Any public comment on the other two items must be focused on the purpose for the items. Public hearing only. We spent hours discussing, deciding, and preparing how to handle these items to ensure we follow every requirement of the law, and to try not to give anyone a reason to complain about how it was conducted. And then we heard from 5 people.
11. A public hearing regarding (i) the proposed issuance of up to $69 million of general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing the costs of acquiring, constructing, and equipping in the downtown area a new police and fire headquarters, emergency dispatch center, and city hall; acquiring, constructing, and equipping a new fire station to replace the fire station on Canyon Road, and providing for related improvements in Provo City; and (ii) the economic impact of the project on the private sector. (18-073)
    Public hearing only.
12. A resolution establishing certain procedures relating to the holding of a bond election relating to the proposed issuance of up to $69 million of general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing the costs of acquiring, constructing, and equipping in the downtown area a new police and fire headquarters, emergency dispatch center, and city hall; acquiring, constructing, and equipping a new fire station to replace the fire station on Canyon Road, and providing for related improvements in Provo City. (18-073)
    Approved 7:0.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 11 September 2018

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, September 11, 2018

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

Business



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



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



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



Business



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



Closed Meeting

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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

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



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda



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



Adjournment