Council Meetings - 22 January 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, January 22, 2019

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

Approval of Minutes

1. September 25, 2018 Joint Meeting with Energy Board
2. September 25, 2018 Work Meeting
All minutes approved by unanimous consent.



Business



3. A Quarterly Financial Report on the 1st Quarter of FY 2018-2019. (19-007)
   With the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year on September 30, 2018, the Finance Division has put a report together showing how expenditures and revenue collection compares to projections. The presentation will provide an opportunity for the Council to receive the information and ask questions. This will help the Council understand trends in revenue (sales tax, utility fees, etc) and expenditures, which will help as we begin the discussion on next year's budget. Presentation only. Generally our revenues are a little ahead of last year's "year to date" figures, and a bit further ahead of our budget. Overall our expenses are a little under the budgeted amount. If this continues through the next three quarters, we will be able to add a more to our "rainy day" fund, which is a good thing as the economy is showing some signs of being unsettled.
4. A discussion on the issuance of up to $69,000,000 of general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing Fire, Police, and other City Facilities and related matters. (19-014)
   The issuance of bonds was approved by voters in November 2018. The bonds will be sold on the morning of Tuesday, January 22. Most of the details are worked out. We won't know until that morning what the exact interest rate will be. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 22 Council Meeting. The bond sale went a little better than planned. Rather than paying the originally estimated $119.80, the owner of the median home in Provo will pay $117.84.
5. A semi-annual report from the from the Sustainability Committee. (19-016)
   The Sustainability Committee has been active in their efforts within Provo. They have recently hired a new full-time Parking and Sustainability Coordinator, Austin Taylor, who also serves as the Committee's executive secretary. Other recent initiatives include collaboration with Provo Energy Department and Utah Municipal Power Agency, improving air quality, improving energy-efficiency in local buildings, recycling education, and land use. To be clear, Provo City recently hired a Parking and Sustainability Coordinator, and, as part of his responsibilities, he serves as the executive secretary of the Sustainabilty Committee. We will hear from both Don Jarvis, who leads the Committee, and Austin Taylor. Presentation only. Committee Chair Don Jarvis recounted the efforts of the Committee and City to improve our sustainability. Committee Secretary and Provo City Parking and Sustainability Coordinator, Austin Taylor, discussed "net-zero" buildings that are designed to produce as much energy as they consume. Some commercial buildings are saving enough each year on utilities to "break even" on the added costs of "net-zero" construction after only two years. We could save Provo tax payers money for generations by investing some of the bond money into building a "net-zero" City Hall and Public Safety Building.
6. A discussion on an appropriation for the Urban Deer Program. (18-061)
   The need for an additional appropriation was originally discussed in the December 18, 2018, Council work meeting.The request before the council is to appropriate an additional $20,000 to fund the FY2019 portion of the program. This funding is needed to complete the work this year. Discussions are ongoing about the effectiveness of the program, whether it should continue, and what changes should be made. A motion to amend the resolution for the implied motion from $20,000 to $10,500 for the lethal portion of the program only was approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the January 22 Council Meeting. This was caused by an oversight when the budget was passed last year. The $10,500 has already been spent and the Police don't feel that they have enough staffing to continue to support the other portion. The trapping and relocation will not take place this spring. We will be carefully evaluating the results of this program before making the decision whether or not to continue it in the future.
7. A presentation on the Provo Airport and potential budget requests.
   In preparation for the FY 2019-2020 budget, different departments and divisions will be making presentations regarding their operations and budget needs. This is the first in that series and will feature the Provo Airport. The Airport is at a pivotal juncture. Duncan Aviation has just opened new facilities to service corporate aircraft and we are at capacity for commercial flights using our existing terminal. Presentation only. We are now basically at capacity for commercial flights at the Airport. More flights and more carriers would come, if only we could accommodate them. As the Valley continues to grow, the importance of having a strong regional airport will only continue to grow. The Federal Government recognizes this and will pay for much of the expansion (which includes a new terminal), but some local money will be needed. Regional and State money will likely be used as well.




Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



8. A discussion for a request to rezone approximately 14 acres, generally located at 2300 N University Parkway, from Regional Shopping Center (SC3) to Interim Transit Oriented Development (ITOD). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180406)
   The applicant, Provo City Economic Development, is requesting a zone change on behalf of the owner and developer of “the Mix” property, located at 2300 N University Pkwy. The request is to amend the zone map from the SC3 to the ITOD zone for 14 acres along the north and east ends of the property. The owners of the property have an approved plan for this property under SC3 zoning with commercial, office, and residential development. However, due to changing markets and a revised plan from the developers, they now are requesting an amendment to the zoning, which will be followed by an amendment to their development plan. The zone change will enable the developers to move forward with building on “The Mix” site. Community Development staff has recommended, at the property owner’s representative has agreed, that a Development Agreement should be recorded in the office of the Utah County Recorder prior to any actual change in zoning that would include certain restrictions.
   
   The Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation dependent on a Development Agreement is signed prior to adoption of the ITOD zone that would include the following:
   1. That the remaining SC3 zone will not permit any residential uses;
   2. That 10% of the residential units in the ITOD zone must be income restricted at 60% Average Median Income or that cash-in-lieu is proffered for 10% of the units;
   3. That the attached zoning map be included in the Development Agreement which will dictate zone boundaries and road locations.
   4. That it is understood by all parties that future development of the subject property may necessitate significant improvements to city sewer facilities and that the cost of any such improvements will be the responsibility of the developer.
   This is a bit of a change in the vision for this project. This many units may have a real impact on addressing our housing needs, and could be a significant boon if it is done well. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 22 Council Meeting. It seems like the Council was fairly comfortable with this change. More time was spent discussing whether or not tax increment incentives would be requested in the future to support the project.




Business



9. A discussion for further consideration of an annexation petition for approximately 13.45 acres of property generally located at 5400 N Canyon Road (Peay Annexation). North Timpview and Riverbottoms Neighborhoods. (PLANEX20180355)
   Council will be deciding whether there should be further consideration of an annexation petition. The map of the property to be annexed and the map of the plans for the property can be found in the agenda materials. It looks like this would pave the way for a 42 house development, mostly single family detached, but with 8 twin homes. Our annexation plans include this area. I wonder how well this integrates into the rest of Provo, it looks like it is still mostly surrounded by unincorporated land. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 22 Council Meeting. This area is already in the Annexation Plan, so I think the default answer is yes. The two concerns are: is there an expectation that if we annex it the City is committed to bringing utility services to the whole area, and if neither of the properties on either side of this property are annexed does that cause additional difficulties to bring in the utilities? Should we wait until the surrounding properties are ready and then annex the whole thing?
10. A discussion on an affordable housing resolution and policy for Provo City. (18-070)
    At the August 7, 2018, Work Meeting, representatives from The Salt Lake Chamber came to discuss a policy initiative they recently headed and referred to as the Housing Gap Coalition. As part of their presentation, they discussed with the Council a study their group had recently commissioned with the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah. The study uncovered several areas dealing with housing affordability and availability that were of concern and in need of attention. One of the primary asks of this presentation was that the Council consider and pass a resolution which would unite cities in the state and partner with the Housing Gap Coalition to address housing affordability. The Council has had numerous discussions regarding this resolution, but never adopted the resolution. Council Leadership asked Council staff to review the housing policies in place and to particularly look at current policies and whether current policies would create a duplication in effort. As I've said previously, the Resolution does not commit to anything that we aren't already doing or that we haven't already committed to doing in our advisory documents (like the General Plan). Adopting this resolution signals our willingness to engage with our neighboring cities to address this problem. Ignoring the resolution gives cover for nearby cities who aren't pulling their weight when it comes to affordable housing. Approved as amended 7:0 for use in the implied motion at the Council Meeting. This item was already scheduled for the January 22 Council Meeting. We reviewed the changes drafted by staff and made one additional tweak before sending it on to the evening meeting.
11. A review of Council Board and Committee assignments, including a discussion regarding Council goals (Part 2 of 2). (19-002)
    The Council has a number of goals and priorities they would like to accomplish. Each year, the Council has a discussion where the Council committee assignments are established. This is the second of two meetings to discuss this item. What issues do we want to tackle this year? What is the most effective way for us to organize ourselves to address them? As the Administration begins assembling the budget, are there any areas that we'd like to see emphasized? Presentation only. We listed out more than a dozen issues that we would like to address this year. We will prioritize them before our next meeting. We selected liaison assignments to the various boards, commissions, and organizations. We also chose to wind down most of our standing committees and create issue-specific ad-hoc committees to tackle issues as Councilors have time and interest.
12. A discussion on the use of the surplus property list. (19-015)
    The discussion will address an alternative proposal for how the Council surpluses properties and how those properties are discussed. This item was added late. I don't know anything about it. Presentation only. A property needs to be on a surplus list before the Council can meet in closed session to discuss offers to buy it. The proposal was to release a list of all properties that Provo might consider an offer on, so that we could go directly into a closed session to discuss any future offer. I was worried about the scope of this proposal. I was afraid that pretty much every property owned by Provo could be on the list, and at that point, what is the point of the list. After expressing my concerns, I have since learned that the number of properties will much much fewer and will only include the properties that Provo would be serious about selling.

Closed Meeting



13. 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.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda



1. A resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $69,000,000 of general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing Fire, Police, and other City Facilities and related matters. (19-014)
   This is item 4 on the work meeting agenda. This is the final authorization from the Council. Approved 7:0. That is a lot of money. But very needed and will create buildings that will serve our community well for generations. As noted in the earlier meeting, "The bond sale went a little better than planned. Rather than paying the originally estimated $119.80, the owner of the median home in Provo will pay $117.84."
2. A resolution appropriating $20,000 in the Police Department General Fund for the Urban Deer Program applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (18-061)
   This is item 6 on the work meeting agenda. As I said above, "This funding is needed to complete the work this year. Discussions are ongoing about the effectiveness of the program, whether it should continue, and what changes should be made." Approved 7:0. Note: the title originally included an upper limit of $20,000 for the considered appropriation; during the January 22 Work Meeting, the Council amended the draft resolution for approval to include only $10,500 for the lethal portion of the urban deer program—this is the final version which was approved. See my report for this issue in item 6 in the afternoon meeting.
3. A resolution stating the intention of Provo City with respect to affordable housing. (18-070)
   This is item 10 on the work meeting agenda. Hopefully we will have all of the concerns addressed and we can move on. Approved 7:0. After months of deliberation, the Council passed the resolution UNANIMOUSLY!
4. A resolution with regards to an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 13.45 acres of property generally located at 5400 N Canyon Road (Peay Annexation). North Timpview and Riverbottoms Neighborhoods. (PLANEX20180355)
   This is item 9 on the work meeting agenda. This area is already in the annexation plans. Approved 6:1, with Councilor Kay Van Buren opposed. Note: this action refers only to the acceptance of the annexation application for further consideration and is the first step of the typical public hearing and consideration process. Under state law, the application is automatically accepted for further consideration unless the Council denies it within 14 days of receipt. We raised several questions and concerns, but allowed the study to move ahead.
5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 14 acres, generally located at 2300 N University Parkway, from Regional Shopping Center (SC3) to Interim Transit Oriented Development (ITOD). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180406)
   This is item 8 on the work meeting agenda. As I said above, "This is a bit of a change in the vision for this project. This many units may have a real impact on addressing our housing needs, and could be a significant boon if it is done well." Approved as amended, to include the development agreement, 7:0. The net difference between the previous plan and the current plan is ~85 more residential units (from ~420 to ~500, none of which now will be hotel), ~300K sq ft less office space (all of which is being eliminated) ~45K sq ft more retail space (~105K sq ft to ~150K sq ft).



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 8 January 2019

Happy New Year to everyone. For our day of meetings in the new year we will be selecting leadership, discussing goals, and organizing ourselves to best pursue those goals.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 PM, Tuesday, January 8, 2019

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

Business



1. Training on Open & Public Meetings Act and further training on Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) requests (19-010)
   Utah State law requires Council members to receive annual training on the Open & Public Meetings Act. State Law 52-4-104 says, “The presiding officer of the public body shall ensure that the members of the public body are provided with annual training on the requirements of this chapter." This training will fulfill that requirement. If the City Council meets as a body to carry out our responsibilities, State law requires us to do so openly before the public. The law defines what is and isn't considered an open meeting, and how we must go about notifying and making it available to the public. This training is designed to make every Councilor aware of the requirements. Presentation only.
2. A discussion on recent changes to the Provo City Housing Authority (19-011)
   Provo Housing Authority has a goal to serve the community of Provo by finding traditional and innovative ways to provide affordable housing for disabled individuals, elderly, and families. Robert Vernon, CEO of Provo City Housing Authority (PCHA), will come to discuss the Provo Housing Authority along with two new groups--a Provo NonProfit Housing Development Corp DBA Utah Regional Housing (URH) Corporation and Utah Community Land Trust (UCLT). There is some confusion regarding the role and purpose of UCLT and URH. This will be a good opportunity for the City to understand recent changes with PCHA and to make sure all of our interests are properly aligned. Presentation only. Housing authorities have a particular role, receive federal funding, and must follow certain regulations. Non-profit entities can partner with various agencies, don't have some of the same access to funding, but are more flexible in their activities. Utah Regional Housing is being created by the people at Provo City Housing Authority to expand the scope and services that they can offer.
3. A review of Council Board and Committee assignments, including a discussion regarding Council intended accomplishments (Part 1 of 2) (19-002)
   The Council has a number of goals and priorities they would like to accomplish. Each year, the Council has a discussion where the Council committee assignments are established. This will be the first of two meetings to discuss this item. My hope is that we first decide what we want to accomplish and then decide how we want to organize ourselves to more effectively accomplish our goals. Presentation only. We mostly reviewed the five priorities that we set at the beginning of 2018. We also talked a bit about what we accomplished in 2018. We will focus more on what we want to accomplish in 2019 in part 2 at our next meeting.
4. A discussion on affordable housing policies in Provo City. (18-070)
   At the August 7, 2018, Work Meeting, representatives from The Salt Lake Chamber came to discuss a policy initiative they recently headed and referred to as the Housing Gap Coalition. As part of their presentation, they discussed with the Council a study their group had recently commissioned with the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah. The study uncovered several areas dealing with housing affordability and availability that were of concern and in need of attention. One of the primary asks of this presentation was that the Council consider and pass a resolution which would unite cities in the state and partner with the Housing Gap Coalition to address housing affordability. The Council has had numerous discussions regarding this resolution, but never adopted the resolution. Council Leadership asked Council staff to review the housing policies in place and to particularly look at current policies and whether current policies would create a duplication in effort. Here is the link to the Staff Report again. I hope we can make a final decision on this soon. Presentation only. Staff reviewed the proposed Resolution, as amended, against what's in current Provo policy and in our advisory documents (like the General Plan). Their conclusion is that we are already doing, or have said that we will do, all that is in the Resolution. Based on the report and on the discussion, there were a few additional requests for adjustments and clarifications in the Resolution. Staff accepted the assignment to futher revise the Resolution to accommodate the requests. We will bring it back to the next meeting.



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.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Approval of Minutes

1. November 13, 2018 Council Meeting
2. November 20, 2018 Board of Canvassers Meeting
3. December 11, 2018 Council Meeting
Approved by unanimous consent.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
4. A presentation of gifts to the outgoing Council Chair and Vice Chair.
   Presentation only. I received a beautifully framed picture with Gary Winterton. It has been such a pleasure and learning experience this past year to support him in his role as Chair. Gary loves our community and works tirelessly to bring people together to solve our challenges and improve the City. I'm so grateful for his friendship.
5. A presentation of the Popular Annual Financial Report. (19-007)
   Presentation only. This document is a graphical summary of the City's finances last year. It is designed to be accessible to ordinary citizens to give them an accurate picture of the financial standing and priorities of the City.



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda



6. The election of Municipal Council officers; chair and vice-chair. (19-001)
   Council members elect their leadership at the first regular meeting of the year. Nominations are made and votes are taken. By code, no discussion on the nominations is allowed. The Council Chair conducts Council meetings, signs documents on behalf of the Council and is considered the Council’s spokesperson to the public, the media, and the Provo City Mayor. The Chair and Vice-Chair meet regularly with the Administration and Council Staff to coordinate the agendas for Council meetings. The Chair is also spokesperson for the Council. The nominations of David Harding as Council Chair and Kay Van Buren as Vice Chair were approved 7:0. The Daily Herald noted, "All votes were unanimous, and seemingly pre-determined." As mentioned in the background, no discussion is allowed on the nominations. All discussion on leadership needs to take place before the public meeting.
   I am excited to work with Kay Van Buren this year. I am grateful for the confidence placed in us by our colleagues, and for the privilege of serving the community in this capacity.
7. A resolution acknowledging the election of the Chair and Vice-chair of the Provo Municipal Council for calendar year 2019. (19-001)
   This resolution formalizes the result of the election. The previous step selects the new Chair and Vice-Chair, this step makes it official. Approved 7:0.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo



8. The election of Redevelopment Agency of Provo officers; chair and vice-chair. (19-001)
   The Provo Municipal Council serves as the governing board of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and elects leadership at the first regular meeting of the year. The RDA Chair conducts the portions of Council’s meetings where redevelopment items are discussed (listed separately on the agendas). The Executive Committee of the RDA includes the Chair and Vice-Chair as well as the Mayor. They meet regularly to discuss redevelopment items which are then brought to the RDA board for final decisions. The nominations of David Knecht as Redevelopment Agency Chair and George Handley as Vice Chair were approved 7:0. Dave Knecht served as Chair last year as well. Both Dave and George Handley are passionate about addressing the growing afforadability problems in housing and assuring that we grow smart.
9. A resolution acknowledging the appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City for calendar year 2019. (19-001)
   This resolution formalizes the result of the election. The previous step selects the new Chair and Vice-Chair, this step makes it official. Approved 7:0.




Action Agenda



10. A resolution of intent to establish a permit parking program in the Pleasant View Neighborhood. (18-083)
    This is part of the process for establishing permit parking programs in Provo City. A public hearing is being held and, if the resolution passes, another will be held on February 5, 2019. This is an opportunity for residents in the affected area to voice their support or concerns. There is a small parking permit program in the Pleasant View Neighborhood. The residents would like to add two more streets to the program. This is the second of three mandatory steps. A motion to amend the resolution to state that the Council would proceed with the process established in Provo City Code was approved 7:0. Approved as amended 7:0. The parking permit program recommended by the Parking Committee is vastly different from what was requested by the residents. This will need to be resolved in the near future.



Adjournment

Council Meeting - 18 December 2018

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

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, December 18, 2018

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

Business



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

   Adjournment

Council Meetings - 11 December 2018

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, December 11, 2018

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

Approval of Minutes



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



Business



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




Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



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

Business



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



Closed Meeting



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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

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

Public Comment

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




Consent Agenda

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



Action Agenda



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



Adjournment

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