Representing District 5

Monday, May 6, 2019

Council Meetings - 7 May 2019

I'm excited to hear the ridership stats for UVX. The Millrace rezone will be back. We'll also be considering a rezone for a property on South State Street, where Rainbow Gardens has been. The Election Code Committee (which I've worked on) will be unveiling our recommended changes which would apply to this fall's election.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Board

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes. Perhaps I'm biased, but I think that we have the best Parks and Rec Department in the country. There is a lot of credit to go around, and some of it should be given to our Parks and Rec Board.

Business

An update on the Regional Sports Park
A discussion on the community impacts of the Triple Play Membership
An update on trail improvements
A discussion on promoting health and active lifestyles in Provo
A discussion on efficiency in government
A discussion of the unique benefits of Parks and Recreation in Provo
Additional discussion on items of mutual interest as time permits

Adjournment
I hope that we can move through the other items quickly. I think that it is valuable to have a discussion with the board about how we can support their efforts and work together more effectively. It was a good meeting. Unlike TMAC, the Parks and Rec Board feels that they are getting good support and communication from the council and administration.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, May 7, 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

A presentation on the Utah Valley Express ridership (19-045)
In 2015, the Municipal Council approved the construction of the Utah Valley Express (UVX) project, previously known as Bus Rapid Transit. The project faced some public criticism and Council asked UTA to come and present on the project, including ridership numbers to help Council know about the success of the project. I've heard rumors that ridership is well above the predicted numbers. It'll be good to get the actual numbers presented directly from UTA. Presentation only. The ridership numbers are above what what projected for this point in the project (but below the prediction for ridership after 3 years). Will the numbers continue to grow? This fall will be interesting as the students return. The system wasn't fully operational at the beginning of the school year in 2018. Will more students decide to go car-free this fall? Will more people learn of the convenience of using UVX to get to events at the universities? Already this system is taking many cars off the road, impacting our air quality, and traffic and parking congestion.
A presentation regarding the bicycle plan for 500 North (19-055)
Councilors are interested in learning about the benefits of bike lanes. Currently, the plan along 500 North requires the elimination of parking in return for bike lanes to allow for the transitions required to keep traffic flowing along the street. This discussion should help Councilors better understand the considerations of the parking and bike lanes issue. Check out this graphic: Presentation only. Quick and informative presentation on how bike infrastructure has impacted communities across the nation as well as Provo.
A discussion on the Airport Master Plan (19-052)
The Provo City Airport has been engaged in a process updating the Provo City Airport Master Plan. The Master Plan has not been updated since early-2000's. There are elements of the Provo City Airport that need to be discussed in this Work Meeting. Public Works will have the Airport Master Plan consultant on hand to present to the Council on the updated plan. I don't know which elements need to be discussed. We've had a number of presentations already as the Airport Master Plan drafting process has been underway. Presentation only. This item will return to Council at a future date. This is an update of where we are at in the process. The draft plan will be released to the public soon for feedback. I know of one venue so far: Airport Master Plan Workshop, Wednesday 19 JUN at 6pm at the Provo Airport (Utah Fire and Rescue Academy)
A discussion on the potential of an aquifer storage and recovery program. (19-056)
Council has expressed interest in pursuing aquifer storage and recovery as part of the current wastewater treatment plant. The Public Works Department has put forth an effort to gather information to bring back to the Council and share their insights. I think that aquifer storage and recovery is an interesting paradigm. We also use a lot of potable water in the valley for agriculture. I hope we compare ASR with the option of using wastewater effluent for agriculture. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to the next possible Work Meeting. This was a very helpful discussion for me to better understand the scope of this idea. It isn't just about a potential use for our waste water effluent, and may not include effluent at all. Our ground water levels have been dropping over the decades, and ASR could be a good way to ensure that we have clean drinking water for generations to come.
A discussion on a parking reduction on an affordable housing project. (19-057)
The project is preliminarily comprised of 64 two-bedroom condo units. Section 14.37.060 of the Provo City Code requires 2.25 spaces per unit for two-bedroom units. Using this ratio, the parking requirement for the project will be 144 spaces (64x2.25). The site plan that the applicant has submitted shows 134 stalls (which is a 2.09 stall/unit ratio). They may also lose a few stalls to meet the landscaping requirements, but it looks like they will easily meet two stalls per unit. Essentially, they would have to reduce their unit count by 5 (59 units total) to make the existing parking work. Because the buildings are 4 units to a floor they would need a substantial redesign or they would be forced to reduce the number of units by at least 8 for it to work structurally. The issue is that they will either need to sacrifice some units to meet the parking standard or we need to amend the code to allow them to ask for a parking reduction. I sometimes feel dizzy from how often we adjust our parking standards up and down. A proposal comes in requesting a decrease, so we decrease the standard, problems ensue so we increase the standards, but the very next project comes in to request a decrease, so we decrease the standard again. Presentation only I suggested that we focus on project enhancements designed to reduce parking demand that would qualify a project for a lower parking standard, rather than just lowering the parking standard.
A discussion regarding enacting a free expression ordinance (19-058)
This item is an ordinance which provides guidelines for Provo City to regulate expressive activities on both public property which is a traditional public forum and also on public property which is not a public forum. It also authorizes the Mayor to establish policies and practices consistent with this Section for City property, and may delegate such authority to Department Directors with regard to the City property they manage. The state legislature passed a law this spring that requires us to address this topic. The state legislature took up this issue because of complaints coming out of Provo and Orem during the referendum effort about BRT. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. This is a good plan to meet the new state law, and have clear guidelines for individuals to follow as they seek to exercise their right to expression.
A discussion regarding a code amendment suggested by the Election Code Committee to update portions of the code related to Provo City elections. (19-002)
The Election Code Committee has been meeting to make a few changes to the Provo City code related to elections. Some of the changes include:
- Retitle to Election Code (from “Campaign Finance Disclosure) (2.05)
- Update to modern forms of payment (2.05.020(1))
- Disclosure requirements
- Remove report in aggregate option for below $500 (2.05.040(3)(b))
- Consolidate campaign committee and candidate requirements
- Clarification for Pre-declaration and post-election donations and expenditures.
I've been working on this committee and we have tried to work through several issues but have been on a very tight timeline. I feel these changes will increase transparency for the public and will make it easier for the campaigns to comply. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. The councilors will have a couple more weeks to look over the details, but I feel that they were generally receptive to the committee's recommendation.
A discussion on the county form of government (19-060)
There is a petition circulating by Strengthen Utah County, PIC (a Political Issues Committee) that would put the question [of whether or not to change the county form of government to a Council - Mayor form of government] on the November 2019 municipal ballots. Utah County Commission has also established the Utah County Good Governance Advisory Board (GGAB) "to facilitate research, analysis, public outreach, and provide recommendations to the Utah County Board of Commissioners related to a potential modification of Utah County’s form of government."

If the Council as a body wishes to influence the recommendation of the GGAB by way of resolution, it must do so before the GGAB formulates its recommendation(s) on the afternoon of May 23. The Council has a regular meeting on May 21. I support the county moving from a 3 full-time member commission, that holds both administrative and legislative duties to a 7 part-time council and a full-time mayor who split the legislative and administrative roles. I feel that the current form of government has not well served the residents of the county for quite some time. Presentation only. At the request of the mayor, we decided to hold off on issuing a resolution. I am hopeful that the GGAB will issue a recommendation similar to what was proposed by the "Stregthen Utah County" group.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

A discussion on a zone change request from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) for 1.92 acres of land located at 442 & 490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood. 17-0010R
The applicant is requesting a zone change from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) at this location to allow for a four-story, 32-unit apartment, a three-story, 24-unit apartment and a two-story, 4-unit townhomes on the corner of 500 South and State Street. These proposed sixty units would be on commercial property that is to be rezoned to High Density Residential (HDR). The HDR zone would allow for more units and additional building height than is being requested, therefore, a development agreement would be advisable to ensure that only what has been proposed would be developed. The City Council continued the zone change request and instructed the applicant to go back and work with the neighborhood and address their concerns. The applicant has now done that and made changes to their original proposal of 64 units in 2 four-story buildings. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. I think that this project has evolved quite a bit in the years-long process that it has taken to get here. I think it is a good project. My main question now is if the "two-story, 4 unit townhomes" that front 500 South are actually two stories. I believe they are one story, but on top of parking. The neighbors have pushed for housing that will encourage some longer-term residents. I think that true two-story townhomes, on top of parking, would be far more attractive to potential longer-term residents. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 7, 2019. See my report for this item in the evening meeting (below, #6)

Closed Meeting

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

A closed meeting was held for the Redevelopment Agency Governing Board.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

A presentation of the FY 2019-2020 Provo City Budget (19-004)
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.

Action Agenda

A resolution approving two amended Interlocal Agreements between Provo City and Utah County regarding the funding of the Lakeview Parkway. (19-051)
The Lakeview Parkway project is designed to provide access to the west. As part of the building of the parkway, the County agreed to help with the initial build through interlocal agreements. One of the agreements is for Lakeview Parkway from Mike Jense Parkway to Center Street and the other is for Lakeview Parkway from 620 North to 1280 North. Both of these agreements are to provide the 10% contingency funding for the projects. The southern section of Lakeview Parkway provides and additional $661,700 to project number 431-1209 and the northern section provides an additional $149,328 to project number 431-3133. Council approval is needed to appropriate this additional funding. We are being asked to modify an existing agreement with Utah County about their contribution to the construction of the Lakeview Parkway. They are increasing the amount that they will contribute to the construction. I believe, but it isn't totally clear from the supporting documents, that in exchange for this increase, Provo will take on sole responsibility from the maintenance and upkeep of this road. Approved 7:0. There was no adjustment to the maintenance responsibilities. This was solely to allow for the contingency funds to be allocated to the city.
A public hearing regarding a resolution approving the Program Year 2019 Annual Action Plan, Fifth Year update to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, as amended. (19-059)
This is the first of two public hearings for the 2019 Annual Action Plan for use of CDBG and HOME Program funds. Every year, as Lead Entity for the Utah Valley HOME Consortium, Provo City submits an Annual Action Plan (an update to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD) outlining the goals, objectives and the proposed use of federal CDBG and HOME resources to address housing, economic development, and community development projects to be undertaken. This is the city's plan to use two pools of federal money for the coming year. It covers the Community Development Block Grant and HOME monies. If you are interested in how Provo addresses blight, homelessness, and services to vulnerable populations, this is a good place to start. Hearing only. The handful of eligible agencies in the valley are starting to coordinate with each other more to reduce the paperwork and duplicate reporting requirements for the community service providers. There appears to still be a few wrinkles to work out. There are many great charities that are covered by this plan who are making an impact in the lives of many in our area.
A resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application for a Utah County Municipal Recreation Grant to be used for Lakewood Park Playground. (19-053)
This is an annual grant offered by Utah County for communities within the County. Funding for the grant comes from the “Restaurant Tax.” Funds are distributed to communities based on population estimates from Mountainland Association of Governments 2017 Utah Census population estimates. Based on Provo’s population, the grant allocation for 2019 is $58,575.07. This is pretty much lining up a project that we are already doing that meets the requirements of this county grant. The grant allows us to make improvements to our parks and recreation system. Approved 7:0.
An ordinance amending Provo City Code to update and revise the street cross-sections. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190136)
This item is an update and revision to the city’s street standards and street cross-sections. The City’s Public Works Department has been working with a private consultant (Parametrix), and utilized reviews and input by other City departments and the City’s Transportation Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) in the creation of the proposed update and revisions. Planning Commission recommended approval. We discussed this in a previous Work Meeting. The street standards are being updated as part of the Transportation Master Plan, but Engineering would like to start using the new standards and cross-sections even before the rest of the plan is adopted. Approved 7:0. Developers can now begin using these updated street cross-sections.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 442 and 490 South State Street from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR). Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote above, "I think that this project has evolved quite a bit in the years long process that it has taken to get here. I think it is a good project. My main question now is if the "two-story, 4 unit townhomes" that front 500 South are actually two stories. I believe they are one story, but on top of parking. The neighbors have pushed for housing that will encourage some longer-term residents. I think that true two-story townhomes, on top of parking, would be far more attractive to potential longer-term residents." Continued to Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. The mood has changed quite drasticly in the year since we last considered a rezone for this property. As this was the first hearing (since the Planning Commission issued their recommendation on this iteration of the proposal), it was appropriate to continue it for two more weeks to make sure everyone has ample chance to consider the proposal and provide us with feedback. I still think it'll be a good development.
A resolution requesting a Certificate of Registration (COR) from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (19-054)
The Urban Deer program is reliant upon a Certificate of Registration in order to continue the program past August 1, 2019. In order to renew our Certificate of Registration with the Division of Wildlife Resources for another three-year period the City must have two public hearings. This is the first step in that process. We are still discussing what changes should be made to this program, but we are starting the renewal process now. Approved 7:0. We will have some sort of program, but just what it'll look like is still being discussed. Many councilors have expressed interest in emphasizing the trap and euthanize option to more fully focus on the truly urban deer.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 3.7 acres of real property, generally located between 500 S. to 600 S. and from 100 W. to University Ave. from ITOD to Mill Race PRO Zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190047)
This was first considered in a council meeting two weeks ago, but was continued to allow a development agreement to be proffered by the applicant in order to address lingering concerns by the community and the council. Approved 7:0. It has been great to work with this developer who is confident in and committed to their proposal. It was a collaborative effort to craft a development agreement that addresses the concerns of the councilors while keeping the flexibility of the developer to best reach the vision of the development.
***CONTINUED*** Todd Sinks request a Zone Change from Regional Shopping (SC3) to Health Care Facilities Zone (HCF) for 22.12 acres, and to Campus Mixed Use for 8.94 acres, located at 178 E 1860 S. East Bay neighborhood. PLRZ20180321
This item was not ready to be heard.
***CONTINUED*** Community Development Department requests Ordinance Text Amendments to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A-Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. City-wide application. PLOTA20190120
This item was not ready to be heard.

Adjournment

Friday, April 19, 2019

Council Meetings - 23 April 2019

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

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Transportation Mobility Advisory Committee

12:00 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

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

Business

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

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

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

Business

A presentation regarding proposed changes to the Parking Enforcement Fee Structure. (19-046)
Anew fee structure is proposed to comply with Utah Legislature HB0336 which modified the assessment of late fees for violations and will cause the City to be out of compliance as of July 1st, 2019. Also, an increase is proposed for all violation fees to cover expected Parking Enforcement operations costs.

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

After our last bad experience with a grading permit/gravel operation, I think these are good ideas to explore. Presentation only. The council expressed approval for the direction that the committee proposed.

Budget Committee

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

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

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

Closed Meeting

A closed meeting was held.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

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

Action Agenda

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

Redevelopment Agency Of Provo

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

Public Comment

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

Action Agenda

An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish an Officer Rank of Deputy Chief of Police (19-048)
Provo City Code 9.01.020 authorizes the Chief of Police, with the consent of the Mayor, to reorganize the Police Department including assigning any subordinate officer to any duty which in the judgment of the Chief the good of the service may require. The Chief of Police, with the consent of the Mayor, intends to appoint a Deputy Chief of Police to better manage the administration and operation of the Police Department. This ordinance amends PCC 9.01.080 to include a Deputy Chief of Police in the ranking of officers. Per past practice, the Occupational Index listed under PCC 4.04.060 Classes and Salary Ranges will be updated to include a Deputy Police Chief (with a pay grade of M2 under Law Enforcement) when the FY2020 Budget is adopted. This will free up the Chief to focus on bigger-picture issues while the deputy takes care of more of the administrative and operational issues. Approved 7:0. The position will be paid for out of existing funding for the remainder of the fiscal year, and then will be budgeted going forward. We were planning to increase funding for police staffing. This position will reduce the number of officers that we can add to the force, but the position should make the whole department more efficient and effective, providing better value and protection overall.
A resolution appropriating $2,490,000 funded by lease financing in the Vehicle Replacement Fund for the purchase of two fire apparatuses and related equipment applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-043)
The Council is requested to approve the appropriation of the funds approved in the April 9, 2019 meeting for the lease-purchase financing of Fire Vehicles in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. This is part of an ongoing effort to maintain the fleet of Fire vehicles through lease-purchase agreements. This is the second part of the request. The first part was approved last time. This is an expected request and is part of the larger fleet replacement program. Approved 7:0.
An ordinance enacting the Mill Race PRO Zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (PLOTA20190046)
This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. This proposal has caught the attention of many in the city. Here is a good story on it from the Daily Herald, which includes my thoughts on it. I have since heard from some of the neighboring businesses and building owners. They are generally in favor of the project, as it is proposed, but are fearful that they requested zoning language would allow for significant changes to what is being proposed. Approved 7:0. We felt comfortable in creating this zone (which is this item), but we weren't ready to apply the zone (which is the next item).
An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 3.7 acres of real property, generally located between 500 S. to 600 S. and from 100 W. to University Ave. from ITOD to Mill Race PRO Zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190047)
This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. This proposal has caught the attention of many in the city. Here is a good story on it from the Daily Herald, which includes my thoughts on it. I have since heard from some of the neighboring businesses and building owners. They are generally in favor of the project, as it is proposed, but are fearful that they requested zoning language would allow for significant changes to what is being proposed. Continued. We felt comfortable in creating this zone (which is this item), but we weren't ready to apply the zone (which is the next item).

As I said earlier, "It seems that nearly everyone is excited by this project. The only major concern that I've heard is, "what happens if they don't build what they say they will." The zoning that they have requested, which accommodates their proposal, would also allow for significant changes that might not be as good for the community as their current proposal. For example, the current proposal calls for towers up to 14 stories tall next to the University Ave viaduct, and 5-story buildings on the western edge of the block, across the street from the smaller Startup buildings. The proposal is supported by the neighboring businesses, but they would not support 14-story towers on the western edge. The requested zoning allows for 14 story buildings, to accommodate what is proposed on the eastern half of the block, but does not restrict those buildings to the eastern half. Before I vote for the rezone, I need some assurances that we will actually get what is being proposed."

This item was continued to see what the developer could work out with Community Development and concerned neighbors. I believe the developer will return with a development agreement that will ensure that certain aspects of the proposal will be built.
***CANCELLED / DOES NOT REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL*** An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 4.00 acres generally located from 500 S to 600 S and from 100 W to University Ave to approve a PRO zone for a mixed-use development. Downtown Neighborhood. (PLPRO20190045)
This was publicly noticed to be on the agenda, but does not need to be approved by the Council.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 3.724 acres of property generally located at 2400 N 650 E to combine the Performance Development Overlay (PD) Zone with the underlying R1.10 zone. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190029)
This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. One aspect that we've talked about the housing crunch is having a broader mix of housing types in every neighborhood to accommodate people in different life stages. Many people in Provo love the neighborhood in which they live. Some stay in homes that are too large for their needs and wants, but they can't bear the thought of moving away. This proposal seems to offer a housing type that local empty-nesters could move into and still stay in the neighborhood. Approved 4:3, with Kay Van Buren, David Sewell, and George Stewart opposed. We considered this item for three straight hours. In the end, we approved the application of the zoning overlay by a 4-3 vote. The proposal was recommended for approval by our community development staff and had a unanimous recommendation by our planning commission. The proposal is in line with the council's goals and priorities, as well as pressure that the state has been putting on cities to provide more housing diversity. The proposal also resonates with everything I've learned about smart growth and building healthy, resilient neighborhoods. BUT, the proposal was also opposed by 80+% of the nearby neighbors who I heard from that night in the meeting and by email in the run-up to the meeting. I believe in self-determination, on an individual level, but also on a community level. People should be able to decide what kind of community they want to live in. At the narrowest scope, this is a property rights question, but at the next step out, it's a question about the will of the neighbors, and further out we have the interests of the city and the state.

I was among the four who voted to grant the rezone request.
An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the Board of Adjustment to comply with State Code. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190097)
This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. A simple code correction to avoid conflicts of interest. Approved 6:0, with Kay Van Buren excused. This change makes sense.
An ordinance amending Ordinance 2019-01, previously approved on January 22, 2019, with regard to the development agreement required in order for a zone change at 2300 N. University Pkwy to become effective. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ201800406)
This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. I have mixed feelings on this one. We increased the number and density of residential units allowed in the project. We have invested millions in infrastructure (like BRT) that this project is benefitting from. Addressing housing affordability is and has been a major goal for the council for years. We agreed with the terms proposed by the developer, and now they want to change the terms. A motion to place version 4A of the development agreement (which included a new affordability requirement and changes to the sewer provisions) as the exhibit to the ordinance was approved unanimously, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. I'm grateful for the developer's contribution towards affordable housing in Provo, even if it is a small fraction of what was agreed upon when the rezone took place. We need to decide whether inclusionary zoning will play a role in our housing affordability efforts.

Adjournment

Monday, April 8, 2019

Council Meetings - 9 April 2019

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 9, 2019

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

Business

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

A motion, “To further the goals of transparency and accountability to the citizens who elected us to serve them, I move that we ask Council attorney Brian Jones to prepare a draft statement for the benefit of the public who are concerned about the Blue Rock Medical sign. The statement would include a timeline and relevant facts pertaining to the decision to settle the lawsuit against the city by Blue Rock Medical. We ask that Mr. Jones consult with each Councilor, with Council staff, and with the Administration to prepare a draft statement that the Council could review by April 23rd – with the goal that, if approved unanimously, the statement would be released to the public shortly thereafter” was approved 7:0. We kicked off a new committee to review our signage policies.

In an unexpected moment, Councilor Sewell requested, with council support, that our council attorney draft up a timeline to better communicate with the public about how the whole Blue Rock Medical sign fiasco has played out.

Budget Committee

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

Closed Meeting

A closed meeting was held.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

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

Public Comment

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

Redevelopment Agency Of Provo

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

Action Agenda

An ordinance granting New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC a non-exclusive franchise to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah. (19-009)
Provo City and New Cingular Wireless PCS have come to terms on a Franchise Agreement. Pursuant to Provo City Code, “[n]o franchise contract shall take effect until it has been approved by the Municipal Council.” 5.03.020 (5). The parties are seeking the Council’s approval for the Agreement that they have reached.

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

I am expecting a significantly improved voting experience this cycle as compared to the past two that the county conducted for us. Approved 7:0. It's official, the county will be administering our next election. I'm hopeful that it will go far smoother than the last two cycles.

Adjournment

Monday, March 18, 2019

Council Meetings - 19 March 2019

Wastewater and pet regulations are likely to be to two hottest items on tomorrow's agendas.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, March 19, 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.

Budget Committee

A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Department and potential budget requests. (19-004)
The Parks and Recreation Department will (1) report on how its operations contribute to City goals and objectives, and (2) identify potential budget needs for the department. This is the next department to review their efforts and performance, as well as needs and requests, ahead of the budget that will be proposed by the Administration. Presentation only. The Parks and Recreation Department has consistently improved the recreational offerings in the City while reducing the draw on the City's General Fund. They are not asking for any additional money for next year, even though the usage continues to rise.
A discussion regarding the Provo City Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2019-2020 (part 1 of 2). (19-035)
The document and the presentation will lay out the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for each department. Information for each item includes a description of the project, funding status (funded, partially funded, unfunded), funding sources, cost elements, the projected budget through FY 2023-2024, which city goals are furthered, and an estimate of the general impact on operating budgets The CIP is a massive document that lists out all of the large physical projects that the City is engaged in, or is even in the planning stages of. It takes some time to get through, but there may not be a better opportunity to get a feel for what the City is "up to". Presentation only. I did ask about one project that I've heard talked about in the community that wasn't listed in the CIP. 800/820 N has been studied and will likely be widened in the future. I had heard that the City had purchased some homes along this corridor as they went up for sale. I was told that the reason this project wasn't listed is that it is actually a project of UDOT (or was it MAG?).

Business

A presentation from the Administration about proposed organizational changes. (19-036)
Following an extensive review of the effectiveness of the city organizational structure and processes, the Mayor wants to make several changes to streamline and improve development review processes and better align the city to improve the development experience. Three areas are proposed: 1) create a new Department of Development Services, 2) create a "one-stop shop" for development review processes, and 3) revamp the Coordinators' Review Council (CRC). One of the first efforts I engaged in when I was elected to the Council was on the Development Approval Process Review Committee. The main goal of the Committee was to improve the approval process to attract good developers while protecting the community from bad development. The hoops we ask developers to jump through should make a real difference in ensuring quality development. Both Council representatives and Administration representatives participated. We made a number of changes through legislation, and the Administration made a number of procedural changes. I believe this proposal is another fruit of that effort, and commend the Administration for "thinking big" about how to better partner with developers in providing quality development for Provo. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for a future Work Meeting. I had been given a preview of this proposal a few weeks ago. I forgot that this was the first time many of the other Councilors had seen the details. It appeared that they reacted positively to the proposed changes.
A discussion regarding a proposed ordinance amendment prohibiting the sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits from commercial animal establishments (19-030)
Some Utah municipalities have passed legislation that prohibits the sale live dogs, cats or rabbits, unless they are sourced from somewhere like a shelter. The primary concerns are the conditions of some "puppy mills" which supply pets to retail pet stores, illnesses that can then be spread to other pets in the community, and the current over supply of pet that fill local animal shelters. The Provo Council is not necessarily concerned about any currently registered pet store in Provo City, but is concerned about new pet stores after seeing other cities in Utah grapple with problems arising from pet stores locating in their limits. There are many good reasons for pet stores to not sell cats, dogs, or rabbits. From the "adopt, don't shop" argument to "puppies do best going from home (where they were bred) to home (their new family) without a layover in a pet shop. But are the related problems bad enough in Provo to justify additional regulations? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 19, 201 Most of the discussion took place in the evening meeting. See my report of item #5 in the Council Meeting below.
A discussion regarding the proposed Community Land Trust Request for Proposal/Request for Qualifications. (19-032)
The RFP/RFQ was discussed at the August 21, 2018, Work Meeting as part of the Community Land Trust discussion. At that time, the Council requested that the RFP/RFQ should be developed. This item is at a point where a more robust policy discussion is needed to help the Redevelopment Agency understand how they would like to approach this document. I think that we are at the point that we may not need to request a proposal on a community land trust, but we do need to discuss policies on inclusionary zoning and other efforts to address housing affordability, which may interact with CLTs. Presentation only. After going around in circles a few times, we decided to move forward in releasing the RFP/RFQ. At some point, we will need to determine what our policy is on inclusionary zoning and to what extent we will support a community land trust.
A policy discussion related to the Neighborhood Housing Services of Provo proposal with regards to homes purchased with CDBG/HOME Dollars. (18-076)
The RDA is seeking guidance from the Council about whether to forgive the write-off amounts on all of the loans and whether the Council would like to establish criteria for writing off loans. The RDA provided Council with the letter from NHS and staff summed up the amounts and proposal that NHS has established. The write-off amounts of the loans vary and NHS has different proposals for each project they're seeking write off for. I thought we resolved this issue months ago. I'm surprised to see it back. Hopefully, we can resolve it for good this time. Presentation only. This item will be brought to a future Council Meeting. This felt like we were being asked if we wanted to reconsider the direction we gave when we last heard this item in November, without any suggestion on why we may want to change our minds or what change we might want to consider. In the end, we reconfirmed that we would like to accept the proposal as we decided back in November.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

A discussion regarding a proposed ordinance to amend Downtown Streetscape standards to clarify right-of-way improvements for 100 West. City-wide Impact. (PLOTA20190007)
The Community Development Department has proposed to amend the Provo Downtown Streetscape Standards. This amendment is to further the goals and objectives of the Downtown Master Plan and General Plan. One goal from these plans is to encourage streets that reflect and reinforce a sense of place. Staff has identified that additional standards to the 100 West section would reinforce the street as a pedestrian corridor. This item has been continued in the evening meeting twice. Hopefully, we'll hear it this time. As I said previously, "This is a very wide road, with very little traffic due to NuSkin blocking it to the north and the railroad blocking it to the south. This plan would create a streetscape that would be comfortable to walk or bike on between downtown and the Front Runner station." Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 19, 2019. This is a companion piece to a General Plan amendment we approved on February 19th. It is much more detailed in how the streetscape should be developed.

Business

A discussion about Wastewater Recommendations, Treatment Resolution, and Code Changes.
The City’s variance from the State of Utah for phosphorus regulations includes several deadlines the City must comply with. The next deadline is a May 1st 2019 requirement to select the treatment process that will be used in the new plant. Public Works is requesting a Council resolution indicating the City's chosen process. Public Works will also be presenting proposed updates to Title 10 of the City Code relating to the Wastewater system, and making recommendations about wastewater collection system updates. The proposal is to build the new water treatment plant at the current site using membrane bioreactor technology. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 19, 2019. See my report for items #9 and 10 in the evening meeting.

Closed Meeting

A closed meeting was held.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 19, 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

Action Agenda
An ordinance to amend Downtown Streetscape standards to clarify right-of-way improvements for 100 West. City-wide Impact. (PLOTA20190007)
This is item 7 on the work meeting agenda. As I said previously, "This is a very wide road, with very little traffic due to NuSkin blocking it to the north and the railroad blocking it to the south. This plan would create a streetscape that would be comfortable to walk or bike on between downtown and the Front Runner station." Approved 7:0. This is a companion piece to a General Plan amendment we approved on February 19th. It is much more detailed in how the streetscape should be developed.
A resolution appropriating $162,200 from wildfire response revenues in the Fire Department General Fund for expenses related to equipment and facility improvements applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-034)
This year, the wildland fire season was extremely busy. Provo responded to 21 major fires in the five states. Our total revenue was $561,000. Our expenses were $366,000. The total excess revenue in FY2019 was approximately $195,000. As the fire department has unmet needs some of which impact firefighters' health and safety. The fire department requests the ability to use much of this new revenue to care for these issues. I think that this is a great use of these funds. It is a testament to the bargain that we get from our firefighters that our costs are so much lower than the going rate. Approved 7:0. It is in everyone's interest for fire departments to assist one another. Each department can be smaller if they know they can rely on outside help when large fires occur. But that means that we need to be willing to assist when our neighbors need it. The same goes for wildland fires. We have some urban/wildland interface in our city, particularly along our eastern border. If we are ever in a situation like Woodland Hills was last summer, we will want others to assist.

It is our firefighters who risk their health and safety in order to provide assistance to other agencies. I find it very fitting that we allocate any excess revenue from the reimbursements into equipment and programs that better protect their health and safety.
An ordinance amending the official Neighborhood Map. North Timpview and Riverbottoms Neighborhoods. (19-039)
With the proposed residential development and annexation in this geographic area, realigning the boundaries between North Timpview and Riverbottoms, will move this area into North Timpview where its is both continuous and more homogenous with the surrounding properties, allowing for it to better represented by the Neighborhood Chair and for any issues to be addressed. This is a simple neighborhood boundary adjustment that makes sense for all involved. Approved 7:0. The neighborhood boundaries now make better sense.
An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits at commercial animal establishments. (19-030)
This is item 4 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I said for the agenda item in the earlier meeting, 'There are many good reasons for pet stores to not sell cats, dogs, or rabbits. From the "adopt, don't shop" argument to "puppies do best going from home (where they were bred) to home (their new family) without a layover in a pet shop. But are the related problems bad enough in Provo to justify additional regulations?' A motion to table the item indefinitely was approved 7:0. In the end, we didn't feel like the problem in Provo is bad enough to justify these restrictions.
An ordinance amending Provo City Code to repeal and remove references to the Student of Higher Education and Young Adult Advisory Board. (19-033)
Following other recent updates to Provo City Code Title 2 (Government Organizations), the Administration has confirmed that the chapter addressing the Student of Higher Education and Young Adult Advisory Board should be repealed, as the board is no longer functioning. This is a follow up of the code clean up from two weeks ago. This change hadn't been fully reviewed by the Administration so it was left off that ordinance. Approved 7:0. The Mayor has created a similar body to advise on issues faced by our young adults.
**CONTINUED** An ordinance correcting deficiencies in the Campus Mixed Use Zone pertaining to design regulation identified by Community Development. (PLOTA20190025)
This was not ready to be heard by the Council. This item was continued because the Planning Commission did not meet on March 13, 2019.
**CONTINUED** An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification for approximately 3.724 acres of real property generally located at 2400 North 650 East to include a PD Performance Development Overlay Zone in the R1.10 Zone. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190029)
This was not ready to be heard by the Council. This item was continued because the Planning Commission did not meet on March 13, 2019.
A resolution regarding site and process selection for a new water reclamation facility. (19-037)
This is item 8 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I said earlier, "The proposal is to build the new water treatment plant at the current site using membrane bioreactor technology." Approved 7:0. We have now officially selected the current Waste Water Treatment Plant site as the site for the new treatment plant. And we have now selected membrane bioreactors as our technology of choice. We are a bit ahead of the State-mandated deadline to make these declarations.
A resolution regarding loan authorization for the first phase of a new water reclamation facility. (19-038)
On September 11, 2018, the Council instructed the Public Works Department to apply for a State Revolving Fund loan through the Water Quality Board. The Department submitted an application for $120 million and was authorized for $75.8 million at 0.5% interest with an additional $2 million in principal forgiveness. This resolution would authorize Mayor Kaufusi to sign the loan acceptance form. This is the second part of the previous item. Approved 7:0. The Mayor is now authorized to take out this loan from the State Water Quality Board. This loan will save us around $25M over the life of the project.

Adjournment

A motion to resume the closed session was approved 7:0.

Friday, March 1, 2019

Council Meetings - 5 March 2019

We'll be discussing policy on smoking, pet stores, parking, and some streetscapes.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, March 5, 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

A discussion on the Economic Development Impact that has been produced through Parks and Recreation efforts (19-031)
Parks and Recreation facility operations staff would like to present the economic impact of Parks and Recreation facilities/events in the community. All areas have worked with the Utah Valley Conventions and Visitors Bureau to compile impact numbers. Presentation and discussion will include the Regional Sports Park concept. Our Parks and Rec facilities are first and foremost about our quality of life, but it'll be interesting to see an analysis of how our efforts in this area impact our economy. Presentation only. The Parks and Rec Department impacts our finances in two ways. First, our parks and facilities make our community a more desirable place to live and visit. Second, well-run operations can lower costs and maximize the value. Check out this post for a summary.

A discussion concerning House Bill 324 which proposes raising the minimum age for tobacco purchase and other alternatives available to Provo City (19-029)
Recently, Lehi City became the first city in Utah to pass a law which raised the minimum age for tobacco purchases from 18 to 21. Included in this item is a discussion about sending the resolution of support to the Utah State Legislature. In order to have any impact during this Legislative session, the Council needs to approve something at Council Meeting on March 5, 2019. The statistics that stand out to me are that people who start smoking by the age of 18 are twice as likely to become lifetime smokers as those who start after they turn 21, and that most people under 18 get tobacco from people under 21. The counter-argument is that adults should be free to choose even self-destructive behaviors. A motion to amend the implied motion to include the language suggested was approved 6:0, with Councilor Gary Winterton excused. This item was already scheduled for the March 5, 2019 Council Meeting. We made a slight adjustment to the proposed resolution.
A discussion regarding a proposed ordinance amendment prohibiting the sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits from commercial animal establishments (19-030)
Some Utah municipalities have passed legislation that prohibits the sale live dogs, cats or rabbits, unless they are sourced from somewhere like a shelter. The primary concerns are the conditions of some "puppy mills" which supply pets to retail pet stores, illnesses that can then be spread to other pets in the community, and the current over supply of pet that fill local animal shelters. The Provo Council is not necessarily concerned about any currently registered pet store in Provo City, but is concerned about new pet stores after seeing other cities in Utah grapple with problems arising from pet stores locating in their limits. I need to understand how this would affect our current pet stores. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Work and Council Meetings on March 19, 2019. It was an open discussion on what are the concerns, what other cities have done the address them, and what the consequences would be.
A discussion regarding the Provo City Parking goals and objectives (19-018)
There are several listed goals and objectives within Chapter 9 of the General Plan regarding implementation of a parking strategy. Council has invited Austin Taylor to come before the Council to discuss with Council how he intends to manage parking issues within Provo City. Looking through the "Major Goals" slide, I'm optimistic that we are developing a vision that, if pursued, will really address our parking problems. There will need to be some discussion on some of the goals. Presentation only. This was a good presentation about short-term, medium-term, and long-term efforts to improve the parking experience in Provo.
A discussion of an ordinance to correct inconsistencies and provide clarification regarding boards and commissions in Provo City Code Title 2 (19-033)
Due to some inconsistency and confusion regarding different board- and commission-related items, Council staff has been working to update the code to reflect recent changes. I applaud our Council Staff for identifying sloppy code and proposing a solution. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 5, 2019. Very straight forward.
A discussion on Council work efforts (19-032)
Council has had a few meetings where they discussed their goals, priorities, committee structure, etc. A list of issues that the Council may address was adopted two weeks ago. This item is intended to review the ongoing efforts to address these issues and how to track those efforts, as well as discuss any changes to the list of issues or proposals to start new efforts. At the last meeting, we adopted a list of issues that the Council may tackle. For this item, we will review the list and what efforts are currently being made on them. We will entertain motions to create or modify committees to address items on the list. A motion to create an ad hoc Election Code Committee, with the mission statement: "Review Provo City's current election code with Provo City election officials and propose updates and changes to better address and balance interests of campaign finance transparency, donor privacy, code clarity, and ballot access," and with David Harding as Chair and George Stewart as Vice-Chair was approved 6:0, with Councilor Gary Winterton excused. We reviewed a "dashboard" of current Council efforts, and I proposed, and the Council created, an ad hoc committee to review and recommend updates and improvements to our election code.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

A discussion on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 4.99 acres of real property, generally located at 504 South 2470 West from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.8). Provo Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180426)
The applicant is requesting a zone change from the A1.5 zone to R1.8 zone. The proposed rezoning is to provide additional residential lots on an infill piece of property. The homes will be single-family, detached dwellings. The Southwest Neighborhood Land Use Plan anticipates this type of housing at this location. The subject property is surrounded primarily by one-family, residential zoning. Across the street to the west of 2470 West lies single-family residential. North of the property abuts single-family residential homes. West and south of the subject property, across 560 South, the land is in an agriculture zone. This proposal aligns with our policy for development in the area. It received a positive recommendation from Staff, and a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission. But I am a bit surprised because I got the feeling that we weren't approving new developments right now because we are running out of utility capacity in the area and we need to wait for some utility projects to happen. I feel that we need a clearly articulated policy about how we decide which projects can move forward and which projects need to wait. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 5, 2019. The main concern discussed was the impression of Councilors that approvals for new development in west Provo were on hold until more sewer capacity was available. We asked for a clearer explanation to be given in the evening meeting.

Budget Committee

A discussion on Council requests for FY 2019-2020 budget emphasis (19-004)
To inform the Administration of particular points of interest and areas of emphasis where the Council would like to see budget priority. During the January 22, 2019 Work Meeting discussion, the Council took time to list a few areas they were interested in placing budget emphasis this year. Those areas identified were:
- Officer safety and staffing retention
- Relating to the Public Safety and City Facilities Bond to ensure the best outcome on facilities
- Parking - another License Plate Reader to help enforcement efforts throughout Provo City
- Zoning Enforcement - to find ways to achieve compliance
- Housing Audit - research our housing situation (Based on GP Goal 3.4.2.1)
It is the Administration's responsibility to propose a budget, but it is the Council's responsibility to actually decide on and pass a budget. The Council can't know all of the needs and intricacies of operations beforehand, but it can be difficult to make large changes to the budget late in the game after it has been balanced and proposed by the Administration. This year we are considering the adoption of a Budget Emphasis which would clearly communicate with the Administration areas of the budget that the Council would like the Administration to give extra attention and priority as it assembles the budget proposal. A motion to request that Council staff compose a memo regarding the discussion, to communicate to the Administration the areas which the Council was interested in emphasizing in the budget, was approved 6:0, with Councilor Gary Winterton excused. We requested that the Administration give extra emphasis in the upcoming budget proposal to three areas, in order: 1) Police Staffing, 2) Parking (generally, more license plate readers, specifically), 3) Zoning Compliance (along with a report of the impact of recent effort on compliance).
A presentation on the Council Office and potential budget requests. (19-004)
The Council Office will (1) report on how its operations contribute to City goals and objectives, and (2) identify potential budget needs for the department. The Council Office has stayed within its budget and does not see any new needs for the coming fiscal year. Presentation only. The Council Office is treated as one of the departments of the City. This was our office's pre-budget report.
A presentation on the Police Department and potential budget requests (19-004)
The Police Department will (1) report on how its operations contribute to City goals and objectives, and (2) identify potential budget needs for the department. The Police Department has been understaffed for many years and it is taking an unacceptable toll on our officers. They are stretched thin and overworked by any measure, even in comparison with other agencies around the state. Presentation only. Through smart programs and hard work, crime in Provo has been falling over the last three years. But our department has the highest per officer call volume, and the lowest per capita staffing levels. We are asking our officers to do too much with too little resources. It is not sustainable. Years ago a study of our community and our department determined that 120 officers were needed. Years later we are still at 107. We need 13 more officers.
A presentation on the Fire Department and potential budget requests (19-004)
The Fire Department will (1) report on how its operations contribute to City goals and objectives, and (2) identify potential budget needs for the department. With the recent appropriations and the coming rebuild of Fire Station #2, I believe we are on top of our FD needs. But the point of these presentations is to make us aware of needs. Presentation only. One of the Cheif's main focuses is to improve the community's preparations for wildfires on the edges of town, similar to what our neighbors to the south faced last year.

Closed Meeting

None requested.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Approval of Minutes

February 5, 2019 Council Meeting 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
An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.96 acres of real property, generally located at 1356 South 500 West, from Residential Agricultural (RA) to Residential (R1.8). Lakewood Neighborhood. (17-0017R)
Angela Eckstein is requesting a zone change for her property at 1356 S 500 W from the RA zone to the R1.8 zone, in order to subdivide the land into three residential lots. The property currently includes a home that is on the east side of the property, along 500 West. Two new lots would be created on the west side of the lot which would access off of 570 West. The subject property is bordered by R1.10 zoning on the north and RA zoning to the south. R1.8 zoning is across 570 West, to the west and R1.8 zoning is in place to the east, across 500 West. The General Land Use for the property is classified as Residential. This proposal and the related subdivision application have been through staff review and have received approval to move forward. We continued this item last time because there was some concern about the recommended additional restriction on building height on the created plots. It appears that all of the provided documentation is the same as last time so I'll need to wait until the meeting to find out what has been worked out. Approved as amended 6:0, with Councilor Gary Winterton excused. The new agreement worked out between the applicant, the neighbors, and Community Development was acceptible to everyone.
An ordinance amending Chapter 1 of the General Plan and changing the designation for approximately 35 acres, generally located at 178 E 1860 S. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLGPA20180407)
In 2018 Provo City transferred 23 acres of property to the Noorda College of Osteopathic Medicine for the development of a medical school, the south parcel. An additional 12 acres located between the golf course parcel and 1860 South have been acquired for the development of apartment housing for students, the north parcel. The zoning map has previously been amended such that all the surrounding golf course property is now completely within the Public Facilities Zone. The two parcels that are the subject of this application remain zoned SC3, Regional Shopping Center. We continued this item last time because not all of the changes heard by the Planning Commission had made it into the proposal before the Council. Approved as amended 6:0, with Councilor Gary Winterton excused. All of the proposed changes were included this time, along with some small modifications requested by the Council last time.
A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council to express support for the Utah State Legislature to increase the minimum age for tobacco purchases and otherwise to consider passing a City law to that effect. (19-029)
This is item 2 on the work meeting agenda. As I said in the earlier meeting, "The statistics that stand out to me are that people who start smoking by the age of 18 are twice as likely to become lifetime smokers as those who start after they turn 21, and that most people under 18 get tobacco from people under 21. The counter-argument is that adults should be free to choose even self-destructive behaviors." Approved 5:1, with Councilor Kay Van Buren opposed and Gary Winterton excused. In the end, it was just a resolution by the Council. I don't know if it made any difference, but HB 324, the bill raising the age to purchase, was enacted by the Legislature.
An ordinance to amend Downtown Streetscape standards to clarify right-of-way improvements for 100 West. Citywide Impact. (PLOTA20190007)
The Community Development Department has proposed to amend the Provo Downtown Streetscape Standards. This amendment is to further the goals and objectives of the Downtown Master Plan and General Plan. One goal from these plans is to encourage streets that reflect and reinforce a sense of place. Staff has identified that additional standards to the 100 West section would reinforce the street as a pedestrian corridor. As I said two weeks ago, after hearing this item in the Work meeting, "This is a very wide road, with very little traffic due to NuSkin blocking it to the north and the railroad blocking it to the south. This plan would create a streetscape that would be comfortable to walk or bike on between downtown and the Front Runner station." Item continued prior to the Council Meeting.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 4.99 acres of real property, generally located at 504 South 2470 West from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.8). Provo Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180426)
This is item 7 on the work meeting agenda. As I said in the earlier meeting, "This proposal aligns with our policy for development in the area. It received a positive recommendation from Staff, and a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission. But I am a bit surprised because I got the feeling that we weren't approving new developments right now because we are running out of utility capacity in the area and we need to wait for some utility projects to happen. I feel that we need a clearly articulated policy about how we decide which projects can move forward and which projects need to wait." Approved as amended 6:0, with Councilor Gary Winterton excused. Public Works presented a map that they had shown us a little while ago which shows areas of the City which have no, minor, and major sewer capacity issues. It was recommended that the safest response, when approached by potential developers of West Provo, is to say that there may be problems with utility capacity and that they should preview their plans with Public Works.
An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify provisions regarding boards and commissions. (19-033)
Due to some inconsistency and confusion regarding different board and commission-related items, Council staff has been working to update the code to reflect recent changes. As I said in the earlier meeting, "I applaud our Council Staff for identifying sloppy code and proposing a solution." Approved 6:0, with Councilor Gary Winterton excused. Our code is now clearer.

Pages

Monday, May 6, 2019

Council Meetings - 7 May 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Board

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Business

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Business

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Friday, April 19, 2019

Council Meetings - 23 April 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Joint Meeting with Transportation Mobility Advisory Committee

12:00 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Business

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Business

Budget Committee

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Action Agenda

Redevelopment Agency Of Provo

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Monday, April 8, 2019

Council Meetings - 9 April 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Business

Budget Committee

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Public Comment

Redevelopment Agency Of Provo

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Monday, March 18, 2019

Council Meetings - 19 March 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Budget Committee

Business

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

Business

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Friday, March 1, 2019

Council Meetings - 5 March 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCILWork Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Business

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Board

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Transportation Mobility Advisory Committee

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda