Council Meetings - 21 May 2019

It's shaping up to be another brutally long day of council meetings tomorrow. The hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars budget has to be the most significant item of the day, but not likely the most controversial.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, May 21, 2019

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

Business

1. A presentation regarding the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Annual Report. (19-064)
   Each year the City must update a self-assessment regarding the sewer collection and treatment system for submission to the State as part of our sewer discharge permit. Our wastewater collection and processing systems are functioning well, but are no longer meeting the tightening state regulations on nutrient discharge. Our system has served us well for generations, but we have not saved up to pay for the replacement of the infrastructure which is now reaching the end of its useful life. We recognize these problems and are raising sewer rates to pay for needed rehabilitation. This will be costly and painful. This is reflected in this report.
   
   There are a few programs mentioned on the report form that I would like to ask the department about, specifically,
   • A repair and replacement sinking fund
   • A Plan of Operations
   • An Assets Management system
   • A total replacement cost for the system.
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. A sinking fund would be really nice right now. Our failure to set aside replacement money over the past several decades while enjoying the benefits of our old treatment plant that was paid for by previous generations is the reason we are in this painful mess in the first place. We now have to pay to replace the current treatment plant. I hope future leaders will have the discipline to establish a sinking fund once we've paid off the new treatment plant. We are updating the wastewater master plan in conjunction with building a new treatment plant. The master plan will address the other aspects listed in my preview.
2. A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Department and potential budget impacts. (19-004)
   Revenue and reinvestment from the Recreation Center are key pieces of the Provo City Budget. Scott Henderson, the Director of Parks and Recreation, will present to the Council about how the Recreation Center affects the budget. FISCAL IMPACT: $413,646 will be provided for the maintenance of the Recreation Center and equipment, with unused funds moved forward for future use. The Recreation, Arts, and Parks (RAP) tax is expected to generate approximately $1.325 million in FY2020 for recreation and arts projects. Now that the proposed budget has been finalized, a few of the larger departments have been invited in to discuss their portion of the budget. Presentation only. Rec Center/Triple Plan revenues exceed the cost of operations and maintenance at the Rec Center/Ice Sheet/Golf Course. This is unheard of around the country. The excess revenue is put into the general fund which lowers our need for property taxes to fund other services. The amount, though, is far less than the increased property taxes that we are paying toward the bond that was used to build the new Rec Center. So in a way, the money going into the general fund is a small offset to the bond payments.
3. A presentation on the Human Resources Department and potential budget impacts. (19-004)
   The Budget Highlights for FY 2020 listed several changes that affect personnel budgets, including merit increases (2.5%), market adjustments, retirement increases, insurance increases (4.5%), and parental leave. The presentation will explain the changes and the anticipated affect on the budget. Now that the proposed budget has been finalized, a few of the larger departments have been invited in to discuss their portion of the budget. Presentation only. We need to attract and retain quality employees who can provide the services our residents value in an efficient manner that respects the taxpayers sacrifice.
4. A presentation regarding an appropriation of $119,238 in the Airport Fund and $775,000 in the Water Resources Fund, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-061)
   This resolution corrects an omission in the Airport revenue bond interest budget funded from fund balance in the amount of $98,238. It also increases the budget for $21,000 in airport security fencing also from fund balance in the Airport fund. The resolution also increases funding in the water fund by $500,000 for water reuse studies, $75,000 for airport contract services, and $200,000 for well development which is funded from higher than anticipated utility rate revenue. This is an opportunity to discuss an actual appropriation request that we are being asked to vote on in the evening. Mistakes happen, this will correct n mistake on a bond-interest allocation. It'll be interesting to review the other requests. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. These are all necessary projects that will help us maintain the level of services we enjoy in Provo.
5. A presentation regarding code enforcement. (19-065)
   For FY 2016, the Council approved funding for two additional Code Compliance Officer positions. For FY 2017, the Council adopted the Zoning Disclosure requirement. This presentation will compare data gathered to show the effect the changes have had on code enforcement. Over the years, I have heard frustration from many residents about the prevalence of people ignoring zoning laws. I have felt some of that frustration myself. Last year the council budgeted for two new zoning enforcement officers. This is an opportunity for the zoning enforcement office to report back to the council regarding the impact that those additional resources have made, and to discuss what the next steps should be.
   
   There are various tools that we are considering to help address the housing affordability crisis that we are facing in the city, region, and state. We need to have confidence that we will have good zoning compliance to move forward with some of these tools. Presentation only. The new acknowledgment and disclosure requirement has allowed more renters and landlords to become familiar with the regulations and expectations. Complaints are down, but there is some question about how directly this translates into higher compliance. Turn-over is a major issue in this unit. We discussed various ideas about how to make the position more attractive as a career and not just a brief stepping stone. We are expending significant resources to train code compliance officers who, on average, aren't staying much longer than the time it takes to be trained.
6. A presentation regarding the implementation of the General Plan. (19-066)
   Council staff have worked with almost every City department to report on the implementation of the 420 goals listed in the General Plan. Goal statuses were reported as follows:
   • Complete: 28
   • Ongoing (no end date): 345
   • In Progress (toward an end date): 13
   • Not Started: 34
   I'm very interested to see this presentation. The former mayor, John Curtis, use to talk about having goals and even plans in place, even if the funding or opportunities aren't immediately available, so that when the occasions arise, we are ready to grasp the opportunity. I'm okay with the fact that we have so many goals, as long as we are actively pursuing some of them and we are making progress overall. Presentation only. General Plan Goal 6.4.8 is Preserve historic or unique historic homes and buildings. This goal won't ever be completed. It will always be an ongoing process. Many of the goals in the General Plan are similar. Because of this, it is not surprising that 345 out of the 420 goals in the General Plan have been assigned the status of "Ongoing" in this report. 34 have been determined to be "Not Started." 28 are listed as "Completed". 13 are identified as "In Progress" which is similar to "Ongoing", but there is an expected end date.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

7. A discussion regarding the adoption of a Supplementary Residential (S) Overlay Zone in a One-Family Residential (R1.8) Zone located at approximately 244 E 2100 N. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190094)
   The applicant is requesting the adoption of the Supplementary Residential Overlay to the existing R1.8 zone. The S Overlay would allow accessory apartments if the home is owner occupied. The applicant has received support from the majority of the residents in the proposed rezone area. The majority of homes in the Pleasant View neighborhood already have an “S” or “A” Overlay applied to them. Planning Commission recommended approval. The majority of the residents in the proposed area are in favor, and the recommendation from the Planning Commission was unanimous, but there is some opposition to this request, including over parking pressure as well as concern over zoning compliance. This is an example of what I was talking about for item #5 in this meeting. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. A motion (a) to continue that hearing of this item, with Council Chair David Harding announcing before the Council Meeting public comment period that the item has been continued; (b) to take public comment as part of the presentation for item 13 on the Council Meeting agenda; and (c) to indicate that when the item comes back to a future Council Meeting there will be a full opportunity to participate in the public hearing process, was approved 7:0. With the current parking and traffic problems on 2230 N in front of the schools, and the changes being proposed to the A and S overlays, we felt that it would be better to consider expanding this overlay after we have addressed those issues.
8. A discussion regarding a General Plan amendment to add the Utah Transit Authority Station Area Plan to the Downtown Master Plan as an appendix. City-wide impact. (PLGPA20190059)
   Three years ago the Downtown Master Plan was adopted. Since then, community stakeholders including area residents, property owners, and developers have collaborated with the Utah Transit Authority, Provo City staff and Mountainland Association of Governments to create a vision and direction for the Provo Station. The Provo Station area is projected to have 900,000 sf of new development (325,000 sq. residential, 475,000 sf. office and 100,000 sf. small-scale retail in a mixed use context). The proposed Station Area Plan – Provo Station will be an appendix to the Downtown Master Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm glad to see this back. I suggested that Community Development consider this when UTA presented the results of their study back in February. I support adding this plan as an appendix. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. This is a good plan and I'm glad that it will be easily referenced as an appendix to the Downtown Master Plan.
9. A discussion regarding a zone change from Regional Shopping (SC3) to Health Care Facilities Zone (HCF) for 22.12 acres, and to Campus Mixed Use (CMU) for 8.94 acres, located at 178 E 1860 S. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180321)
   Provo City has conveyed 22.12 acres of the Reserve at East Bay Golf Course to GT Medical Holdings for the construction of the Noorda College of Osteopathic Medicine. As part of this transaction the developers of the medical school are paying for the redesign and relocation of the affected golf course holes. A 7.82 acre parcel to the north of the medical school parcel and directly west of the US Bureau of Reclamation Office has been purchased for the development of 793 units of apartment housing. The applicant has begun preliminary discussion with Provo City to purchase a portion of the storm water retention facility to the west of the 7.82 acre parcel to include in the apartment development. Previously the General Plan Designation for the area was changed from Commercial to Mixed Use and Public Facilities. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was a split recommendation from the Planning Commission. There are questions about the livability of the housing that is planned in conjunction with the medical school. Housing has always been envisioned in this project, but I share some of the concerns about the remoteness of this location from other residential areas. I do think, though, that the housing will work well for the students of the medical school as well as employees of some of the surrounding businesses. I am encouraged by the fact that the owners of the housing project will have a vested interest in keeping it nice and inviting since it is adjacent to their medical school. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. I'm disappointed that the project won't have the same look as what was presented to the Council in earlier meetings. Overall, though, the medical school will be a great addition to our city.
10. A discussion on a zone change request from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Light Manufacturing (M1) for approximately 7.7 acres of land located at approximately 1060 E 1320 S. Spring Creek Neighborhood.(PLRZ20190117)
    The applicant is requesting a zone change from R1.10 to the M1 at approximately 1060 E 1320 S. In 2017 the Southeast Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the City. The future land use map in the plan calls for this area to be Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). In the interim time the property was rezoned from the M1 zone to the R1.10 zone. In 2019 there was a subdivision of the Pro Steel property and this parcel was created. They are now requesting to rezone it back to M1 for this new parcel, but not the Pro Steel parcel. Planning Commission recommended denial. I can't say that I understand this request. We recently adopted the South East Area Master Plan and are committed to moving forward with this plan. This proposal run counter to the plan and I don't see any reason why we should deviate. I agree with the conclusion in the staff report, "Staff finds that this proposal to rezone to the M1 zone would not be consistent with the Southeast Neighborhood Plan that shows this area to become LDR and MDR. Rezoning to M1 would be a deviation from the direction that the City has been headed for this area of the City. No compelling reason has been provided to deviate from the future land uses anticipated by the Neighborhood Plan. It is recommended that the land uses in Southeast Neighborhood Plan be followed." Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. See my report of item 16 on the council meeting agenda.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. A Provology Graduation. (19-067)
   Congrats to the latest group to complete this course. Presentation only. This is a great program for those looking to be more involved, or for those wanting to better understand the services the city provides and how the city works.
2. A presentation by America's Freedom Festival. (19-068)
   The Freedom Festival has added so much to our community over the years. Presentation only. I'm so grateful for the many people who put on this fantastic celebration each year for our community.
   

   Public Comment

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

   Action Agenda

3. A resolution consenting to the appointment of George Stewart to the Library Board. (19-003)
   Mayor Kaufusi has submitted a recommendation for George Stewart to serve on the Library Board. The Library Board has one spot reserved for a city councilor. I am grateful to Councilor Stewart for being willing to fill it. Approved by unanimous consent. This item provided some of the more light-hearted moments of the evening. Councilor Handley wondered aloud whether Councilor Stewart had sufficient experience to serve on the Library Board.
4. An ordinance enacting a free expression ordinance in accordance with the Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 61. (19-058)
   This item is an ordinance which provides guidelines for Provo City to regulate expressive activities on (1) public property which is a traditional public forum and also on (2) 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 regards to the City property they manage. This is what I wrote two weeks ago when we previewed this in the work meeting, "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." and "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." Approved 7:0. This authorizes the Mayor to create written policies regarding expressive activities on city-owned property that isn't a public forum.
5. A resolution approving the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Report for 2018 in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Report. (19-064)
   This was item 1 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 1 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. See my report on item 1 on the work meeting agenda.
6. A resolution appropriating $119,238 in the Airport Fund and $775,000 in the Water Resources Fund, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-061)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 4 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. See my report on item 4 on the work meeting agenda.
7. An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule relative to an Impact Fee charge. (18-099)
   At the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting, the Municipal Council adopted the new Impact Fees with the intention of having the fees take effect on July 1, 2019. During the interim between that meeting and the date they go active, there have been reviews of the Impact Fee Analysis and there have been questions posed from developers that they felt were inconsistent. Our Provo City Finance Department has worked with our consultant, Zions Public Finance, to address those questions. The determination was made regarding the Police Facilities Plan that a few changes need to be made to that Impact Fee to make sure it aligns with the expected Facilities Plans. The consultant could address a few other concerns that were brought up but not intended to change. I'm grateful to the Finance Division for carefully considering the feedback and concerns by the Homebuilders Association and other stakeholders. After careful review, one of the disputed impact fees is being proposed to change. Approved 7:0. This is a good example of various stakeholders working together to improve city policy.
8. A resolution tentatively adopting the proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-004)
   This is a step in the budget process as required by Section10-6- 111(3) of the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities. Upon completion of this step, the Council will then have public hearings on June 4, 2019 and June 18, 2019 where they will formally adopt the budget, unless the Council opts for a Truth in Taxation meeting. In that case, the timeline would be extended by a few weeks. The expected amount for the Provo City Budget adoption is $254, 958,760, with the General Fund expected to be $59,678,744. I'm still excited by the substantial improvements that we were able to make towards properly staffing our police department. A few corrections to spreadsheet formulas have been made since the tentative budget was presented two weeks ago, but there haven't been any substantive changes. Approved 7:0. We have tentatively adopted the proposed budget. This means that this is officially the budget that we will be considering over the next month (until June 18th).



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

9. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-005)
   Each year, the Redevelopment Agency submits a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The expected Redevelopment Agency budget is $2,429,132. We haven't yet received the final details on this budget. Approved 7:0. We were given the auxiliary budgets beforehand and had good presentations on the budgets. There are no major changes from previous years.



Stormwater Service District

10. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-006)
    Each year, the Stormwater Special Service District submits a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. This year, the expected FY2020 budget for the Stormwater Service District is $5,123,278. We haven't yet received the final details on this budget. Approved 7:0. See my report on the previous item.
11. A resolution appropriating $100,000 in the Stormwater Service District for principal payments on Storm Drain Revenue Bonds, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-062)
    This resolution corrects an error in the budget that left insufficient funding for the principal on debt line item. The funding source is fund balance in the Storm Drain fund. This is another omission to be corrected. Approved 7:0. Fixed.



Action Agenda

12. 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)
    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. We continued this last time to give the community more time to review the proposal and bring us feedback. Here is my preview from last time, "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." A motion to update the implied motion to reference the version of the ordinance with a development agreement was approved, after which the implied motion was approved 6:1, with George Stewart opposed. The townhouses facing 500 S will just be a single level of living space, but I still think this is a good project and appropriate for the location along State Street.
13. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification to adopt a Supplemental Residential (S) overlay zone in a One-Family Res. (R1.8) zone generally located between 2320 N, approx 2100 N, 350 E and approx 250 E. Pleasant View Neighborhood.(PLRZ20190094)
    This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 7 on the work meeting agenda. The item was continued to a future Council meeting during the Work Meeting on May 21, 2019. See my report on item 7 on the work meeting agenda.
14. An ordinance amending the General Plan to add the Utah Transit Authority Station Area Plan to the Downtown Master Plan as an appendix. City-wide impact. (PLGPA20190059)
    This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 8 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 6:1, with David Knecht opposed. See my report on item 8 on the work meeting agenda.
15. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 31.06 acres of real property, generally located at 178 E 1860 S, from Regional Shopping (SC3) to Health Care Facilities (HCF) and Campus (CMU). East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180321)
    This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 9 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 6:1, with Kay Van Buren opposed. See my report on item 9 on the work meeting agenda.
16. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 7.71 acres of real property, generally located at 1060 East 1320 South from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Light Manufacturing (M1). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190117)
    This was item 10 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 10 on the work meeting agenda. The ordinance amendment failed 0:7, with Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton, David Sewell, David Harding, David Knecht, George Stewart, and George Handley opposed. No strong argument was made as to why we should reverse the recently made plan for this area of the city.
17. An ordinance amending the Provo City Code regarding Election Code to better align with Utah State Code and streamline and clarify portions of the code. (19-002)
    The Election Code Committee has reviewed Provo City's current election code with Provo City election officials and is proposing updates and changes to bring it into better alignment with state code, and better address and balance interest of campaign finance transparency, donor privacy, code clarity, and ballot access. Some of the changes include: *Streamlined (and aligned by referencing state code; *Report district (if in Provo), city, and state of donor, but not street address; *Remove aggregate report option; *Clarifies reporting requirements for donations/expenses before and after the election season; Here is what I wrote in my preview of this item two weeks ago, "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." Approved 7:0. There are a few other changes that I would have liked to see, but I think there are many good improvements and look forward to getting feedback from the campaigns this year as to their experience with the new regulations.



Adjournment

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

1. An update on the Regional Sports Park
   
2. A discussion on the community impacts of the Triple Play Membership
   
3. An update on trail improvements
   
4. A discussion on promoting health and active lifestyles in Provo
   
5. A discussion on efficiency in government
   
6. A discussion of the unique benefits of Parks and Recreation in Provo
   
7. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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

9. 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

1. 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

2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. ***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.
10. ***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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

5. 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.
6. 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

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. 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.
2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.
5. 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

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. ***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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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".
5. 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

6. 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.
7. 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".
8. 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.
9. 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

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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