Council Meetings - 20 February 2018

***Update: I posted the time stamps in the Results of each item to make it easy to watch the item. Here are the slides that were presented in the Work Meeting. It has slides for the Wastewater, Stormwater, and Rental Law items.***

Provo has had a lot of good news lately. We are continually being recognized nationally for everything from our volunteerism to our quality of life and from our economy to how well the City is managed. I get the feeling that we'll be getting some bad news on Tuesday and that we will have some difficult and painful decisions to make. Over the decades, Provo City has done a great job keeping our taxes, fees, and rates very low. But we haven't always been great at properly saving for and reinvesting in our infrastructure. We've been playing catch up for a few years now, but I don't think we can see the light at the end of the tunnel yet.

In addition to the infrastructure items, I imagine that there will be interest in the Kiwanis-Bounous Park item and the Rental Contract Disclosure item.

As always, thanks to the stellar Council Staff who coordinate and assemble the agendas and documents, and prepare the background information. Really only the Previews and Reports (once they are written) are my own work.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, February 20, 2018

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

Business

1. A motion to reschedule the March 20th meetings
   Precinct caucuses for upcoming elections have been scheduled for the evening of March 20. In order to allow participation in these caucus meetings, it is being proposed that the March 20 Council meetings be moved to another date. Council staff recommend moving the meetings to March 27. I know that the precinct caucuses for the Republican Party are being held that night. I couldn't find the dates for the United Utah Party caucuses or the Democratic Party caucuses. Do any other parties hold caucuses in our County? (Video) A motion to reschedule the March 20, 2018 Work & Council Meetings for March 27, 2018 was approved 6:0, with Council member George Stewart excused. It looks like the local caucuses for the Republican, United Utah, and Democratic parties will all be held that night.
2. A presentation and discussion on wastewater planning (17-131)
   A decision needs to be made regarding Provo City’s wastewater infrastructure, specifically regarding the wastewater treatment plant. The Public Works Department will present information regarding potential issues relative to the treatment plant and development on the west side of Provo. Our current wastewater treatment facility is half-century old and maintenance costs are increasing. New regulations are coming which would be very expensive to meet at our current facility. Public Works is exploring various options for the next half-century. We need to wisely select which path we'll take. None of the paths will easy or cheap. (Video) Presentation only. The options were more refined and I think we are narrowing in on the right choices. If we build a new plant, one option is to bond for the whole thing now. The financing costs are high, but we lock in the low rates which takes out much of the uncertainty. Also, the hard decision is made now and we don't have to just trust that future Councils will follow through with the plan. The other option is to build it in phases. Bonding will still be needed, but in smaller amounts and for shorter periods (5 years vs. 30 years). This option has greater risk, but likely avoids significant financing costs. There is also the option to do a major renovation of the current treatment plant. The upfront costs are lower, but some of the basic infrastructure is not feasible to replace on the fly. If we decide to go with a new plant, we will need to select from a few possible sites. Anyway we go, we'll need to double our sewer rates. It will be painful. Instead of thinking of as needing to pay high rates in the future, see the perspective that we've been underpaying for decades.
3. A presentation regarding a proposed appropriation to fund the demolition and construction of Block 90 (R.C. Willey Block) (17-106)
   Council, acting as the Redevelopment Governing Board, previously authorized funds for demolition of the former R.C. Willey building and others on Block 90 to facilitate construction of a temporary parking lot. This appropriation is to cover additional unexpected expenses. Why were the costs of asbestos abatement not anticipated? Were other bids received? Did the other bids anticipate asbestos removal? Did the accepted bid win because it didn't include these costs? Are we legally responsible to chip in the extra money? Are we morally obligated? What if we vote to not appropriate the extra funds? (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. I can't say I fully understood how this all transpired even after the presentation and lots of questions. Only part of the job was bid out. The other was handled by our partner in the project. If we don't appropriate the additional money then we will be left with a large hole.
4. A presentation regarding a proposed appropriation to the Housing Consortium Fund to pay for approved self-help projects. (18-025)
   In December of 2016, Rural Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), dba Self-Help Homes returned $150,000 to the RDA as a refund from funds that had been disbursed for the purchase of land in Salem to begin the Nebo Gateway housing project. The receipted funds were processed as a loan repayment instead of a refund, thereby reducing the budgeted amount available to continue the project. On February 5th, RHDC submitted a request reimbursement of $150,000 for improvements costs which alerted us to the funds not being available in the budget. These funds will be appropriated from available revenue received in the current fiscal year.
   
   After a reconciliation of department records with HUD systems, we identified $78,670 in HOME funds reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) that were allocated to RHDC and available in HUD systems, but have not been appropriated in the City budget. The funds were awarded for the construction of a new single-family housing project, which is now underway. These funds will be appropriated as budget authority against HUD’s line of credit for HOME projects. This sounds like a simple book-keeping issue, but I hope to understand it better after the presentation. (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. Yes, this is pretty much to fix some bookkeeping mistakes.
5. A discussion on revisions to the rental law ordinance (17-104)
   In November 2017, Council adopted an ordinance about rental law. In January 2018, the Council revisited the ordinance after several revisions were proposed. Since then, the Zoning Committee has considered the proposed revisions and would now like to recommend an updated version of the ordinance for the Council’s consideration. Some of the revisions include:
   • Changing the effective date from March 1st, 2018 to August 1st, 2018.
   • Changing the title from “Contract Required” to “Rental Disclosure Required.”
   • Adding “or lessor’s agent,” throughout in order to handle the property manager issue.
   • Adding an affirmative defense if the lessee has requested the disclosure in writing but has not been provided it.
   • Adding “acknowledging the lease of the property” to (4)(d).
   • Adding back language regarding “reasonable cause” to subsection (5).
   It sounds like the committee has made some good progress. I know this is a tough issue. I still think there needs to be a way to link the landlord to the current tenants in the case of a sublease where the original lessee is unavailable (out of town). And, because disclosures should be made before contracts are signed and not afterwards, I think the penalty should be a civil fine, imposed as soon as the violation is found (and repeated until the disclosures are properly signed), rather the stardard penalty and process that is used for zoning violations. The standard process is for violators to be given 30 days to come into compliance, if they do, there is no penalty. If this is the process that we use for the disclosure requirements, I fear that few of the disclosures will be given at the time of the contract and people will just wait until Zoning Enforcement contacts them. (Video) Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the March 6, 2018 Council Meeting. I explained that I am willing to support this proposal, even though I feel that more improvements can be made. I requested that we consider these additional changes if we find that ordinance isn't having as much of an impact as we would like once it is implemented and we gain some experience with it.
6. A discussion on the Storm Water Master Plan and Design (18-026)
   The Storm Water Division operates and maintains Provo City’s storm drains year-round to minimize flooding and water pollution within the city. The Storm Water Master Plan provides an overview of the various state and federal regulations that must be met and outlines the City’s efforts to plan, develop, implement, and enforce a plan that will satisfy those requirements. No associated documents were submitted so I'm not sure what the purpose of the discussion will be. (Video) Presentation only.
   
   Public Works gave us a hands-on demonstration about how the volume and rate of stormwater affects the capacity of our system.
   
   Most cities design their stormwater infrastructure so that it can handle a "10-year" storm without flooding. Provo designed ours for a "25-year" storm. Sounds good, right? But we also used a rain profile that is different than other cities, perhaps because we were one of the earliest to adopt these standards and they got to learn from our mistakes. Their profiles show a sharper spike while ours is more distributed across time. The end result is that our 25-year storm system has less capacity than their 10-year storm capacity. Public Works is still early in the process, but they will likely be proposing that we create more retension basins to protect from flooding when our stormwater system is overwhelmed.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

7. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the number of residential units needed for recreational amenities in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (16-00023OA)
   This is a request to change the ordinance in 14.21A.160 that requires new developments that have more than five units to provide ten percent of the gross floor area as amenity space. This would change the minimum of five units to twenty units for this requirement to apply. Other zones for low-density, medium-density, and high-density residential, as well as the Campus Mixed Use zone all have similar amenity space requirements, but only for projects with 20 or more units. Only DT1 and DT2 require it for projects with 5 or more units. I'm interested in the rationale for these requirements at all, and why the threshold of 5 was selected in the first place.
   
   Staff are recommending approval. No report of action for the Planning Commission was included, so I don't know their recommendation. (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. I think this is a good idea, but I still want to understand why this regulation was originally put into place and why our thinking has changed. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
8. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow Dental Laboratories as a permitted use in the Community Commercial (SC2) Zone. Citywide impact. (18-0001OA)
   This is a request to add dental labs as a permitted use in this zone. The current code allows for dental offices are listed, but not dental labs. The Standard Land Use (SLU) code 6515 normally consists of dental labs and drug rehabilitation. Since drug rehabilitation is not one of the uses being requested, it will be listed as SLU 6515 - Dental Lab Only. What are dental labs? Do they sell product or services from the lab? If not, why would we want them in a Community Shopping Center zone? (And why is dental labs and drug rehabilitation lumped into the same "land use" code?)
   
   Staff are recommending approval. No report of action for the Planning Commission was included, so I don't know their recommendation. (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. Dental labs are what they sound like, they make dental prostheses. They don't sell to the public. They would not add vibrancy to shopping centers, but compared to a vacancy, it could keep a shopping center viable. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
9. A presentation on the Redevelopment and Economic Development Departments and potential budget requests. (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. At a Priorities Retreat in January, the Council identified retail in Provo as an area they would like to tackle. The Economic Development and Redevelopment Departments in Provo City will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. We are receiving presentations for a number of departments (and offices and agencies). This presentation may be a little different because of our newly selected "Big Goal" of retail. (Video) Presentation only. They are not asking for additional money this year, but things may come up that they will ask for our support on. We did bring up the issue that we have been giving a lot of tax-increment incentives lately. The School District limits how much they will participate in property-tax-increment incentives to 5% of what they collect. We are pretty much at that limit. The last couple of deals have been sales-tax-increment in which only the City participates.



Closed Meeting

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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Opening Ceremony

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

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. Presentation of the Employee of the Month for February 2018
(Video) Presentation only. Congrats to Karyn Walker of our Legal Department!


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.
(Video)



Consent Agenda

2. A resolution appropriating $284,295 in the New Development Fund for funding demolition and construction of Block 90 (R.C. Willey Block) and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (17-106)
   Council, acting as the Redevelopment Governing Board, previously authorized funds for demolition of the former R.C. Willey building and others on Block 90 to facilitate construction of a temporary parking lot. This appropriation is to cover additional unexpected expenses. Depending on how the discussion goes in the earlier Work Meeting (item 3), I may be requesting that this item be removed from the consent agenda. See my preview for item 3 above. (Video) Approved 7:0. See the report for item 3 in the earlier meeting.
3. A resolution appropriating $228,670 in the Housing Consortium Fund for funding self-help projects applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-025)
   In December of 2016, Rural Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), dba Self-Help Homes returned $150,000 to the RDA as a refund from funds that had been disbursed for the purchase of land in Salem to begin the Nebo Gateway housing project. The receipted funds were processed as a loan repayment instead of a refund, thereby reducing the budgeted amount available to continue the project. On February 5th, RHDC submitted a request for reimbursement of $150,000 for improvements costs which alerted us to the funds not being available in the budget. These funds will be appropriated from available revenue received in the current fiscal year.
   
   After a reconciliation of department records with HUD systems, we identified $78,670 in HOME funds reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) that were allocated to RHDC and available in HUD systems, but have not been appropriated in the City budget. The funds were awarded for the construction of a new single-family housing project, which is now underway. These funds will be appropriated as budget authority against HUD’s line of credit for HOME projects. See my preview for item 4 in the earlier meeting. (Video) Approved 7:0. See the report for item 4 in the earlier meeting.



Action Agenda

4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City Corporation to negotiate and execute a Sales Tax Increment Reimbursement Agreement between Provo City Corporation and Woodside Capital Partners, LLC. (18-021)
   This was presented at the Council’s work meeting on February 6, 2018.
   
   The Economic Development Department is proposing a potential sales tax increment agreement with the new owners of the East Bay Shopping Center in order to provide retail incentives to offset certain costs in attracting new tenants to the shopping center. The purpose is to work with the new property owners of the East Bay Shopping Center to create an incentive agreement to backfill historically vacant storefronts.
   
   The model for this incentive would be similar to that used at the Parkway Village located on University Parkway. The agreement would allow the owners to recoup up to half of their out-of-pocket expenses and then share additional tax revenue if additional time remains on the term of the agreement, up to actual costs. We heard this in our Work Meeting on February 6th. Please read my preview and report on item four here. (Video) Approved 7:0. I chose to vote for this, but made it clear that I'm concerned about how much we are giving away and that we should be very judicious in what projects we incentivize.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 6.18 (Fire Alarm Regulations) and Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule to prevent over-frequency of false alarms. (17-133)
   This is the result of an in-depth review of Fire Department fees and it was recommended that a False Alarm Fee be added in order to strengthen enforcement of fire alarm regulations and prevent the frequent occurrence of false alarms. There is also a proposed amendment to Provo City Code regarding fire alarms that details the circumstances where a fee would be charged as well as the regulations regarding alarms. We last discussed this issue in the 5 December 2017 Work Meeting. Please read my preview on item three here. (Video) Continued by unanimous consent. The Fire Department was not ready to present.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the number of residential units needed for recreational amenities in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (16-00023OA)
   This is a request to change the ordinance in 14.21A.160 that requires new developments that have more than five units to provide ten percent of the gross floor area as amenity space. This would change the minimum of five units to twenty units for this requirement to apply. See my preview for item 7 in the earlier meeting. (Video) Continued due to Council Rules. Council rules say that we can only vote on a land use item during its first public Council meeting if the Planning Commission's Report of Action is published by 6pm on the previous Thursday. This didn't happen. See my report for item 7 in the earlier meeting.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow Dental Laboratories as a permitted use in the Community Commercial (SC2) Zone. Citywide impact. (18-0001OA)
   This is a request to add dental labs as a permitted use in this zone. The current code allows for dental offices are listed, but not dental labs. The Standard Land Use (SLU) code 6515 normally consists of dental labs and drug rehabilitation. Since drug rehabilitation is not one of the uses being requested, it will be listed as SLU 6515 - Dental Lab Only. See my report for item 8 in the ealier meeting. (Video) Continued due to Council Rules. Council rules say that we can only vote on a land use item during its first public Council meeting if the Planning Commission's Report of Action is published by 6pm on the previous Thursday. This didn't happen. See my report for item 8 in the earlier meeting.
8. A resolution to place approximately 12.33 acres of real property, generally located at 3278 North Timpview Drive on the surplus property list. Edgemont Neighborhood. (18-018)
   This resolution is to place the Timp-Kiwanis Park property on the surplus property list to allow it to be sold.
   
   Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) experts have indicated that this property is being increasingly used for Provo School District operations, which is inconsistent with LWCF requirements. Over the past year the Parks and Recreation Department has been working with Clegg Consult and the State to remove the LWCF designation on Timp-Kiwanis Park. Upon approval of this conversion, Parks and Recreation proposes that the property is surplussed and sold to Provo School District, who needs the property to meet Title IX requirements. A compromise has been negotiated which would allow for the change of ownership while working with the community to maintain the property as a community park. The proceeds of the purchase are required to be used to purchase land only. This one has been in the works for a while. Sometimes I wonder if everything that can be said has already been said. Here is my preview of the item from 364 days ago (21 Feb 2017): "Bounous Park is adjacent to Timpview High. The school would like to purchase it in order to build a softball field on campus. Many neighbors are concerned about losing access to a nearby park. The School District has worked with neighbors to try to address their concerns and to find a solution that works for both the school and the community. One complicating factor is that the park property was originally purchased with LWCF monies. This presents significant hurdles before it can be sold. The money generated by the sale must be used to create a new park." (Video) Approved 5:2, with Council members David Sewell and David Knecht opposed. This was a three-hour item. With the School District's commitment to maintain community access to the property, the acceleration of the development of a new park just a couple blocks to the north, and a completely new park that must be created as part of the conversion process, this deal has the potential to be a true "win-win" situation. The biggest concern of the residents is whether the School District will live up to their commitment. I live across the street from an elementary school and a block away from a middle school. I know that the District isn't always the best neighbor. I ascribe this to their primary focus of providing the best education they can to our students -- community relations is sometimes an afterthought. I understand the neighbors' concern. One difference is that there will be an interlocal agreement between the District and the City. I am hopeful that not only will this improve their performance at this location, but all across the City.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 6 February 2018

The agenda for the Work Meeting seems pretty heavy, whereas the Council Meeting agenda is fairly light. Sometimes agenda items come with all of the material that will be presented already in the document packet, sometimes there are no associated documents. Most items being heard tomorrow only have a descriptive paragraph, which makes it harder to give a meaningful preview.

I'd say that the most interesting items are the two requests for less-common tax-increment incentives, the proposed apartment complex on South State Street, and the proposed changes to the major home occupation regulations.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, February 6, 2018

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

Business

1. An introduction of Karen Larsen, recommended Director of Customer Service (18-020)
   An ordinance was passed on January 23, 2018, creating the Department of Customer Service. It was previously a division under the Mayor’s office. Mayor Kaufusi is recommending the appointment of the current division head, Karen Larsen, as the department director. Consent of the Council is required for these appointments. This will be voted on in the regular Council meeting. Ms. Larsen has worked for Provo City for almost 30 years and aptly lead the Customer Service Division through its transition to the point now where it is ready to become its own department. I have full confidence in her. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 6, 2018 Council Meeting She'll (continue to) do great.
2. A presentation on the Provo Library and potential budget requests (18-005)
   The Council has asked to hear from various departments and have them share information on likely budget requests in advance of receiving the tentative Provo City budget in May. I served on the Library Board last year so I'm more aware of their challenges and budgetary needs than I would be otherwise. If you haven't checked out the library and the many services and events that they offer, you are missing out. Presentation only. The Library is funded through a separate property tax levy that residents voted for decades ago. The tax rate has fallen ever since then, due to (basically) inflation. They are still making the budget work and are properly maintaining their assets. The Library is an important part of our community and serves us well.
3. A presentation on the Administrative Services Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   The Council has asked to hear from various departments and have them share information on likely budget requests in advance of receiving the tentative Provo City budget in May. This is similar to the last item, except I am not as familiar with what is going on in this department. Presentation only. I was impressed by the breadth that this department covers: Information Services, Justice Court, Recorder's Office, Facilities, Human Resouces, and Finance. I hope I didn't miss anything.
4. A discussion on a post-performance sales tax increment agreement at East Bay Shopping Center (18-021)
   The Economic Development Department will present an overview and proposal for a potential sales tax increment agreement with the new owners of the East Bay Shopping Center in order to provide retail incentives to offset certain costs in attracting new tenants to the shopping center. The new owners will be present at the meeting to answer questions. The purpose is to work with the new property owners of the East Bay Shopping Center to create an incentive agreement to backfill historically vacant storefronts. The model for this incentive would be similar to that used at the Parkway Village located on University Parkway. The agreement would allow the owners to recoup up to half of their out-of-pocket expenses and then share additional tax revenue if additional time remains on the term of the agreement, up to actual costs. Development and commercial incentives can be powerful tools to create aspects of the community that wouldn't otherwise exist. The right incentive can create the right development or bring in the right anchor which draws in additional development or offerings. Done right, incentives return far more value than they cost. Done poorly, they simply increase the profit margin for a project that was going to happen anyway or displace another project that would have happened, that may have been more viable. The difficulty is in differentiating between the two. Savvy business leaders will make the case for why incentives are needed, whether they are or not.
   
   We approved an incentive for Parkway Village a year ago to help offset the cost of moving a building that allowed for a reconfiguration of an intersection. I believe we were told that the Provo used last used a sales-tax increment incentive 20 years ago. Now we are considering one a year later. Is this really a tool that we should be using more often? Presentation only. This item will be heard at the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. As I mentioned in the preview, I think tax increment incentives should not be over-used. We need to use them surgically to get the maximum impact at the lowest cost to the City coffers. When I tried to probe during the meeting I was reminded (rightly so because I had forgotten) that months ago the Council broadly signaled that we would be open to this kind of financing to attract the right kind of anchor to the area.
   During the discussion, an industry player stated that they operate up and down the Wasatch Front and estimated that 85% of localities are offering these types of incentives. He said this to assure the Council that we are not considering something that is unusual. But this is one of the main reasons that I struggle with the almost ubiquitous use of tax-increment incentives. If no one offers them then everyone is level in this regard. If 15% of cities offer them then those 15% really stand out and attract a lot of interest. If 85% offer them then it is the remaining 15% that stand out (and not in a good way) and are ignored by developers and brokers. If 100% of localities offer incentives then nobody stands out and everyone is level again. So what's the difference between 0% and 100%? Millions and millions of dollars are diverted away from the services cities provide.
   
   I absolutely believe that tax-increment financing is an important tool, when used correctly. I don't believe Provo is at fault in the over-use and zero-sum arms race with other communities. We are just starting to play catch up. Instead of trying to outcompete other cities by giving away more than they can, I hope we can be part of the solution in restoring some sanity in this area by cooperating with surrounding communities.
5. A discussion on aid to Construction Transfer Funding (18-024)
   An existing Provo Power customer is interested in expanding a data center in Provo, but requires a substantial amount of work to build up the electrical system for their needs. Because of the positive impact to the electrical system and the added economic benefit, the staff of the Energy Department has met with the City Administration to discuss options to encourage businesses such as this in the city but also address the possible budget risk. The solution recommended by the Energy Board is to fund upgrade costs for potential high load factor commercial customers by utilizing the 11% general fund revenue transfer. The contract would be for specific customers with a high load factor and paid under a specific term length. Speaking of obscure incentives, I've never heard of using a tax-increment incentive against the portion of our utility fees that are directed into our General Fund. The argument is that if this local business expands here, they will be using significantly more energy, which will help fund our General Fund, so it is in Provo's best interest to offer the incentive to ensure they expand here, rather than relocating somewhere else. On the flipside, if they are going to expand here with or without the incentive, then offering the incentive is just giving away future fees that would have helped fund the City. Presentation only. I feel better about this one because it targets a very particular type of customer who has a utilization rate over 90% (which means they cost the system little compared to the amount that they pay for their electricity). The incentive will be repaid in under two years.
6. A discussion on tools for implementing Westside Policies (17-129)
   At the November 14th Work Meeting, the Council discussed potential Westside policies (TDRs, open-space subdivisions, PDRs, etc.) The takeaway from that meeting was that Community Development staff would develop a land use map and survey farmland-owners on the west side, with the intent to return for a presentation at a Work Meeting in February. Gary McGinn and Bill Peperone have indicated that they are prepared to report their findings to the Council. I am looking forward to the findings, stay tuned for the report of what they actually are. Presentation only. The owners of the land marked in red have indicated that they would like to develop their land within the next five years. Land in green indicates that the owners plan to farm for another 10 years or more.
   
7. An update on affordable housing in Provo (18-023)
   Robert Vernon, Provo Housing Authority, will be proposing that the City and the Housing Authority develop a closer relationship/partnership to promote housing development for different market needs from starter homes to affordable housing. He will inform the Council about the Housing Authority’s current business and future plans and provide information on the state of the workforce housing market. I am looking forward to the presentation and the proposal, stay tuned to find out what will be proposed. Presentation only. Mr. Vernon proposed we develop a closer working relationship and consider some additional tools that the State has allowed cities to authorize housing authorities to use. I believe the City needs a clear articulable vision for what we are trying to achieve in our housing efforts.
8. A presentation on a project proposal for improvements on the south-side hill of Grandview South Neighborhood (18-022)
   The Grandview South Neighborhood is proposing a project to improve a hillside in their area. They are targeting some safety issues as well as appearance. They plan to apply for a matching grant through the Neighborhood Program but think additional funding might be needed. There is a good description of why the project is wanted, but without a map, I'm not exactly sure which hill is being discussed. One question to ask is whether the property is public or private. Presentation only. The hill of interest is north of the round-about on 820 North near Provo College. The land we are talking about is owned by Provo City.
   
   This project will cost a significant amount of money. This is an example of why I feel we need to implement a budgeting for priorities framework. There is no question that this is a good project. But how does it compare with other good projects competing for funding? What project gets cut to do this? Or do we raise taxes to do it?
9. A presentation on the Provo City Charitable Giving Campaign
   Presentation only. Karen Tapahe is leading the campaign for our office. The goal this year is 100% participation. I think we can do it.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission



10. Tim Soffe requests a General Plan Map Amendment from Commercial to Residential for 1.52 acres of land located at 490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood (17-0002GPA)
    This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. We have heard from the prospective neighbors who do not want this project to happen or who are asking for changes to the proposal. Community Development Staff has recommended approval. The Planning Commission has recommended approval, contingent on one of the neighborhood requested changes. Looking that the site plan, I don't like the giant parking lot fronting the neighborhood street with one of the buildings fronting the backyards of existing neighbors. CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting.
11. Tim Soffe requests a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) for 1.92 acres of land located at 422-490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
    This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. See the preview of the previous item. CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting.
12. John & Lara Johnson request Zoning Ordinance amendments to Section 14.41 Major Home Occupations to increase the number of students from 6 to 16 and to extend the hours of operation from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Citywide Impact (17-0025OA)
    This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, increasing the maximum allowed students from 6 to 16 and extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. It appears that this proposal has the support of the neighbors, which is really important. The difficulty is that the requested ordinance change would affect the whole city and doesn't have the support of the broader community because of what else it would potentially allow. This item was already been scheduled at the February 6, 2018 Council Meeting. A motion to continue the evening discussion and return the item to the Planning Commission for review was Approved 7:0. The applicants made a significant change to the request after it had been reviewed by Staff and the Planning Commission (and received a negative recommendation). Before deciding on the merits of the new request, we would like Staff and the Planning Commission to review it and update their recommendation.



Closed Meeting



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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:00 PM, Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Neighborhood Spotlight: Joaquin Neighborhood
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation on the Mayor's Award of Excellence
   Presentation only. Nedra Bell was recognized for decades of volunteer service improving mental health education in Provo. Read the Mayor's tweet.
2. A presentation of the 2017 Employee of the Year
   Presentation only. Officer Bushman, of the Provo City Police Department, was recognized as the Outstanding Employee of the Year.



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. We had a number of commenters this time. We were invited to the Provo Girls Summit (Marth 8th), lobbied to vote against some proposed apartments, and thanked for some recent sidewalk improvements.



Action Agenda

3. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of Karen Larsen as the Director Of Customer Service for Provo City. (18-020)
   An ordinance was passed on January 23, 2018, creating the Department of Customer Service. It was previously a division under the Mayor’s office. Mayor Kaufusi is recommending the appointment of the current division head, Karen Larsen, as the department director. Consent of the Council is required for these appointments. From item 1 in the above meeting: "Ms. Larsen has worked for Provo City for almost 30 years and aptly lead the Customer Service Division through its transition to the point now where it is ready to become its own department. I have full confidence in her." Approved 7:0. As I said above, "She'll (continue to) do great."
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clean up inconsistencies and correct references to the Residential Design Standards. City-Wide Impact. 17-0024OA
   Planning staff observed some inconsistencies in residential design standards and prepared this amendment to clarify design regulations. Council heard this amendment at the January 23, 2018, Council meeting and requested information on how this would affect organizations like NeighborWorks and Habitat for Humanity that build homes for low-income recipients. This was heard two weeks ago. Community Development should be returning with additional builder feedback. A motion to send this item back to the Planning Commission after staff revises the design standards in light of affordability concerns was Approved 6:1, with Council member Kay Van Buren opposed. I liked how the motion was first worded, for the Planning Commission to weigh in on the revised design standard proposal, particularly in regards to affordability and quality.
   
   I appreciate Community Development's efforts to reach out to builders for feedback and their willingness to listen and incorporate the feedback. I also hope that they balance the needs for quality and for affordability. I believe that standards that raise the cost of construction by $1 don't necessarily make the project $1 more expensive. Some of that $1 will come out of the cost of land. Land values are dynamic and are based on the profit that can be made from developing or redeveloping the land.
5. A resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map designation for property generally located at 490 South State Street from Commercial to Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0002GPA)
   This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. From item 9 in the earlier meeting, "We have heard from the prospective neighbors who do not want this project to happen or who are asking for changes to the proposal. Community Development Staff has recommended approval. The Planning Commission has recommended approval, contingent on one of the neighborhood requested changes. Looking that the site plan, I don't like the giant parking lot fronting the neighborhood street with one of the buildings fronting the backyards of existing neighbors." CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting As I reported earlier, "The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting."
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 422-490 South State Street, from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
   This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. See the preview of the previous item. CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting As I reported earlier, "The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting."
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.41.060 (Major Home Occupations). Citywide Impact. (17-0025OA)
   This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, increasing the maximum allowed students from 6 to 16 and extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. From item 11 in the earlier meeting, "It appears that this proposal has the support of the neighbors, which is really important. The difficulty is that the requested ordinance change would affect the whole city and doesn't have the support of the broader community because of what else it would potentially allow." During the February 6, 2018 Work Meeting, this item was continued. As I reported earlier, "The applicants made a significant change to the request after it had been reviewed by Staff and the Planning Commission (and received a negative recommendation). Before deciding on the merits of the new request, we would like Staff and the Planning Commission to review it and update their recommendation."

Adjournment

Council Meetings - 23 January 2018

***Update: Other than the bumbled discussion of the Welcome Home resolution (Council Meeting Item #3), Tuesday's meetings went well. There is so much to do!***

There are a number of important decisions and discussions happening tomorrow: Committee assignments, Timp-Kiwanis (Bounous) Park update, East Center Street Design Corridor, Electronic Signs, a new department, and a call to action.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, January 23, 2018

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

Approval of Minutes

• December 5, 2017 Work Meeting
• January 3, 2018 Work Meeting
  Approved by unanimous consent.

Business

0. A follow-up on the Priorities and Outcomes discussion (18-004)
   Council met on January 16 to discuss priorities and outcomes to focus on in the next 1-2 years. Preliminary suggestions were brought forward and the discussion will continue in this meeting and at a January 30 meeting. We will be diving back into this in a retreat next week, but this is an opportunity to remind councilors of the assignments and answer any questions that have come up. This item was replaced by one proposing to adjust Council committee structure. (See next Item)
1. A discussion regarding a proposed amendment to Provo City Code Section 2.50.110 adjusting Council Committee structure. (18-019)
   A motion to refer this item back to the Rules Committee for further discussion and direct that the Administration is part of the conversation before a proposal is returned to the Council was Approved 7:0. The Council has a number of committees, but they don't all function the same way. In some committees, counsilors are the only voting members. Other committees have voting members selected from the public. In some cases, who exactly are voting members isn't clear and may change over time. This proposal was designed to bring clarity to the issue by having the Council determine what type of committee we are establishing at the time of its creation. This proposal came out of the Rules Committee of which I'm a part.
   
   The Administration strongly objected to this proposal. The Rules Committee hadn't anticipated any concerns to what we considered an internal Council issue so we didn't reach out beforehand to get their opinion. I moved to return the item the Rules Committee to address their concern and see if we can find a mutually agreeable proposal.
2. A discussion on Council assignments for boards, committees, etc. (18-002)
   Each year the Council must set and approve the assignments for Council members working on various boards and committees. The chair and vice chair for each committee is also set at this time. Last year I served in RDA leadership, on the Rules, Development Approval Process Review, and West Side Planning committees, and on the Library Board. I feel that much of the impact that I had was through committee work.
   
   It will be interesting to see how the committee assignments play out. A motion to keep the mission statement and purpose of the Zoning Committee unchanged, with David Knecht as Chair and George Handley as Vice-Chair was Approved 7:0.
   
   A motion to name George Stewart as Chair of the Budget Committee with Kay Van Buren as Vice-Chair was Approved 7:0.
   
   A motion to approve all board appointments and liaisons as outlined in the document titled “2018 Council Assignments to Boards and Commissions” was Approved 7:0. We started out by accepting by motion each committee assignment, but then decided to accept the rest at the end of the discussion. Here is a spreadsheet that shows all the committee assignments from last year and this year. This is from my own records, but I believe it is complete and accurate.
   
   I received all of the assignments that I was hoping for. There were a few more that I am very interested in, but I didn't want to over-extend myself too much.
3. A discussion on a proposed franchise agreement with Comcast(18-010)
   This is a renewal of Comcast’s franchise agreement to be able to operate in Provo City. This franchise agreement is a little more interesting than most since Comcast is an important service provider for so many of our residents. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. My main concern, after perusing the contract, was that we don't tie our hands in a way that will give us less flexibility to work out the best arrangement possible with Google once the seven-year agreement expires. During the discussion, I received the answers I needed. (See my related report for item 2 in the later meeting)
4. A discussion regarding the proposed joint resolution in support of the LeRay McAllister fund. (18-009)
   This is a proposed joint resolution of the Mayor and Council to request that the Utah State Legislature sustain budgetary support of the LeRay McAllister Fund, created to help permanently protect Utah’s agricultural lands. This is being requested by the Sustainability Committee. This was also part of the West Side Development Policies that were developed and recommended by the West Side Planning Committee and adopted by the Council. A motion to strike “counties, and cities” from line 32 and revise that sentence to read “we call upon the state,” and to strike the last sentence of lines 42-43 was Approved 7:0. This motion approved the version of the resolution which would be presented as the implied motion for the item which was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. I appreciate the suggestions that Councilor Van Buren made. He brought up a couple details in the proposed resolution that made me think, "now why didn't I think of that?" I'm grateful that there are seven of us serving on the Council.
5. A discussion regarding the Timp-Kiwanis (Bounous) Park Land Water Conservation Fund conversion and the surplus of the property. (18-018)
   The purpose of this proposal is to bring the public and City Council up to speed on the Land and Water Conservation Fund conversion and proposed surplus of the Timp-Kiwanis Park property owned by Provo City. Over the past year the Parks and Recreation Department has been working with Clegg Consult and the State to remove the LWCF designation on Timp-Kiwanis Park. Upon approval of this conversion, Parks and Recreation proposes that the property is surplussed and sold to Provo School District. Provo School District needs the property to meet Title IX requirements. The proceeds of the purchase are required to be used to purchase land only. The School District and the City have been working on this for a long time. It was a very hot topic for a while, but has gone quiet for a few months. It'll be good to get an update on where they are in the process. A motion to move this item to the first available Council Meeting for a public hearing on a surplus of the property was Approved 7:0. I'm impressed at how closely the School District has listened to the concerns of the surrounding neighbors, and how much they've been willing to accommodate their concerns.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission



6. A discussion on a request for an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code sections related to Residential Design Standards. Citywide impact. (17-0024OA)
   Planning staff observed some inconsistencies in residential design standards and prepared this amendment to clarify design regulations. This doesn't appear to be a major change, but my reading of the proposal shows that there are some substantive changes. I look forward to the presentation. They usually make it a lot clearer. I'll have a few questions if it doesn't. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. These are not minor changes, but seem consistent with our overall goals, and are steps in the right direction. Community Development agreed to reach out to various builders who are active in these types of developments for feedback. We agreed to continue this item for two weeks in the later meeting (item 8).
7. A discussion on a request for an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code to add East Center Street as a Design Corridor. Joaquin, Maeser, Foothills, and Provost Neighborhoods. (17-0020OA)
   The four neighborhoods bordering East Center Street have collaborated with Planning staff to develop a draft design corridor ordinance for East Center Street from 200 East to the roundabout at Seven Peaks Boulevard. The additional design regulations would protect the unique character of the street. This item has been pushed along through the hard work of numerous residents from the Joaquin and Maeser neighborhoods. The City had called for a design corridor to be created, but hadn't gotten around to it. It looks pretty good to me, but, like the last item, I look forward to the presentation. I noticed a couple discrepancies between the proposed design corridor regulations and the Residential Design Standards proposed in the previous item. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it will be good to hear the reasoning behind it. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. The differences between the designs standards in this and the preceding item can be attributed to the difference of scope. The last one is for higher density housing and mixed use projects, while these standards are for all structures along East Center Street. (See also the report for item 9 in the later meeting)



Business



8. A presentation of the Utah Transit Agency BRT Economic Study results. (18-017)
   Utah Transit Authority (UTA) commissioned an economic analysis to study the economic impact completion of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will have on property values along the corridor. Current land values and projected land values have been examined. The purpose of the study is to aid cities plan for economic development and redevelopment. Presentation only. This one generated some buzz on Facebook. Here are the slides from the presentation, and here is the video. This is a report on a study into the economic impact of the BRT project. Not surprisingly, it focused on the economic impact. It didn't focus on non-economic aspects of the project. Overall, if found that the project will have only a small impact, mostly in the area directly around the stops. More granularly, it found the biggest impacts around the Provo Intermodal Hub and near 300 S and University Ave, and was very unlikely to have an impact on the stretch that wraps around BYU.
9. The Provo City Council Office requests ordinance amendments to Sections 6.06 and 14.38 for signage within the City. Citywide impact. (17-0019OA)
   Council had a first hearing of this item at the January 9 meeting and decided to continue it. This is a request to amend sections of the City Code to allow reasonable adjustments to the sign ordinance in relation to electronic messaging. The proposed amendments involve two separate Chapters of the Ordinance.
   
   The first is an addition to Title 6 “Business Licenses and Regulations, which adds Section 6.06 dealing with Use of Electronic Signs. It requires that any business operating an on-premises electronic display sign, comply with the requirements of the Chapter in order to qualify for a business license. This change provides a significant change in the enforcement capabilities of staff in regards to electronic sign violations.
   
   The second is to Chapter 14.38 “Signs and Outdoor Advertising” as contained in Title “Zoning.” Those changes principally relate to allowance for changing messages on electronic signs. These message changes are classified as low-churn and high-churn electronic signs, with generally greater restrictions on high-churn signs. This item was on the agenda last time. Here is what I wrote afterward, "I asked for some visuals for how it would impact Center Street between the freeway and 500 W. I may ask that this stretch be removed from the 'high churn' areas. Also, I'm not sure that 8 seconds is long enough in the 'high churn' area. I realize that it is the national standard, but what's good enough for interstate freeways may not be good enough for our city." Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. Community Development did not have the visuals that I had asked for. I still wonder if Center Street, between the Freeway and State Street should be removed from the high churn area. During our discussion, it was explained to me that the proposed ordinance didn't change what is allowed along this stretch. Businesses already can put in electronic signs that can change every 8 seconds. It's just that none have yet. I agreed to move forward with this proposal and then bring a new ordinance proposal forward if, after study, I feel that a change needs to be made.
   
   At the very end of the discussion, Community Development asked me what exactly I was looking for in the requested visuals. In restating what I was wanting, and how it might be accomplished, the Director said something that raised a concern that I hadn't thought of. The discussion was continued in the later meeting. (See item 7 below).



Closed Meeting



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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


1. A presentation of the Popular Annual Financial Report (18-006)
   A high level summary of select portions of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the PAFR is like a “City Financial Report for Dummies.” Ever wonder where Provo City gets its money? Ever wonder how we spend it? If so, the PAFR is for you. Presentation only. Provo's RAFRs are recognized in the industry as great examples of making the financial information of the City available and digestible for the public.



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. No comments were given



Consent Agenda

Items on the consent agenda are generally routine in nature, have been fully vetted in other meetings, or do not need additional discussion. They are approved together as one item.


2. An ordinance renewing Comcast’s nonexclusive franchise to operate a cable system in Provo City, Utah.. (18-010)
   This is a renewal of Comcast’s franchise agreement to be able to operate in Provo City. As I wrote above, "This franchise agreement is a little more interesting than most since Comcast is an important service provider for so many of our residents." Approved 7:0. This one also generated some buzz on Facebook. Some people worried that this meant that Comcast would be taking over the former iProvo fiber network. This franchise agreement is simply a renewal of the long standing arrangement that allows Comcast to access the public right-of-way for things like utility poles.



Action Agenda



3. A joint resolution calling upon citizens to continue the tradition of welcoming and caring for others. (18-012)
   This is a proposed joint resolution of the Mayor and Council to go along with Provo City’s tagline of “Welcome Home.” Here is the wording:
   
   Provo is recognized as a great place to live, work, learn, and play. The secret to our success is the people who call this city home. We take seriously our individual responsibility as well as our responsibility to our community. We come from a long tradition of taking care of ourselves and caring for others.
   
   The Mayor and City Council call on the people of Provo to continue this tradition regardless of what may be happening elsewhere. Let us resolve to always be warm and welcoming; to be kind and caring in our interactions; to strive to understand each other; to be civil in public discourse; to communicate in a manner that is mutually respectful; and to protect against the persecution or alienation of people because of differences — real or perceived.
   
   To all people of goodwill, we say: “Welcome Home.” It's good to finally be acting on this. Provo is a special place, and it is the people that make it that way. People make Provo. Let's be the best we can be. A motion to continue the item indefinitely was Approved 4:3, with Council members George Handley, David Sewell, and David Harding opposed. I deeply regret the way this item played out. Two weeks ago, when we discussed this in the Work Meeting, we had unanimous (and mostly enthusiastic) support on the Council and from the Mayor. Just before we began our meetings a concern was raised. Without any time to work through the concern or consider how to handle it, some wanted to continue the item. I believe everyone was amenable to continuing it, but some thought it would be done after discussing the concern at the meeting and others thought it would be continued before the discussion. There was a lot of confusion and the discussion became very awkward.
   
   I am very hopeful that we will be able to work through the concern and will be able to pass this very positive resolution.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to create the Department of Customer Service (18-016)
   The Administration proposes changing the existing Customer Service Division of the Mayor’s Office as a fully functioning and independent department within the administrative departmental framework. This was discussed in the January 9, 2018, work meeting and announced by Mayor Kaufusi in her State of the City address. I support this. As I said previously, "In the past, functions have been brought under the Mayor's Office when they need extra attention, and then are spun out after they are fully better established. I think this is the case with our Customer Service division and the move to 311." Approved 7:0. This is a positive step for Provo.
5. A resolution adding the structure generally located at 957 East Center Street to the Provo Landmarks Register. Foothills Neighborhood. (17-0001LMN)
   This is a request to place a house on the Provo Landmarks Register. Provo City Landmarks Commission recommended approval. We heard this in the Work Meeting two weeks ago. This is what I said, "Both Staff and the Landmarks Commission recommended approval. They found that it meets all three of the primary inclusion criteria and four of the six secondary criteria. I'm personally grateful for individuals who are willing to register their historically significant homes and buildings for preservation." Approved 7:0.
6. A joint resolution of the Provo Mayor and Municipal Council urging sustained support and increases in the Annual State Budget allocated to the LeRay McAllister fund for the preservation of farms and open land in the State of Utah. (18-009)
   This is a proposed joint resolution of the Mayor and Council to request that the Utah State Legislature sustain budgetary support of the LeRay McAllister Fund, created to help permanently protect Utah’s agricultural lands. This is being requested by the Sustainability Committee. From agenda Item #4 in the earlier meeting, "This was also part of the West Side Development Policies that were developed and recommended by the West Side Planning Committee and adopted by the Council." Approved as amended 7:0. See the report for item 4 in the earlier meeting
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding signage. Citywide Impact. (17-0019OA,)
   Council had a first hearing of this item at the January 9 meeting and decided to continue it. This is a request to amend sections of the City Code to allow reasonable adjustments to the sign ordinance in relation to electronic messaging. The proposed amendments involve two separate Chapters of the Ordinance.
   
   The first is an addition to Title 6 “Business Licenses and Regulations, which adds Section 6.06 dealing with Use of Electronic Signs. It requires that any business operating an on-premises electronic display sign, comply with the requirements of the Chapter in order to qualify for a business license. This change provides a significant change in the enforcement capabilities of staff in regards to electronic sign violations.
   
   The second is to Chapter 14.38 “Signs and Outdoor Advertising” as contained in Title “Zoning.” Those changes principally relate to allowance for changing messages on electronic signs. These message changes are classified as low-churn and high-churn electronic signs, with generally greater restrictions on high-churn signs. From agenda item #9 in the earlier meeting, "This item was on the agenda last time. Here is what I wrote afterward, "I asked for some visuals for how it would impact Center Street between the freeway and 500 W. I may ask that this stretch be removed from the 'high churn' areas. Also, I'm not sure that 8 seconds is long enough in the 'high churn' area. I realize that it is the national standard, but what's good enough for interstate freeways may not be good enough for our city."" Approved 7:0. (This is actually incorrect. See my report) I actually voted against this. The proposal allows an electronic sign anywhere a backlit sign is allowed. The idea is that if electronic signs are kept static (changing no more than three times a day) they function like backlit signs but are easier to change (without getting out a ladder). I fully support this. In some commercial corridors in the City, the signs can change every 8 seconds. I am less comfortable with this, but it is already allowed in these corridors. The concern that was generated at the end of the discussion in the Work Meeting is that each sign, including secondary signs, can be converted to an electronic sign, and each electronic sign, for businesses in these 'high-churn' corridors, could be changing every 8 seconds. I don't know how likely this is, but I brought up Google Street View and counted 6 signs on one Center Street business.
   
   The general consensus on the Council seemed to be that we need to take a broad look at signs in our community, but that we can do this after passing this ordinance. I was torn about which way to vote, but my concern about multiple 'high-churn' signs per business was too great and I voted against it.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clean up inconsistencies and correct references to the Residential Design Standards. City-Wide Impact. 17-0024OA
   Planning staff observed some inconsistencies in residential design standards and prepared this amendment to clarify design regulations. From agenda item #6 in the earlier meeting, "This doesn't appear to be a major change, but my reading of the proposal shows that there are some substantive changes. I look forward to the presentation. They usually make it a lot clearer. I'll have a few questions if it doesn't." This item was continued for a second hearing at the request of a Council member. We'll return to this in two weeks after reaching out to multiple builders for comment
9. A discussion on a request for an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code to add East Center Street as a Design Corridor. Joaquin, Maeser, Foothills, and Provost Neighborhoods. 17-0020OA
   The four neighborhoods bordering East Center Street have collaborated with Planning staff to develop a draft design corridor ordinance for East Center Street from 200 East to the roundabout at Seven Peaks Boulevard. The additional design regulations would protect the unique character of the street. From agenda item #7 in the earlier meeting, "This item has been pushed along through the hard work of numerous residents from the Joaquin and Maeser neighborhoods. The City had called for a design corridor to be created, but hadn't gotten around to it. It looks pretty good to me, but, like the last item, I look forward to the presentation. I noticed a couple discrepancies between the proposed design corridor regulations and the Residential Design Standards proposed in the previous item. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it will be good to hear the reasoning behind it." Approved 7:0. In the meeting I remarked that this a great example of concerned residents seeing a problem and organizing themselves and working with the City Government to address the problem.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 9 January 2018

Happy New Year to you all. I hope everyone enjoyed the holidays. Things are a little quieter for the Council, but much is going on behind the scenes. Tomorrow will be our first Council Meeting of the year and it has several important agenda items including selecting Council leadership for next year, the next chapter in the Rental Contracts saga, the next step for the Medical School proposal, and an electronic sign proposal that has the potential to make a large impact on our city well into the future.

Everything but the "Previews" are the work of the Council or City Staff. All of the support material can be accessed here. 

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, January 9, 2018

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

Approval of Minutes

• April 11, 2017 Work Meeting
• August 29, 2017 Work Meeting
• September 19, 2017 Work Meeting
• October 17, 2017 Work Meeting
• October 31, 2017 Work Meeting
• November 14, 2017 Joint Meeting with the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee
• November 21, 2017 Work Meeting
• December 5, 2017 Work Meeting
That was a lot of minutes to review. It is one reason why my Meeting Preview is so late. The December 5, 2017 Work Meeting minutes were continued to a future Work Meeting agenda, and the remaining minutes were approved by unanimous consent.

Business

1. A semi-annual report from the Sustainability Committee and Agricultural Commission (18-009)
   The Sustainability Committee and Agricultural Commission were established by the Mayor and present a report to the Council twice each year. The group will also be making a request that the City of Provo approve a resolution requesting that the Utah State Legislature sustain budgetary support of the LeRay McAllister Fund, created to help permanently protect Utah’s agricultural lands. In addition to requesting the State Legislature increase funding for the preservation of agricultural land in Utah, the Agricultural Commission would like the City to seek these funds to preserve agricultural land within our city-limits.
   Additionally, the Sustainability Committee is proposing that the City fund a sustainability program, including full-time staff support, to aid in our efforts to reduce air pollution, improve our economic vitality, and potentially save tax-payers money. A motion to place this item on the Work and Council Meeting agendas on January 23, 2018 was Approved 7:0. The item that was placed on the January 23rd agenda is a joint resolution asking the State Legislature to fund the LeRay McAllister fund which can be used to secure agricultural easements to protect agricultural land in perpetuity.
   
   The Council also seemed open to the idea of hiring a sustainability coordinator, particularly after hearing that other cities have found that this position can more than pay for itself in savings generated from their work.
2. A recap on Council's 2016-2017 Priorities (17-011)
   Council established a list of priorities in early 2016 and decided in 2017 to continue to focus on the same priorities. Council staff will give an update on the progress in each priority area as Council members prepare to consider their priorities moving forward. We have made great progress in some areas, and will be able to check some items off (not that we can ignore them going forward, but will be able to shift our focus elsewhere). Other areas still need a lot of work and I expect to see them on our 2018-2019 priorities. Presentation only.
3. A discussion on the Vision 2050 effort (18-011)
   During October through December of 2016, the Council reviewed most of the sections from the proposed “Vision 2050” document. This is an update to Provo City’s Vision 2030. Recently, Council Member Dave Harding completed a proposed revision for Vision 2050, Section 10, Diversity and Unity. A lot of work went into updating Vision 2030 into Vision 2050, but then it stalled. I hope we will be able to use that work in some form. Vision 2030 had a section entitled, "Diversity and Unity," but it was not fully formed and thought out. I'm proposing that we completely rework it and call it "Community, Responsibility, and Culture" A motion to continue the update of the General Plan and align it with Vision 2030, incorporating any portions of Vision 2050 which have completed the review process to date, then once the General Plan update is complete to continue with the process for updating Vision 2050 as guided by the Administration was Approved 6:1, with David Harding opposed.
   
   Council member David Harding shared proposed changes to section 10 for Vision 2050. Council members David Harding and George Handley will make further revisions to this draft and share with Council members for input throughout the process, before bringing this item back to a future meeting. I voted against the motion because I think it's putting the cart before the horse. I feel we should complete our Vision 2050 update, which establishes the vision for our city, then we should update the General Plan to ensure it is aligned with Vision 2050.
4. A discussion on a proposed "Welcome Home" resolution (18-012)
   This is a proposed joint resolution of the Mayor and Council to go along with Provo City’s tagline of “Welcome Home.” Here is the wording:
   Provo is recognized as a great place to live, work, learn, and play. The secret to our success is the people who call this city home. We take seriously our individual responsibility as well as our responsibility to our community. We come from a long tradition of taking care of ourselves and caring for others.
   The Mayor and City Council call on the people of Provo to continue this tradition regardless of what may be happening elsewhere. Let us resolve to always be warm and welcoming; to be kind and caring in our interactions; to strive to understand each other; to be civil in public discourse; to communicate in a manner that is mutually respectful; and to reject the persecution or alienation of people because of differences — real or perceived.
   To all people of goodwill, we say: “Welcome Home.” This agenda item is connected with the previous one. About a year ago, a few of us were drafting this joint resolution. Though we never found consensus on it, the Mayor was very supportive of the language and suggested that we work it into the Vision 2030 update. The question was where would it make sense in the document. I was working on Section 10 at the time, not knowing what exactly to do with it and realized that we could expand the scope of the section to include people's responsibilities to the community. A motion to change the word “reject” to “protect against” and to send this resolution to a future Council Meeting for approval with the change was Approved 7:0. We'll be voting on this joint resolution on the 23rd of January.
5. Training on the Open and Public Meetings Act and training on Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) requests (18-013)
   Utah State law requires Council members to receive annual training on the Open & Public Meetings Act. In addition to the required training, some Council members have expressed interest in learning more about GRAMA requests. This will make sure we are familiar with these rules we must abide by. Presentation only.
6. A presentation on the Redevelopment Agency(18-014)
   In 2017, various department heads presented overviews of what they and their staff do. Council members have requested that the Redevelopment Agency give a similar presentation. David Walter has indicated that he will focus his presentation on three categories: 1) RDA project areas, 2) tax increments, and 3) CDBG funding. I think this is part 3 or part 4 from the RDA. Based on ongoing discussions, I'm excited for the leadership and vision that our RDA board will have in 2018. Presentation only.


7. An update on the Nevada Avenue Trail (18-015)
   Nevada Avenue from approximately 1000 South to Slate Canyon Drive is a narrow, privately held, unimproved roadway that is used by many local residents as a walking/biking route. The roadway is also used as a shortcut for vehicle traffic entering and exiting the Slate Canyon neighborhoods. Due to the narrowness of the road, the neighborhood has requested that improvements be made to accommodate pedestrians and provide separation from vehicular traffic that often travel above advisable speeds. Provo City, neighborhood chairs, as well as Councilman Knecht, and former Councilman Hal Miller, have all worked with private property owners in an effort to provide for a walking path alongside Nevada Ave. I believe this update was requested by the Council after a resident raised the issue in the public comment portion of a Council meeting. (Go Melanie!) A motion for the Administration to explore and enter negotiations with the property owner to find out what the property would cost and to begin the process to purchase this if neighboring property owners agreed to stand by the agreements they had made in the past was Approved 7:0. This is a sticky problem with no good solutions. Hopefully, we can work together with local property owners to help out the residents who live in the area and use this trail/road.
8. A discussion on creating the Department of Customer Service (18-016)
   The Administration proposes changing the existing Customer Service Division of the Mayor’s Office as a fully functioning and independent department within the administrative departmental framework. When does it make sense to break off a division and make it a department? In the past, functions have been brought under the Mayor's Office when they need extra attention, and then are spun out after they are fully better established. I think this is the case with our Customer Service division and the move to 311. A motion to place an ordinance for creating the Department of Customer Service on the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting agenda was Approved 7:0. It'd be pretty awkward if the Council doesn't approve this on the 23rd since the Mayor announced it in her State of the City address.
9. Norman Thurston nominates the Pierpont House, located at 957 East Center Street, to the Provo Landmarks Register. Foothills Neighborhood. (17-0001LMN)
   This is a request to place a house on the Provo Landmarks Register. Provo City Landmarks Commission recommended approval. Both Staff and the Landmarks Commission recommended approval. They found that it meets all three of the primary inclusion criteria and four of the six secondary criteria. I'm personally grateful for individuals who are willing to register their historically significant homes and buildings for preservation. A motion to place this item on the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting agenda was Approved 7:0. This'll be a good addition.



Administration

The Mayor or other members of the city administration often use this time to give updates on current issues, good news, coming events, etc.


Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission



10. Nathan Chappell requests a Zone Change from A1.5 to R1.8 for 2.32 acres of property located at approximately 1282 North Geneva Road. Lakeview North Neighborhood. (17-0009R)
    A zone change is being requested in order to facilitate a subdivision. This application has been heard three times previously by the Planning Commission. In all instances, the accompanying subdivision drawings have remained almost identical, with only superficial changes occurring. In order to provide a path forward, staff recommends that the City zone the property R1.10, per the Planning Commission recommendation in 2016. This decision would create clear expectations and eliminate the need of relying on additional documentation, such as development agreements, to ensure appropriate development. I'm torn on this one. I certainly don't support a rezone to R1.8. But I'll need to be convinced that rezoning it to R1.10 is any better than leaving it as agricultural. This item was already scheduled for the January 9, 2018 Council Meeting and due to time constraints, the related Work Meeting presentation was continued until the evening meeting. See the report for item 6 in the later meeting.
11. The Provo City Council Office requests ordinance amendments to Sections 6.06 and 14.38 for signage within the City. Citywide impact. (17-0019OA)
    This is a request to amend sections of the City Code to allow reasonable adjustments to the sign ordinance in relation to electronic messaging. The proposed amendments involve two separate Chapters of the Ordinance. The first is an addition to Title 6 “Business Licenses and Regulations, which adds Section 6.06 dealing with Use of Electronic Signs. It requires that any business operating an on-premises electronic display sign, comply with the requirements of the Chapter in order to qualify for a business license. This change provides a significant change in the enforcement capabilities of staff in regards to electronic sign violations. The second is to Chapter 14.38 “Signs and Outdoor Advertising” as contained in Title “Zoning.” Those changes principally relate to allowance for changing messages on electronic signs. These message changes are classified as low-churn and high-churn electronic signs, with generally greater restrictions on high-churn signs. This is an important change. One that is needed, but also one that we need to get right. I have some concerns about the impact on businesses with existing signs. My biggest concern, though, is which areas would have the "high churn" designation. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the January 9, 2018 Council Meeting. See the report for item 7 in the later meeting.
12. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.06.020 to adopt a definition for 'Road.' Citywide impact. (17- 0023OA)
    This proposed amendment is a result of an issue occurring during a Board of Adjustment meeting where having the proposed wording, may have saved some confusion in the discussion. Staff believes the proposed clarification in the definition would significantly lessen or eliminate any confusion in the term. This item is a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a reference definition for ‘Road.” The resulting amendment would simply read: “Road” See definition of “Streets” I see this as a house keeping item. This item was already scheduled for the January 9, 2018 Council Meeting and due to time constraints, the related Work Meeting presentation was continued until the evening meeting. See the report for item 8 in the later meeting.



Closed Meeting



13. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above. No closed meeting was held.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Roll Call
• Prayer
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Approval of Minutes
• September 5, 2017 Board of Canvassers
• November 21, 2017 Council Meeting
It was painful to read through these minutes, reliving the struggles that the County had running this past election. Approved by unanimous consent.



Public Comment

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

Action Agenda

1. The election of Municipal Council officers; chair and vice-chair. (18-001)
   Council members elect their leadership at the first regular meeting of the year. Nominations are made and votes are taken. By code, no discussion on the nominations is allowed. The Council Chair conducts Council meetings, signs documents on behalf of the Council and is considered the Council’s spokesperson to the public, the media, and the Provo City Mayor. With no discussion allowed in the meeting, this has to be hashed out between Councilors in one-on-one and small group discussions beforehand. Gary Winterton was elected Council Chair and David Harding was elected Council Vice-Chair. I'm looking forward to supporting Councilor Winterton as he chairs the Council this year.
2. A resolution acknowledging the election of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Provo Municipal Council for calendar year 2018. (18-001)
   This resolution formalizes the result of the election. Approved 7:0.
Redevelopment Agency of Provo
3. The election of Redevelopment Agency of Provo officers; chair and vice-chair. (18-001)
   The Provo Municipal Council serves as the governing board of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and elects leadership at the first regular meeting of the year. The RDA Chair conducts the portions of Council’s meetings where redevelopment items are discussed (listed separately on the agendas). Similar to the election of Council leadership, but for the RDA executive board. David Knecht was elected RDA Chair and George Stewart was elected RDA Vice-Chair. I've enjoyed serving in RDA leadership with George Stewart these past two years. I'm excited about the vision and passion that Councilor Knecht has for the RDA. He has decades of experience working to improve the housing situation in Provo. I hope to be able to work with him on housing efforts.
4. A resolution appointing the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City for calendar year 2018. (18-002)
   This resolution formalizes the result of the election. Approved 7:0.
Action Agenda (Continued)
5. Consideration of an ordinance to amend Ordinance 2017-51 regarding rental contracts. (17-104)
   Council members met on January 3, 2018, to discuss with the Zoning Committee the recently passed rental contract ordinance. A change to the implementation date is being proposed. A lot of work has been going on this behind the scenes over the past month or so, as evidenced by this non-veto. Based on our Work meeting last week, we will be delaying the implementation date of the Rental Contract ordinance that we recently passed in order to see if we can make some improvements. Approved 7:0. We pushed back the implementation date to give the Council more time to work out some improvements to the regulations.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 2.29 acres of real property, generally located at 1282 North Geneva Road, from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-family Residential (R1.10). Lakeview North Neighborhood. (17-0009R)
   A zone change is being requested in order to facilitate a subdivision. This application has been heard three times previously by the Planning Commission. In all instances, the accompanying subdivision drawings have remained almost identical, with only superficial changes occurring. In order to provide a path forward, staff recommends that the City zone the property R1.10, per the Planning Commission recommendation in 2016. This decision would create clear expectations and eliminate the need of relying on additional documentation, such as development agreements, to ensure appropriate development. As I said about this request in the earlier meeting, "I'm torn on this one. I certainly don't support a rezone to R1.8. But I'll need to be convinced that rezoning it to R1.10 is any better than leaving it as agricultural." Approved 7:0. I was torn on this item, but the deciding factors was the neighborhood support for the rezone and the fact that the property should be held to higher standards if it is zoned residential. It's an eyesore right now.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding signage. Citywide Impact. (17-0019OA,)
   This is a request to amend sections of the City Code to allow reasonable adjustments to the sign ordinance in relation to electronic messaging. The proposed amendments involve two separate Chapters of the Ordinance. The first is an addition to Title 6 “Business Licenses and Regulations, which adds Section 6.06 dealing with Use of Electronic Signs. It requires that any business operating an on-premises electronic display sign, comply with the requirements of the Chapter in order to qualify for a business license. This change provides a significant change in the enforcement capabilities of staff in regards to electronic sign violations.
   
   The second is to Chapter 14.38 “Signs and Outdoor Advertising” as contained in Title “Zoning.” Those changes principally relate to allowance for changing messages on electronic signs. These message changes are classified as low-churn and high-churn electronic signs, with generally greater restrictions on high-churn signs. As I said about this request in the earlier meeting, 'This is an important change. One that is needed, but also one that we need to get right. I have some concerns about the impact on businesses with existing signs. My biggest concern, though, is which areas would have the "high churn" designation.' This item was continued to the January 23, 2018 Council Meeting. Councilor Handley wants more time to get up to speed on this item. I asked for some visuals for how it would impact Center Street between the freeway and 500 W. I may ask that this stretch be removed from the "high churn" areas. Also, I'm not sure that 8 seconds is long enough in the "high churn" area. I realize that it is the national standard, but what's good enough for interstate freeways may not be good enough for our city.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt a definition for "road." Citywide Impact. (17- 0023OA)
   This proposed amendment is a result of an issue occurring during a Board of Adjustment meeting where having the proposed wording, may have saved some confusion in the discussion. Staff believes the proposed clarification in the definition would significantly lessen or eliminate any confusion in the term. This item is a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a reference definition for ‘Road.” The resulting amendment would simply read: “Road” See definition of “Streets” As I said about this request in the earlier meeting, "I see this as a housekeeping item." Approved 7:0. 'Road' now has the same official definition as 'street' in Provo City Code.
9. A resolution to place approximately 24 acres of real property at the northwest corner of the East Bay Golf Course on the Surplus Property List. (17-143)
   Provo City has received a proposal that would involve building a medical school on a portion of the East Bay Golf Course. Presentations were made at several Council meetings and there have been changes to the proposal to ensure a better balance between the development and the existing uses of the site. An Open House was held on January 4 so the public could learn more and ask questions. Public input was also gathered on Open City Hall. This agenda item is a public hearing to decide whether or not to place the property on the surplus list. Much has already been said on this proposal. Some are still upset about it, but many are feeling better with the changes that have been made. This is the first formal step towards accommodating the medical school proposal. The Council will still need to approve any deal before it becomes valid. Other steps are being considered to support the long-term commitment to the Golf Course. Approved as amended 6:1, with Kay Van Buren opposed. The biggest question was whether we relinquish the ability to approve the deal that the Administration will negotiate. We ended up taking a middle-of-the-road approach by requiring Council approval but committing to approve any deal that stays true to the deal points that are currently agreed on.
10. ***CONTINUED TO FUTURE MEETING***Celeste Kennard, acting Joaquin Neighborhood Chair, requests an amendment to Section 14.34.290 of the Provo City Code to add East Center Street as a Design Corridor. Joaquin, Maeser, Foothills, and Provost Neighborhoods. 17-0020OA
    This item was continued by the Planning Commission on December 13, 2017. It will be noticed again when it is assigned to future Planning Commission and Council dates.
11. ***CONTINUED TO A FUTURE MEETING*** The Provo City Community Development Department requests Ordinance Amendments to Sections 14.34.285 & 14.34.287 which are Residential Design Standards. City-Wide Impact. 17-0024OA
    This item was continued by the Planning Commission on December 13, 2017. It will be noticed again when it is assigned to future Planning Commission and Council dates.
Adjournment