Council Meetings - 10 July 2018

How should we meet the need for more office space for City operations? Our Police, Fire, and Dispatch are in a particularly dire need.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, July 10, 2018

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

Business



1. A discussion regarding public feedback on potential financing options for office space for police, fire, dispatcher, and other Provo City personnel. (18-073)
   Y2 Analytics conducted a series of surveys designed to gauge levels of public’s support for building new office space for police, fire, dispatcher, and other Provo City personnel. Representatives from Y2 Analytics will share the survey results, and the Council will discuss various options for moving forward, if desired. Provo's City Center -- the City Hall and City Offices -- were built in the 70's when we had half the population that we do now, and has about half the space that we need. The maintenance costs keep rising, and the building is overdue for a major renovation. Many of the mechanical systems are beyond their useful life. City officials have been studying this for a decade, but we haven't found any easy solutions. The situation gets more urgent every year. The most critical needs are in public safety, primarily for our Police Department. I am convinced that something has to be done very soon to address this situation. The question now is what is the best way forward? Do we build onsite, or move? Do we expand and renovate, or do we tear down and rebuild? Who are we as a city? What do we want our government seat to look like? Are we more of a Salt Lake or a South Salt Lake, or somewhere in between?
   
   
   Presentation only. This item sure has caught the public's attention, and rightly so. I have a whole separate blog post on this one.
2. A discussion on a police compensation proposal (18-069)
   Recent discussion during the budget approval process identified a change in priorities in the Police Department to address compensation changes to attract and retain officers. A proposal supported by the Administration and the Police Chief will be presented. It would eliminate the five new Police Department positions and a position in the Economic Development Department to provide increased starting pay for police officers, add an additional career series for senior officers, and adjust compensation for the management level. We have underfunded our Police Department for many years. Our staffing level stretches our officers too thin and affects the coverage and service they are able to provide the City. This year we were hoping to begin to address their staffing needs by adding 5 new positions. Late in the budget process, the Chief requested that we direct the resources into adjusting the compensation rather than adding new positions. Because of the officer shortage around the country and especially in the State, our experienced officers are being recruited away. This action would make the requested changes. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the July 10, 2018 Council Meeting. As advertised (see preview). There is a desire among at least some of the Councilors to see if we can't scrape enough money together to fund a couple of new officers.
3. A discussion on the 3rd Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2018 (18-074)
   Quarterly Financial Reports provides unaudited summary information about Provo City’s revenue and expenses for the third quarter of fiscal year 2018, ended March 31, 2018. The report includes information about the City’s General Fund, Special Revenue funds (Library), and Enterprise funds (Golf Course, Water, Waste Water, Energy, Storm Drain, Sanitation). This report ensures that the City Municipal Council and City Administrators can consistently monitor the City’s financial and budgetary transactions, providing timely and transparent financial information that can lead to educated decisions about the City’s present and future. The Provo City Budget Office is generally very conservative with the budget forecast, meaning they generally underestimate the revenues for the coming year. This requires the Administration and Council to pass a balanced budget that smaller than it would otherwise be. This means that there is usually more money coming in during the year which is useful for when urgent, unforeseen issues come up. It also means that our Quarterly Financial Reports usually look really good, because our revenues exceed the budget.
   I do have a technical question that I will be asking: Why does the second quarter amounts drop on a couple of the funds? Everything else appears to be cumulative. Presentation only. Our General Fund balance is $2M larger than it was last year. This is when we started questioning why we shouldn't direct some of that toward hiring a couple new police officers. And the 2Q drops were a typo.
4. A discussion on the Real Estate Purchase Agreement and Development Agreement for a medical school at the golf course (17-136)
   The Administrative Staff and the developers of the new medical school (being built on the a portion of the golf course property) have now exchanged draft agreements several times and are now ready to bring a substantially complete agreement to the Council for review, discussion and verification that the documents substantially conform to the direction and discussion that transpired in the January 2018 Municipal Council meeting. It looks like most of the details have been worked out, but both sides may be returning to the Council for some policy decisions and may be requesting some small changes to the original deal points. Motion: George Handley moved to include in the development agreement the language “WHEREAS, the Council has no intent to expand development beyond the Northern Wedge Property” and that the Council intends to continue the operation of the remainder of the property as a golf course, and for the Council to pursue a separate resolution and General Plan language expressing that intent. Seconded by George Stewart.
   Roll call vote: Approved 6:1, with David Harding opposed.
   Motion: George Stewart moved to retain in the draft real estate purchase agreement the provision for the right of first refusal, with an offer defined as value and terms of payment. Seconded by David Harding.
   Roll call vote: Approved 5:2, with Gary Winterton and Kay Van Buren opposed. I support declaring our intentions that the Golf Course remain in perpetuity through a separate resolution and even in amending the General Plan. I don't support adding a non-binding statement directed to current residents and future City officials into a legal contract with a third party.
   
   It looks like the Right-of-First-Refusal will remain, but the Right-to-Dictate-Future-Zoning will not be added. My one lingering question is what protections are expiring in 15 years?
5. A presentation on recommendations regarding a budget committee (18-075)
   Since January 2018, the Council’s Budget and Audit Committee has not met, partially because members of the Council have been satisfied with budget explanations from the Administration, and partially because the Mayor’s Office, as the fulfillment of a campaign promise, put together an ad hoc committee to make recommendations regarding the composition and function of a citizens’ budget committee. In other words, there was a committee in place whose purpose was to research and discuss budget committees. Administration will present the recommendations regarding the citizens’ budget committee. For six months now, we've been in a bit of a limbo with regards to Council created committees. Our Budget Committee didn't even meet throughout the whole budget season this year. I am hopeful that we can soon come to a resolution that (1) serves the Administration's needs, (2) serves the Council's needs, and most importantly (3) best serves the public's interests. Presentation only. This item was continued to a future Work Meeting.
6. A discussion on a proposal related to Neighborhood Housing Services of Provo and homes purchased with CDBG/HOME Dollars(18-076)
   Several years ago, Neighborhood Housing Services (now known as NeighborWorks) purchased and rehabbed several houses using funds borrowed from the Redevelopment Agency that originally came from the Federal Government. Based on the type and amount of funding used, the homes were required to remain affordable for specific durations of time. Recently, there has been interest in forgiving some of the loans. The RDA is concerned that should some of these houses no longer remain affordable, the Federal Government (HUD) could demand the funds back from Provo that were originally used to rehab them. It's been a while since I looked more deeply into this issue, but I know that there is more than one perspective, and it is not a straight-forward as discussed in the documents. I am looking forward to the discussion. Continued to a future Work Meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



7. A discussion on a proposed zone change from A1.5 to Low Density Residential to accommodate a subdivision of 5,000 square-foot lots, located at approximately 2100 West 820 North. Lakeview South Neighborhood. (17-0018R)
   This request is to rezone the 3.1 acre site to LDR to allow development of 16 single-family detached dwellings. Planning Commission recommended denial. From what I know of this area, and from the documents presented, my current opinion is that it is decidedly NOT in the public's interest to rezone this plot. Continued prior to the meeting at the developer’s request.
8. A discussion on adopting the Timp Neighborhood Plan as an addition to Appendix 'H' (Neighborhood Plans) of the General Plan. Timp Neighborhood. (PLGPA20180168)
   Beginning in 2017, residents of the Timp neighborhood began meeting to discuss the future of their neighborhood, important values they wanted to protect, and how they envisioned the future of the neighborhood progressing. After establishing a framework, residents requested that the Provo City Community Development Department commit staff time to helping the neighborhood begin to construct a formal neighborhood plan. This process began in September of 2017 with additional support also being contributed from a group of students attending Brigham Young University. Collectively, the City staff, neighborhood residents, and student participants have developed the following recommended text to be considered for adoption as the Timp Neighborhood Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. This proposed plan is a bold and clear vision for the future of this neighborhood. I applaud the efforts of all involved. There are a couple places where I'm not fully comfortable with the recommendations, but that isn't unusual for a large document like this. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the July 10, 2018 Council Meeting. This is a pretty cool story. This neighborhood was anxious to get going on their neighborhood plan so they got things going themselves. They organized a committee with a cross section of residents and business owners and began organizing their ideas and vision. Some BYU students in the neighborhood turned it into a class project and put the ideas onto paper. City planners were available for guidance, but much of the creation of the plan was done by residents and volunteers. Great job to everyone involved.



Closed Meeting



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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

1. Presentation of the new Miss Provo Court
   Presentation only.
2. Recognition of individuals for services related to the Ice Sheet
   Presentation only.



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda



3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt provisions of the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act by reference, comply with the appeals board composition required by the act, and clarify the application of the act to Provo City. (18-072)
   Provo’s ordinance regarding information requests is being updated to provide continuity and consistency with state law. The language makes sure Provo is in compliance even when changes are made at the state level. I classify this as code clean-up. The State GRAMA statute has changed. Rather than changing our City code each time the Legislature updates the statute, our Code will now basically refer to the State Statute. Approved 7:0. This is a good change.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow an ad hoc deputy recorder to perform city recorder duties as needed. (18-071)
   The City Recorder is allowed to appoint deputies to assist in their duties. Some changes are being requested in the guidelines for the Deputy Recorder. This is a small, sensible change that will allow the City Government to be more efficient. Approved 7:0. No brainer.
5. A resolution appropriating $116,643 in the General Fund, Police Department to increase police compensation applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 (18-069)
   Recent discussion during the budget approval process identified a change in priorities in the Police Department to address compensation changes to attract and retain officers. A proposal supported by the Administration and the Police Chief will be discussed in the work session. It would eliminate the five new Police Department positions and a position in the Economic Development Department to provide increased starting pay for police officers, add an additional career series for senior officers, and adjust compensation for the management level. See my Preview for Agenda Item #2 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. See my report for Agenda Item #2 in the earlier meeting.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 3.1 acres of real property, generally located at 2100 West 820 North, from Agricultural (A1.5) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakeview South Neighborhood. (17-0018R)
   This request is to rezone the 3.1 acre site to LDR to allow development of 16 single-family detached dwellings. Planning Commission recommended denial. As I said earlier, I do not believe this would be in the best interest of the public. Continued prior to the meeting at the developer’s request.
7. A resolution to adopt the Timp Neighborhood Plan as a component of the Provo City General Plan. Timp Neighborhood. (PLGPA20180168)
   Beginning in 2017, residents of the Timp neighborhood began meeting to discuss the future of their neighborhood, important values they wanted to protect, and how they envisioned the future of the neighborhood progressing. After establishing a framework, residents requested that the Provo City Community Development Department commit staff time to helping the neighborhood begin to construct a formal neighborhood plan. This process began in September of 2017 with additional support also being contributed from a group of students attending Brigham Young University. Collectively, the City staff, neighborhood residents, and student participants have developed the following recommended text to be considered for adoption as the Timp Neighborhood Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. See my Preview for Agenda Item #8 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. See my report for Agenda Item #8 in the earlier meeting.
8. CONTINUED TO A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING: VP Homes request a Zone Change from A1.5 to R1.6PD for approximately three acres, located at 1138 N Geneva Road to allow for a twelve-lot subdivision (Lakeview Meadows). Lakeview North Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180089)
   This was not ready to be heard at the Council meeting.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 19 June 2018

We passed the budget for FY'18-'19, see items 7, 8 and 10 in the evening Council Meeting. The total is almost $225M. I have a genuine questions for you. Do you feel like you are getting a good value for your tax dollar? Are you satisfied with the City services you receive compared with the taxes and fees you pay? Why or why not? If not, what would you like to see changed? Are there services that we should cut? Are there services we need to improve or add?

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:15 PM, Tuesday, June 5, 2018

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

Business



1. A discussion on tax increment funding (18-057)
   Recently, there have been a number of post-performance sales tax items brought before Council. The frequency of these items has caused some Councilors to question the use of increment as a tool. Specifically, how frequently should projects be approved? What type of project warrants the use of increment funding? What limitations has the County and School District placed on usage? This is an opportunity for Councilors to express their views on the use of increment as a tool. Economic Development has been invited to answer questions. Discussion only. It was a good discussion. I was able to advocate for my view that tax increment incentives are a good tool to partner with private entities to do something for the public good that they wouldn't do without the incentive. I don't think that giving away incentives for routine events in the ordinary business cycle makes sense.
   
   Unfortunately, the current state of things is that most communities around us are routinely offering these incentives, which puts us at a distinct disadvantage if we don't play the game. I am hopeful that we can discuss with other communities the responsible use of these incentives, kind of like arms control agreements but in our TIF race.
2. A discussion on the Real Estate Purchase Agreement and Development Agreement for a medical school at the golf course (17-136)
   The Administrative Staff and the developers of the new medical school (being built on the a portion of the golf course property) have now exchanged draft agreements several times and are now ready to bring a substantially complete agreement to the Council for review, discussion and verification that the documents substantially conform to the direction and discussion that transpired in the January 2018 Municipal Council meeting. A motion for the Administration to negotiate the agreement then return to Council for presentation and discussion at consecutive Work and Council Meetings on the same day was approved 7:0. An early draft was circulated and there was some concern that it did not fully align with deal points presented when we last heard it in a Council Meeting. We discussed where we are at in the process and expect to see an actual proposed draft next month.
3. A discussion on police personnel levels (18-069)
   Provo is currently 15 police officers short of what was recommended in a 2012 report issued by the Police Executive Research Forum. While the FY 2019 Tentative Budget provides for four additional officers and a police analyst position, the Council is concerned that without taking additional measures, the City may continue to suffer an officer shortage. Chief Ferguson and Daniel Softley will present specific options for the Council to consider in effort to address these concerns. Several motions were made but were subsequently withdrawn, resulting in no action taken. A budget amendment is expected at a later date. Our police force is understaffed and it affects our officers and the service they can provide. The Cheif first proposed 8 new officers, but only 4 made it into the proposed budget. Now the Administration and the Cheif are proposing that instead of the new officers we put that money toward increasing the compensation for the officers we already have. We have lost a number of experienced officers to recruitment to other cities. The need for more officers is still dire, but the need to stem the loss of our experienced officers is more urgent.
   
   Rather than make substantial changes in the final hours before passing the budget, we decided to pass the old plan and look for an amendment next month.
4. A discussion on funding options for Miss Provo and parade float (18-055)
   Council and the Mayor’s office have been working out details for funding of the Miss Provo pageant and the Provo City parade float. In previous work meetings, the decision was made to have the float managed by Parks and Recreation and the necessary funding allocated in the proposed budget. Various options have been explored regarding the Miss Provo pageant and Council will be getting an update so any needed budget adjustments can be made. A substitute motion for the Council to sponsor the Miss Provo scholarship for the coming [fiscal] year [2019] in the amount of $5250.00 with that being the extent of the Council’s support of the program was approved 7:0. It's not everything that I wanted, but is a solid step in the right direction.
5. A discussion on Bulldog Blvd. construction (18-068)
   Council members requested an update on the project in light of receiving email from quite a few residents. The intent of the project is to prepare for increased traffic while providing a safer travel experience for all modes of transportation. Bulldog Blvd. has a crash rate 7.5 times higher than the statewide average for similar roadways. Council members had a presentation on the details of the project at their last work meeting. Council had also asked for a public survey to get more public input on the project. A motion was proposed for discussion purposes that would formally recommend to the Administration that the Bulldog Boulevard project be amended to exclude from its scope the reduction from three lanes to two lanes and the addition of bicycle lanes. The motion failed 0:7, with all Council members opposed. It was a constructive discussion. We need to do a better job getting input from the public and the Council early enough in the process to use that input. The Bulldog project itself will be a great enhancement to the City.
6. A discussion on the approval of a Governing Body Participation Agreement with C-PACE (16-092)
   At the March 27, 2018, Work Meeting the Council discussed the updates to the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) program that is run by the State. The motion was that the Administration negotiate an agreement to remove solar restrictions in the previous agreement and return to Council. The revised agreement has been executed and the statute governing C-PACE may only operate at the written request of the Municipal Council, so this is a request for Council to approve the Governing Body Participation Agreement. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the June 19, 2018 Council Meeting. See item #4 in the evening meeting below.
7. A discussion on proposed Provo City Code amendments to the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) (18-072)
   Provo’s ordinance regarding information requests is being updated to provide continuity and consistency with state law. The language makes sure Provo is in compliance even when changes are made at the state level. Presentation only. This item was intended to return to the July 10, 2018 Council Meeting. Simple code cleanup.
8. A discussion on Provo City Code amendments to the Deputy Recorder position (18-071)
   The City Recorder is allowed to appoint deputies to assist in their duties. Some changes are being requested in the guidelines for the Deputy Recorder. Presentation only. This item was intended to return to the July 10, 2018 Council Meeting. This will add flexibilty to this office.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



9. A discussion on a proposed resolution to adopt the amendments to the General Plan text for the General Plan update (PLGPA20180142)
   Since December, Council members have been providing input on various updated drafts of the General Plan. Input from staff and the public was also considered when preparing the update. It has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and is now ready for Council’s consideration. This item was already scheduled for the June 19, 2018 Council Meeting. A revised substitute motion to continue the evening meeting discussion to an unspecified future date to be determined by Leadership and to continue the Work Session discussion to July 17th, when Council Executive Director Cliff Strachan would be present and members of the Planning Commission could be invited to attend was approved 7:0. For several years the City has had two adopted guiding documents, the State mandated General Plan and Vision 2030. A new draft General Plan has been created which combines and aligns both documents so there is less confusion about which is the controlling document. There are some small updates to policies, but the vast majority of the update is formatting and alignment.




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, June 19, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for June 2018
   Presentation only.
2. Presentation by America’s Freedom Festival
   Presentation only.



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda



3. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City to negotiate and execute a Post-Performance Sales Tax Increment Reimbursement agreement with The Shops at the Riverwoods. (18-066)
   This is a request for a post-performance incentive agreement for The Shops at the Riverwoods to offset certain costs associated with a $10,000,000+ investment to encourage additional improvements to the shopping center. Approved 5:2, with Kay Van Buren and David Harding opposed. I stated in the meeting that if I was the swing vote then I would likely vote in favor, but since there was already enough support for it to pass I was voting no as a symbolic vote. I want to don't want to signal to business owners and developers that the Council is excited to give away tax increment incentives for routine events in the business cycle.
4. A resolution approving the Governing Body Participation Agreement related to the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program with the Governor's Office of Energy Development. (16-092)
   At the March 27, 2018, Work Meeting the Council discussed the updates to the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) program that is run by the State. The motion was that the Administration negotiate an agreement to remove solar restrictions in the previous agreement and return to Council. The revised agreement has been executed and the statute governing C-PACE may only operate at the written request of the Municipal Council, so this is a request for Council to approve the Governing Body Participation Agreement. Approved 7:0. Investments in energy efficiency and sustainability at the time of construction saves a lot of money in the long-run, but are expensive upfront. These investments are also good for the public. This program helps businesses access money upfront that will be paid back with the ongoing savings. I hope that many commercial entities take advantage of this program. We will all breathe a little easier.
5. A resolution to adopt the amendments to the General Plan text for the General Plan update. (PLGPA20180142)
   Since December, Council members have been providing input on various updated drafts of the General Plan. Input from staff and the public was also considered when preparing the update. It has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and is now ready for Council’s consideration. Continued indefinitely. We will likely revisit this on the 17th of July. See item 9 in the earlier meeting.
6. A public hearing on transferring utility revenues to the General Fund and other funds. (18-005)
   This is a hearing required annually by the State of Utah. Public hearing only. The purpose of this State requirement is to ensure the transparency of these transfers. So here is a link to the disclosure. Our utility rates have been going up, but are still quite competative, collectively less than the average in surrounding communities. These transfers to the General Fund allow us to keep our properties taxes much lower than they otherwise would need to be to provide the services that we do.
7. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $211,626,977, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code related to Employee Salary Ranges and Classifications. (18-005)
   This is the final public hearing on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. Annual changes to fees and employee salaries are also being adopted. Approved as amended 7:0. The final adopted budget was in the amount of $212,100,024. Are you satisfied with the value of City services you receive for the taxes and fees that you pay?



Redevelopment Agency of Provo



8. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $7,377,462 . (18-062)
   This is the final public hearing on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. Approved as amended 7:0. The final adopted budget was in the amount of $7,382,203.




Storm Water Special Service District



9. A public hearing on transferring Stormwater fund revenues to the General Fund and other funds (18-063)
   This is a hearing required annually by the State of Utah. Public hearing only.
10. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $4,713,241 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-063)
    This is the final public hearing on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. Approved as amended 7:0. The final adopted budget was in the amount of $4,763,091.



Adjournment

Bulldog Blvd Redesign FAQs (and answers)

The Bulldog Redesign Project is still generating some buzz. I'm hearing two questions asked frequently, and recently I received some information from our Engineering Department addressing them. Thanks to Shane Winters for compiling this information. Read on for the questions and answers.

Can Bulldog really handle all that traffic after one lane in each direction is eliminated???

Below is a table comparing the 2016 traffic count for Bulldog as well as some other streets in Provo which have two lanes in each direction. 

Traffic Volume Comparison
Year	Bulldog @ Between 500W & 200W	University Avenue @ South of Bulldog	University Avenue @ North of Pkwy	900 East @ University Parkway	500 West @ South of Bulldog	State Street @ South of 900 East
2016	26,000	35,000	28,000	26,000	36,000	26,000
Data comes from UDOTs Traffic on Utah Highways

Takeaway: We have other streets in Provo which handle higher volumes of traffic with just two lanes in each direction. It's my personal opinion that the third lane actually causes more chaos, more conflict, and makes the road feel like it is more crowded than it actually is.

Are there really that many more crashes on Bulldog???

Yes, based on both the crash rate and severe crash rate. These rates are based on mileage driven. Since this section of road is short compared to other streets and the vehicle volume is relatively low, the sheer number of crashes may be less, but your risk each time you use it is significantly greater than other streets.

Takeaway: This road is one of the most dangerous streets in the State, regardless of your mode of transportation.

Council Meetings - June 5 2018

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, June 5, 2018

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

Business

1. A discussion on funding options for Miss Provo and parade float (18-055)
   This was initially discussed at the May 1 work meeting. Provo City and Miss Provo have been partners in promoting Provo for many years, with the City providing limited financial support for the Miss Provo Organization, and a parade float to promote the City with the expectation that Miss Provo participants would ride in the parade. Since 2016, the City Council Office has been Provo City’s liaison to the Miss Provo Organization—a role that had previously been fulfilled by the Mayor’s Office. As a result, the Council Office budget includes funding for Miss Provo and the associated city float. This discussion will address support regarding regarding the Miss Provo pageant and their involvement with the Provo City float. A public survey was conducted to gauge public opinion and help with Council’s discussion. I don't believe that Miss Provo should be an official representative of the City. I do not believe that we should be using tax-payer money to sponsor scholarships for this program. I do believe that we should continue to have a float in order to participate in the various local parades and celebrations. I am okay with a transition period to get from where we are to where we should be.
2. A discussion on appropriating $160,000 in the General Fund, Parks and Recreation Department to fund needs in the Recreation Center (18-064)
   The popularity and growth in Recreation Center attendance has led to additional expenses. An appropriation of $160,000 is requested to finish the FY2018 budget year to cover expenses for personnel, merchant fees, concessions, and supplies. Funds for the appropriation will be covered by the additional revenues generated by the Recreation Center during the budget year and will not affect the $500,000 that the facility has been budgeted to return to the general fund, nor the $412,000 budgeted to go towards current and future capital needs for the facility. The success of our Rec Center, both financially as well the impact it has had on our community, is remarkable. I was doing some rough estimations on the costs to taxpayers to run the old rec centers, the golf course, and the ice sheet just before the voters approved the bond. Tax-payers spend less now on these facilities, even when inluding the bond payments. Consider that for a moment. That's like getting a new, better car and paying less in monthly payments. It is understandable that the surging usage of the Rec Center would increase the expenses. These expenses are dwarfed by the additional revenue.
3. A discussion on rental dwelling license fees (18-065)
   The Council has asked for regular reviews of City fees to assess how those fees compare to actual costs and determine if adjustments need to be made. Currently the cost of a rental dwelling license is $20 for one rental unit or $60 for more than one rental unit. Community Development will provide the Council with additional information, including a comparison to other cities’ rental dwelling licenses. Renting property is a business, and are licensed like most other businesses in Provo. Are the current fees for the license appropriate? Occationally I hear from renters complaining about unsafe conditions at their property. Could Provo inspect properties more regularly to ensure that they met basic standards?
4. A presentation on reinvestment for the Shops at Riverwoods(18-066)
   This is a request for a post-performance incentive agreement for The Shops at the Riverwoods to offset certain costs associated with a $10,000,000+ investment to encourage additional improvements to the shopping center. This seems like a routine refresh of a commercial center. Unfortunately, it is now routine to expect local governments to kick back new taxes for routine remodeling.
5. A discussion with officials from Utah League of Cities and Towns regarding State legislative items (18-067)
   Cameron Diehl will be discussing the final disposition of various bills from the 2018 State Legislative session. He will specifically address bills related to the utility transportation fund and free expression. He will also highlight anticipated bills for the upcoming legislative session. At our annual meeting with our representatives in the State Legislature, we brought up several issues that we wanted the State to address. In each case they asked us to work through the League.
6. A discussion on Bulldog Blvd. construction (18-068)
   Council members requested an update on the project in light of receiving email from quite a few residents. The intent of the project is to prepare for increased traffic while providing a safer travel experience for all modes of transportation. Bulldog Blvd. has a crash rate 7.5 times higher than the statewide average for similar roadways. Studies show that installing center medians and removing unexpected midblock movements significantly reduces traffic incidents. In addition, the current average daily traffic amount is 27,000 vehicles, and it is estimated that average daily traffic amount in 2040 will be 31,000 vehicles. I wrote a whole blog post about my thoughts on this
7. An update on the proposed budget (18-005)
   This discussion will serve as follow-up to some of the motions the Council made during the May 22nd Budget Retreat, in addition to covering other budget-related topics. Topics include budget adjustments related events coordinator funding, Urban Deer Program, and Sustainability/Parking position; status of coming up with a police retention plan; and an update on the General Fund balance. I am hopeful that we can get to a better place in regards to funding our Police force. They have been understaffed and overworked for too long.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission


A presentation on a zone change from Planning Industrial Commercial (PIC) to Region Shopping Center (SC3) for property from 920 S to East Bay Blvd and from University Ave to 180 E, to encourage commercial redevelopment. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180100)
The Provo City Economic Development Department requests a zone change for several properties in the East Bay neighborhood between University Ave and 180 East in order to attract more businesses to that area of the City and encourage redevelopment of the site. The current PIC zone limits sign allowances and permitted commercial uses in what has become a commercial corridor for Provo. Changing the zone to SC3 will open up the area to better uses and allow for more commercial signage and development to occur. This one is pretty much a no-brainer. Staff recommends it, the Planning Commission unanimously supports it, it would reflect the current use, and it reflect the use the City would like to see there.
8. A presentation on an amendment to Section 14.06.020 (Definitions) to make the definitions of "Baching Singles" and "Family" consistent with Utah State Law. Citywide application. (PLOTA20180121)
   A constituent recently informed City Council Member David Sewell that the definition of “Family” in Provo City Code was inconsistent with Utah State Code. While Provo has utilized the correct definition per State Code, the definition in Provo Code had not been revised.
   Section 14.06.020 (Definitions) currently limits the definition of “Family” for unrelated individuals to two in some areas of the city that are listed under the definition of “Baching Singles”. The amendment removes this limiting section and renders the definition as “Three (3) related or unrelated individuals and any children of such individual, if any.” The related sections of the definition of “Baching Singles” were also removed. This does align the City code with State statute, but there appears to be even more going on. I am interested in the presentation on Tuesday. I am not comfortable with the government defining a "family", and would rather regulate "households". The last time I read the State statutes, they did not refer to families.



Closed Meeting

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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Approval of Minutes



Public Comment

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

Action Agenda



1. A resolution approving the Program Year 2018 Annual Action Plan, Fourth Year Update to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, including CDBG and HOME Funding recommendations (18-056)
   This is the approval following the two required public hearings and public comment period for the 2018 draft of the Annual Action Plan on proposed usage of CDBG and HOME funds. These are federal funds provided through Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The funding amount from the Federal Government was greater than expected, and some of the applicant/partners are receiving more funds than they requested. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with that.
2. A resolution appropriating $160,000 in the General Fund, Parks And Recreation Department to fund needs in the Recreation Center applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-064)
   The popularity and growth in Recreation Center attendance has led to additional expenses. An appropriation of $160,000 is requested to finish the FY2018 budget year to cover expenses for personnel, merchant fees, concessions, and supplies. Funds for the appropriation will be covered by the additional revenues generated by the Recreation Center during the budget year and will not affect the $500,000 that the facility has been budgeted to return to the general fund, nor the $412,000 budgeted to go towards current and future capital needs for the facility. From the earlier meeting, "The success of our Rec Center, both financially as well the impact it has had on our community, is remarkable. I was doing some rough estimations on the costs to taxpayers to run the old rec centers, the golf course, and the ice sheet just before the voters approved the bond. Tax-payers spend less now on these facilities, even when inluding the bond payments. Consider that for a moment. That's like getting a new, better car and paying less in monthly payments. It is understandable that the surging usage of the Rec Center would increase the expenses. These expenses are dwarfed by the additional revenue."
3. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 43 acres of real property, generally located from 920 S to East Bay Blvd and from University Ave to 190 E, from Planning Industrial Commercial (PIC) to Regional Shopping Center (SC3). East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180100)
   The Provo City Economic Development Department requests a zone change for several properties in the East Bay neighborhood between University Ave and 180 East in order to attract more businesses to that area of the City and encourage redevelopment of the site. The current PIC zone limits sign allowances and permitted commercial uses in what has become a commercial corridor for Provo. Changing the zone to SC3 will open up the area to better uses and allow for more commercial signage and development to occur. From the earlier meeting, "This one is pretty much a no-brainer. Staff recommends it, the Planning Commission unanimously supports it, it would reflect the current use, and it reflect the use the City would like to see there."
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to make the definitions of “baching singles” and “family” consistent with state law. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180054)
   A constituent recently informed City Council Member David Sewell that the definition of “Family” in Provo City Code was inconsistent with Utah State Code. While Provo has utilized the correct definition per State Code, the definition in Provo Code had not been revised.
   Section 14.06.020 (Definitions) currently limits the definition of “Family” for unrelated individuals to two in some areas of the city that are listed under the definition of “Baching Singles”. The amendment removes this limiting section and renders the definition as “Three (3) related or unrelated individuals and any children of such individual, if any.” The related sections of the definition of “Baching Singles” were also removed. From the earlier meeting, "This does align the City code with State statute, but there appears to be even more going on. I am interested in the presentation on Tuesday. I am not comfortable with the government defining a "family", and would rather regulate "households". The last time I read the State statutes, they did not refer to families."
5. CONTINUED TO JUNE 19 COUNCIL MEETING: A resolution to adopt the amendments to the General Plan text for the General Plan update. (PLGPA20180142)
   Previously noticed for the June 5 Council meeting, the item was not ready to be heard at this time.
6. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $211,626,977, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code Section 4.04.060. (17-067)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. Take a look at this Citizen's Guide to the Proposed Budget.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo



7. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $7,377,462 . (18-062)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget.



Storm Water Special Service District



8. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $4,713,241 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-063)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget.



Adjournment

Provo City, Welcome Home, Even to Our Young, Single, Professional Neighbors!

I have wanted to publish this blog post for more than a week, but I've really struggled to write it. There is so much to say. So much misunderstanding. What should I address? Which criticisms should I respond to? Which incorrect assertions should I correct? This post could get very long if I get down into all of the weeds. I decided instead to just focus on the most critical point and save any specific responses for a future post.

The claim that young, single professionals are not welcome in Provo is wrong. I apologize to anyone whom I have given this impression. I recognize that I can do better at communicating and cultivating understanding. Young, single professionals are an important, valued, contributing part of our community. You are wanted. You are needed.

Emotions are high. Feelings are raw. Frustration is building. Right now we need to be building bridges. Unfortunately, some are driving wedges instead. This is a wound that has festered for far too long. Our community needs to heal. I ask everyone involved to listen actively, speak responsibly, seek to understand, and not assume the worst in others.

The still unfinished Welcome Home Resolution concludes with, "To all people of goodwill, we say: 'Welcome Home.'" This includes young, single professionals, this includes college students, this includes married couples with and without children. This includes all people, regardless of the stage of life you are in. This includes everyone who wants to contribute to and be a part of a great community.

We do expect everyone to follow the law. No group should be exempt, and no group should feel unwelcome for being asked to follow the law. Where laws need to be improved, let's work together to get it done, balancing the interests of all affected. I believe in the rule of law, it is part of the social compact and is critical for living together in harmony. I believe in our system of electing representatives to create laws that reflect the will of the community.

The wound that is now afflicting our community formed when, for whatever reason, investors came to believe that certain laws wouldn't or shouldn't be enforced and therefore didn't need to be obeyed. This created conflict with those who expected the laws to be followed. Over the years, frustration grew in people who felt the City should be doing more to enforce, as well as in those who were the subject of the complaints being filed. I have heard stories that the City sent mixed signals about whether the laws were going to be enforced. (Though at least some of these stories originated from people with something to gain by others believing the City wouldn't enforce.) By allowing this conflict to fester, the relationship between neighbors devolved into acrimony and distrust. Many people have been hurt, many are angry.

We need to treat this wound so this rift can heal. We need wise laws, and we need people to choose to follow the laws. We need to forgive our neighbors and to be willing to look at the situation through their eyes. We need to rebuild trust and goodwill.

Young, single professionals are an integral part of our community, now and in the future. I invite all to build bridges of understanding, and to work together with civility and goodwill to address the challenges we are facing.

Bulldog Boulevard and Public Input

In an ideal world, citizens would only be notified of projects and meetings that they are interested in. Unfortunately, even with the technology available today, it is still hard to know beforehand who will be interested in which project. So we, the government of Provo generally, notice on all issues. A negative consequence of the volume of notices is that many citizens don't follow the notices closely, and may not be aware that an issue they care about is being addressed. City officials go to great lengths to make it as easy as possible to stay informed with the current efforts of the City. We publish blogs (like the one you're reading), we tweet, we write newsletters (tons of newsletters, with different scopes, and even give you an easy way to sign up for the ones you want), we host a public input web forum where we both ask for input on specific questions and welcome thoughts on any topic you'd like, we are on Facebook, we sponsor neighborhood meetings, we meet regularly with the press, we post silly (and hopefully informative) videos, we hold town hall meetings and open houses, and, yes, we still publish notices in the newspaper.

Despite our good faith efforts, sadly we routinely hear from people very late in the public process who are upset at the direction of a project and who are upset that they didn't learn of the project sooner. Please know that we are doing our best and are always open to suggestions for improvement.

Most recently this occurred after an open house on the Bulldog Blvd Design. We are fairly late in the process, the traffic and environmental impact studies have been conducted. State and County money has been secured. But this is another opportunity to spread the word of the coming improvements and get the public's input on design. A resident attended the open house and did not like the overall project, who sent out an email alerting fellow residents of the project. The Council has received many emails protesting the project in the last couple of days, many from people who are just hearing of the project and only have what information was in the email. Once word got out that opposing emails were being received, we've received a number of letters from supporters of the project.

Rather than respond to each concerned resident individually, I'm going to put my thoughts here.

I first heard about this project while serving on Provo's Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. My first reaction was also one of alarm. I knew of the lack of good east-west corridors in Provo. This road is near my house, but I tried to avoid it when possible because it is such a stressful street to be on. My initial reaction was that reducing an automobile lane in each direction would make things worse. But as I listened to the traffic engineer, what he said made sense. This road is problematic. It has the highest rate of accidents in the STATE, more than 7 times the average. This road is threatening the life, health, and safety of all users, predominately automobile drivers and passengers. The engineer explained that even projecting far into the future, the traffic on this road doesn't warrant three lanes in each direction. Then he said something that surprised me but made sense as I thought about it and applied it to my own experiences. This street isn't stressful because it is over-crowded. It is stressful because of the poor design. The third traffic lane isn't helpful, it's causing much of the conflict and problems. How many times have I turned right onto the road and then needed to change three lanes in two blocks to make a left-hand turn? How many times have I seen drivers shoot out of a parking lot and cross many lanes of traffic to get where they are going?

I could be wrong, but I don't remember bike lanes being discussed in that first meeting. The point was that a lane of traffic would be removed in each direction and that the resulting capacity would still be more than enough for the demand and it would be significantly safer. It wasn't until later that I saw the beautiful renderings of the landscaping and bicycle lanes that would fill the vacated space, funded by the State and County who are happy to see this unsafe corridor fixed.

The conversation seems to be about whether an automobile lane should be sacrificed to make room for trees and bikes. Even the Project Newsletter states, "the project plans to convert one travel lane in each direction to bicycle lanes." But I see this as a fix of a bad design where overcapacity was significantly harming the safety of the road. The additions of trees and bike lanes is the best use of the freed-up space, particularly when the State and County are so happy to pick up the tab.

I am confident that this project will improve the safety and experience of all users of this street and will be a beautiful addition to our street network. To those who are concerned about the loss of a lane, I hope that with further research you will agree that this project is a "common sense" solution. Though the Council will not directly vote on this project, I am thrilled to be held accountable for my support of this project. I am confident that the vast majority of the community, if not everyone, will be happy with the results of this project.

Council Meetings - 15 May 2018

Budget, budget, budget, Miss Provo, Vote-by-Mail, and siting the new Sewer Treatment Plant.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 15, 2018

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

Business



1. A discussion on Council priorities. (18-004)
   The Council had a discussion in January regarding Council priorities and how best to achieve them. With the Council entering budget season, Council Leadership would like to have a discussion about how best to use funds to achieve these priorities. The priorities are important to keep in mind during the budget season, but this discussion is a periodic check up to see how we are progressing on our priorities and to see if we need to make any changes to the direction that we are heading on them. Discussion only. This item was continued to the June 5, 2018 Work Meeting. Council Staff have revised the text on the one-page explainers for the five priorities that we kept from the nine we set two years ago. We briefly talked about how we are pushing these priorities forward. We talked about making sure each priority was assigned to a committee, but we didn't get to the point were each priority was assigned because we talked about the need to have Administrative buy-in and it was evident that they were not ready to make that commitment.
2. A presentation on the Sewer Treatment Siting Study (18-052)
   Public Works contracted with four consultants to do a site evaluation for the location of the new sewer plant. This presentation will give an update on their findings. Four sites, including the current site, have been evaluated for our future Sewer Treatment Plant. The study found the best site is adjacent to the airport, south of the Lakeview Parkway. Presentation only. This item was continued to the June 5, 2018 Work Meeting. I feel good about the recommendation (to put the new sewer treatment plant next to the airport) and am glad that we have a solid back up plan (to build the new treatment plant next to the current plant).
3. A presentation on the review of the 2017 Vote-By-Mail Process and an update on the 2018 Election (18-060)
   At a Board of Canvassers meeting on September 5, 2017, Bryan Thompson offered to meet with the council following the 2017 election to review the county’s experience with vote-by-mail and share any lessons learned. Additionally, Mr. Thompson will provide an update on Utah County’s plan for the 2018 election. Originally, Utah County planned to conduct the 2018 election using a combination of absentee voting and traditional voting machines; however, on April 13, 2018, Utah County reversed their decision and announced they would conduct a vote-by-mail election. I don't know about you but I was underwhelmed with our Vote-by-Mail experience last year. It's not directly a part of the planned presentation, but I am interested in exploring the new option that the State Legislature gave us to use Ranked Choice Voting in future municipal elections. Presentation only. This was basically a recap of how the process went last year and what will be different this fall. There won't be too much change, but the hope is that both the primary and the general elections will be more like last year's general election rather than last year's primary election.
4. An update on the deer harvesting program (18-061)
   On July 19, 2016, the Municipal Council authorized an urban deer control program to reduce the impact of deer on the upper east bench. Prior to this, there had been numerous complaints from residents about property damage and nuisance caused by the deer coming out of the mountains. Camille Williams will share the most recent statistical data related to the program. I am very interested to hear the statistics. It would also be good to hear the residents perception of the current state of the urban deer problem. Unfortunately, the differences between the weather from winter to winter can confound the data and perceptions. A motion to continue the program for another year and request the Administration to add any funding necessary to the budget to continue the program for the next year was approved 7:0. We have completed the second of three winters covered in the program. If I understood correctly, we still haven't tallied up the complaints and crashes from this past winter, but calls were up for the year before. The number of deer killed or relocated are about 1/5 of the number of calls (mostly due to collisions with automobiles). I support completing the third year of the program, but I hope to have a strong case how this program is providing value to our residents which justifies what we are spending.
5. A discussion regarding the supplemental budget requests and the variance in tax revenues. (18-005)
   Each year, there are a number of supplemental requests that pass through finance and have to be prioritized in the event there are extra funds at the end of a fiscal year. Finance will present the list plus justification for the approved projects and give an update on the variances between this fiscal year and last fiscal year. The list seems to only include the supplemental requests that are proposed to be funded. I am also interested to see the requests that aren't in the budget. Presentation only. I was mistaken, the list included all supplemental requests and a column showed the few items that were added to the proposed budget. During the discussion we learned that many other of the items will be funded out of savings from the current budget and possibly the future budget. I have asked that we be given an estimate of which items will be funded before our budget retreat next week.
6. A discussion on options for funding on Miss Provo and parade float (18-055)
   This was initially discussed at the May 1 work meeting. Provo City and Miss Provo have been partners in promoting Provo for many years, with the City providing limited financial support for the Miss Provo Organization, and a parade float to promote the City with the expectation that Miss Provo participants would ride in the parade. Since 2016, the City Council Office has been Provo City’s liaison to the Miss Provo Organization—a role that had previously been fulfilled by the Mayor’s Office. As a result, the Council Office budget includes funding for Miss Provo and the associated city float. This discussion will address support regarding regarding the Miss Provo pageant and their involvement with the Provo City float. A public survey was conducted to gauge public opinion and help with Council’s discussion. It was my first year on the Council when the Miss Provo coordination was shifted to our office and the funding was increased. Each year I have argued against using tax-payer money to sponsor the program. Discussion only. This item was continued to the June 5, 2018 Work Meeting. Our discussion went long and needed to be continued to our next meeting. The Administration is not eager to take back the responsibility of managing the float. Some councilors feel that there is no point in having a float if we don't sponsor Miss Provo. I agree with the majority of the survey respondents, I think we should still participate in local parades with a Provo City float, but not continue to sponsor Miss Provo.



Closed Meeting



7. 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, May 15, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


• Roll Call
• Prayer
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


1. A presentation of the Mayor's Award of Excellence
   Presentation only. The Mayor bestowed two awards, one to Gary Bushman and one to Josh Ihrig, both for their efforts on the implementation of the Provo 360 project. Mr. Bushman delayed his retirement in order to see the project launched and Mr. Ihrig was the "pig" of the project (See this video if you want to know what that means). Congrats to both.
2. A presentation of the May 2018 Employee of the Month
   Presentation only. This item was added at the last minute. Victoria Young, a fairly new member of the Energy Department was selected for this recognition. She originally reached out to the Department to see if they had any internships. When they told her that no positions were open, she offered to intern for free. She soon proved her value and moved into a paid internship which quickly lead to a permanent position, and now to being recognized as the employee of the month.
   

   Public Comment

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

   Action Agenda

   
   
3. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council regarding the implementation of a New Water Reclamation Facility. (18-051)
   This resolution is being submitted for Council’s approval on the City’s financing plan for a new water reclamation plant, which needs to be submitted to the State by June 1 in order to meet the requirements of the City’s water quality regulation variance. The State gave us a series of deadlines when it granted us a temporary variance for our waste water treatment. June 1st is the first deadline and we need to pass a resolution declaring our intention on how to proceed. We will be declaring our intention to build a new facility with a phased implementation. Approved 7:0. There was no discussion, it was as explained.
4. **CONTINUED to a future Planning Commission meeting** The Community Development Department requests a Code Amendment to Chapter 14.20 (SC3 Zone) to establish an open space requirement for the residential portion of mixed-use developments within this zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180113)
   This was publicly noticed to be heard at the May 15 Council meeting but was continued by the Planning Commission and not ready to be heard by Council at this time.
5. **CONTINUED to a future Planning Commission Meeting** An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the height limit for assisted living facilities in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The project initiating this proposed change is in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood, but the proposed amendment would have a citywide impact. (PLOTA20180054)
   This was publicly noticed to be heard at the May 15 Council meeting but was continued by the Planning Commission and not ready to be heard by Council at this time.
6. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-005)
   As part of the budget process, Council is required to tentatively adopt the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget This is a tentative adoption only and signals to the public that this is the version of the proposed budget that we will be working from. The budget is technically three budgets, as the RDA and Storm Water District are technically separate entities from the City. Approved 7:0. And now the serious fun begins.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo



7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-062)
   As part of the budget process, Council is required to tentatively adopt the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget Approved 7:0.



Storm Water Special Service District



8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-063)
   As part of the budget process, Council is required to tentatively adopt the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget Approved 7:0.

Adjournment