Council Meetings - 27 August 2019

There are some hefty items on the agenda, including discussions on sewer system expansion planning, funding the new Airport Terminal, Accessory Dwelling Units, Parking Permit Programs, and design standards.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, August 27, 2019

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

Business

1. A presentation on policy updates from the Utah League of Cities and Towns. (19-089)
   Cameron Diehl, Executive Director of ULCT, will update the Council on the work of the Utah League of Cities and Towns over the past few months. ULCT is an important partner in advocating for local interests at the State Capitol and for helping local governments understand how to comply with state statutes. It's always good to hear from and collaborate with the League. Presentation only. State tax restructuring is far and away the biggest topic before the State Legislature right now. We talked about a few more topics, extraterritorial water authority and towing regulations for example. I brought up my concern that we should look at the way we create voting precincts and districts before it is time to redistrict for the 2020 Census results.
2. A discussion regarding sewer capacity west of I-15 and a consideration of options. (19-085)
   For many years, City officials in Provo have known that sewer system capacity was a limiting force in further residential and commercial development in Provo west of Interstate 15. The wastewater collection system in west Provo was planned for many years based on most of west Provo remaining in agricultural use as identified in the general plan. However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been greater demand for additional residential development in this area. Within the last few years, the City has adopted a new Southwest Area Plan in the General Plan document that gives much more specificity as to planned development and density in the area. Additionally, Provo High School has moved to the northwest area in the city, consuming some sewer capacity and likely stimulating more growth in the future in this area of the city. Provo School District has also announced plans to relocate Dixon Middle School to southwest Provo in the next few years, which will also require added sewer capacity in this part of Provo.
   
   With a number of forces at work, many landowners and developers in the area have argued that additional sewer capacity on the west side has become more critical and time-sensitive, and would like to approach the Council to consider strategies to accelerate capacity expansion.
   
   Council leadership has asked that Public Works staff come to the work meeting on August 27 to provide some history and context and to talk specifically about the current CIP plan and how it relates to this increasing demand. They have also offered to some of the larger developers and landowners in this part of Provo to present their plans and perspectives on September 10. Our hope is that if the Council would like to see any alternatives to the current CIP plan and strategy, the Council would ask staff after the September 10 meeting to develop some scenarios that could be considered.
   
   The Administration sees this as an important policy question that impacts the City budget, development pace on the west side, housing availability, agricultural preservation, transportation, and other important policy issues. The Council's consideration of any potential policy changes should be made carefully with good data and careful consideration, and these discussions are intended to begin a dialogue with the stakeholders to see if a change in current policy is warranted or advisable. A couple years ago I lead the effort to gather a broad group of residents and stakeholders to plan for development in West Provo. We ended up with a document of seven Development Policies to guide future development. At the time there was a lot of pressure to make some decisions about the direction development would go. One thing that was said over and over was, "We need to hurry and make a plan, but our plan won't be to hurry the development." Presentation only. A presentation was scheduled for the Work Meeting on September 10, 2019, in which several members of the development community would present to the Council on related west side sewer considerations. There really wasn't any time to discuss possible ways forward or if we wanted to change our policy regarding the timing of West Provo development. This item was all about understanding the current status of sewer capacity in the City, projects that are needed to increase the sewer collection system capacity, and the tens of millions of dollars that those projects will cost.
3. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing City Administration to accept a State of Utah Infrastructure Bank Fund Loan for improvements related to the Provo Airport Terminal Project. (19-087)
   The Public Works Department intends to apply for a $5 million State of Utah Infrastructure Bank Fund loan to front the costs of infrastructure for the new Airport Terminal. The application for the loan will be considered before the Utah Department of Transportation Commission in September. Prior to receiving funds, the Commission requires a resolution by the Council. It is anticipated that MAG funding to be programmed for 2023-2024 will be used to repay the loan. During the legislative session this spring, we made a successful bid to line up partners at the county, regional, and state level to go along with the federal money that we had access to, in order to position the airport to serve the community and region for decades of growth. Rather than bonding, the City would take out a State loan that would be repaid with Regional money. We'll be learning more about the details in the meeting. A motion to support both funding sources for the projects enumerated was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused.
   
   Presentation only. Following a review by the State's Transportation Commission, Public Works staff may return after September 20, 2019 to a Council Meeting in October or November. We were basically asked to apply for the State Loan, as this is the type of project that it was created for. The terms are very favorable.
4. A discussion regarding an Interfund Loan from the Energy Fund to the Wastewater Fund for sewer improvements related to the new Airport terminal. (19-088)
   Public Works will need to install sewer improvements on the west side of the City in order to meet the requirements of a new Airport terminal. In order to meet the required timelines for terminal construction short term financial assistance is needed, which is available from the Energy Fund by means of an inter-fund loan. This short term $4 million loan would meet requirements of Utah State Code and would be repaid in full with interest. This is related to the last item. As part of the new Terminal, the City needs to come up with our portion of the money. I'm wary of borrowing money from the Energy Fund, but this may be the best option available to us. I believe that that will be the crux of the discussion. [The motion for item 3 also applies to this item.] The interfund loan is for 6 months and allows us to start a project in this fiscal year rather than waiting for the scheduled funding in the next fiscal year. This move will save us a significant amount of money because a construction team is finishing up their work at Duncan Aviation and will now be able to just shift over and start working on the terminal, rather than disassembling for 6 months and reassembling later.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

5. A discussion regarding the annexation of a property generally located at 1860 South and Colorado Avenue, partially in the East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20190140)
   This item is an annexation request for property located at 1640 S. Colorado Avenue. The subject area is located on the south edge of the current Provo boundaries, on the north side of 1860 South, and on the east side of the Western Metals Recycling property. Although the total property includes 3.85 acres, part of the property is already within City boundaries, with the actual size of the proposed annexation being only 2.547 acres. The applicant is Thomas Hunt, the project engineer, but the petition signer is Spencer Wright, representing East Bay Self Storage, LLC.
   
   By City Ordinance, and without a concurrent zoning application, an annexed property “shall be deemed to be classified in accordance with the lowest density zone allowed by the land use designation set forth for the subject property in the Provo City General Plan.” The lowest density, or least intensive industrial zone would be the M-1 “Manufacturing” Zone.
   
   A project plan for the site is being reviewed by the City’s Coordinators Review Committee (CRC) and the concept plan is attached to this report. The proposed use for storage units would be permitted under SLU#6370 within either an M-1 or M-2 Zone. The actual project plan will be presented to the Planning Commission for approval subject to approval of the annexation by the Municipal Council.
   
   Questions have been raised regarding the non-inclusion of other properties with this annexation request, especially as the applicant also owns one of the two adjacent properties to the east. At issue is the desire to extend the City’s boundary to eventually match that of shown in the Annexation Policy Map versus annexing only this one property at this time. In order to consider the larger area, there would be a need to contact and discuss the proposal with all property owners, and then a need to determine which properties could be included based on the number of owners who would actually sign the petition, and what percentage of the overall property value their lands would represent. Because that process would likely take several months if not longer, it would obviously cause a delay for this applicant in the approval and development of their property.
   
   Planning Commission recommended approval. I like the idea of this agreement that tries to help the city move forward with the broader annexations but still helps the applicant by moving the first annexation forward in a timely manner. I do worry, though, that despite the agreement, moving forward with the first one without doing the whole group will make it harder to complete the annexations. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 27, 2019. It sounds like everyone is committed to working towards the annexation of the rest of this cluster of properties, but we will not hold up the current request in the meantime.
6. A discussion of an ordinance amending the zone map classification of the Amanda Knight Hall, located at 800 North University Avenue, from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Joaquin Neighborhood.(PLRZ20190244)
   Amanda Knight Hall, built in 1938-1939, is a women’s dormitory formerly associated with Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. The dormitory is located at the corner of 800 North and University Avenue, just two blocks north of the original campus of the university. Brigham Young University sold the property earlier this year to Mountain Classic Real Estate of Salt Lake City to facilitate its preservation through a return of the building to its original use as women’s housing. This application is not accompanied by a concept plan as no substantial changes are proposed for the site or building exterior. The requested rezone facilitates the preservation of a significant historic resource and a return of the building to women’s housing under private ownership.
   
   Planning Commission recommended approval. This is a great example of the community advocating for something that was important to them and institutions listening to the feedback and carefully considering how the communities desires could be accommodated. I am interested to learn more about the parking situation. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 27, 2019. After all the work by so many passionate individuals, BYU, and other partners to find a way to preserve this landmark, we need to find a way to approve the proposal. At the same time, there is far less parking onsite than normally required. The applicant/future landlord says that they will rent to fewer people with cars. That is similar to what we've been told by other applicants. Joaquin Village is a pertinent example of something that was approved with lower off-street parking because the Council at the time expected to be putting in a parking permit program. Unfortunately, the program didn't happen but the apartment complex did. It has been a cause for even scarcer on-street parking. We are revisiting the question of a parking permit program, and if we implement it then I won't worry about the parking impact of approving the Amanda Knight Hall proposal, but we can really count on it until it is done.
   
   In the end we continued it and asked the applicant to come back with a plan to show how they will ensure that they don't rent to people with more cars than can be parked off-street.



Business

7. A discussion regarding an update on Council priority issues. (19-091)
   In January 2019, the Council identified several priority issues that they wanted to address during 2019. This discussion will update the Council on the progress of each issue. How are we doing on our "new year's resolutions"? What are we going to get done this year? Presentation only. We are still pushing hard to wrap up several projects. We did decide push the Short Term Rental question off to the next Council, and to focus on collecting the information that they will need to make informed decisions.
8. A discussion regarding a request for an ordinance text amendment to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A-Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190120)
   This item is an Ordinance Text Amendment to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S - Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A - Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone, as well as adopt related amendments. The public was invited to submit comments over the past few weeks. I felt that this proposal could have a major impact on various parts of the City so I requested that we make a significant effort to bring it to the public's attention and solicit feedback. We've heard from several people and groups requesting modifications. I believe that we will be making tweaks and adjustments for at least a couple more weeks. A motion to send the item back to the Housing Committee for further review was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. The committee will meet Tuesday to see what public feedback we can incorporate into the proposal.
9. A discussion regarding a proposed parking permit program on Slate Canyon Drive. Southeast Area. (18-084)
   The Southeast Area Neighborhoods (Provost, Provost South, and Spring Creek) have worked since the summer of 2018 to gather neighborhood input on a proposed parking permit program on Slate Canyon Drive. During that summer, over 200 residents participated in a series of 10 meetings. Over half of the residents who live on Slate Canyon drive supported the program. The majority of the neighborhood as a whole also support it to regulate parking near the entrance to the canyon area. After the public hearing in the meeting this evening, the Council may vote to direct that a study of the proposed permit parking area be undertaken. Generally residential parking permit programs are used to protect local residents from an influx of outside cars being parked on the street. Generally, there is a large institution or another draw nearby. Standard permit parking programs don't work as well when the over demand for on-street parking is generated by the residents of the area themselves. The last couple of proposals for new parking permit programs have fizzled out when the residents come to understand the limitations, inconveniences, and costs of the permit program. I am on the Joaquin Parking Committee and the Downtown Parking Committee. We are actively looking at the best way to use current technology to craft an on-street parking management program that is flexible and provides better outcomes. I'll be interested to see how the applicants want to set up their program and if they are open to the ideas we are evaluating in other areas of the City. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 27, 2019. See my report for item #6 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. A closed meeting was not held.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Board of Canvassers

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 27, 2019

1. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council and Mayor sitting as The Board of Canvassers accepting the election returns and declaring and certifying the results of the municipal primary elections held in Provo, Utah on August 13, 2019. (19-086)
   This is a presentation of the final vote tallies in the municipal primary election.Congrats to everyone who advanced. Thank you to everyone who ran but will not continue to the general election. We can't have a representative government without people being willing to stand for election. I hope everyone will take the next two months to understand your ballot options and become an informed voter.A motion to approve the resolution was made by Mayor Michelle Kaufusi, seconded by George Stewart, and approved 7:0, with David Sewell excused.Congrats to everyone who made it on to the primary election and a big THANK YOU to everyone who ran.
   

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:45 PM, Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. A presentation regarding an update on the improvements to 500 West and Bulldog Boulevard. (19-026)
   The Bulldog project is nearing completion. We still have another year to go on 500 West. But at least the intersection at Center is now back open, and will remain open for the rest of the project. Presentation only. Both projects are on schedule, though the Bulldog schedule was extended one month in order to bury the electrical lines. Both projects still retain all of the features that were proposed. The Bulldog project is nearing completion. The 500 W project is only about a third of the way done.
   

   Public Comment

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

   Action Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes
   Approved by unanimous consent.
3. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of William Peperone as the Director of Development Services for Provo City. (19-090)
   The Department of Community and Neighborhood Services and the Department of Development Services were established on July 9, 2019. After national recruitment, screening, and interviews, Mayor Kaufusi has appointed Bill Peperone, the current Assistant Director of Community Development, to serve as the first Director of Development Services. Bill will begin work in his new position on September 3, 2019. It's been a pleasure to work with Mr. Peperone over the years. He has impressed me with his understanding of the fundamentals of a healthy community and how our built environment impacts these fundamentals. Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused Each Councilor present spoke to our confidence in Mr. Peperone gained over the years.
4. A resolution appointing Brittany Hyde to the Parks and Recreation Board. (19-003)
   Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Brittany Hyde serve on the Parks and Recreation Board. This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Municipal Council and have been submitted to the Council for review. We previously vetted and met with Ms. Hyde, but she was inadvertently left off the list for appointment. We will remedy this. Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused Oversight corrected.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 9.80 to update language and amend procedures regarding permit parking areas. (19-002)
   This item was discussed previously in the Work Sessions on July 9 and July 23, 2019. In mid- to late-2018, the Policy Governance Committee began discussions to clean up and make amendments to certain elements of the Permit Parking code (see Provo City Code Chapter 9.80). The Permit Parking Areas currently in code have been subject to certain code language that has been outdated since the Parking Enforcement has gone 21st Century. There is no longer a need for actual permits due to the electronic system that Parking Enforcement has put in place. Then there were some procedural elements that the Policy Governance Committee chose to amend certain elements to tighten up the process and add a step for the Planning Commission to review the Permit Parking Area plans. This step is thought to help the Council obtain a land use perspective on these Permit Parking Area plans. Also, there is a fee added to the Consolidated Fee Schedule. I have previously described this ordinance this way: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.'
   
   This item was sent back to committee to resolve whether proposals should be vetted by either the Planning Commission or the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. The committee decided not to include a mandatory step, but instruct that the report be created in consultation with pertinent groups and names both boards. I think this is a good compromise. A substitute implied motion was made to spell out TMAC as the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee, and the resolution was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. I can't think of a parking permit program that I wouldn't want TMACs input on. I hope that each report is written in consultation with TMAC. I worry a bit that permit proposals are infrequent enough that this might get forgotten at some point in the future. This is a compromise, but with TMAC "spelled out" in the ordinance, I am hopeful that it will work out.
6. A resolution of intent to study the creation of a permit parking area on Slate Canyon Drive in the Provost and Provost South Neighborhoods. (18-084)
   This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. My preview for work meeting item 9: 'Generally residential parking permit programs are used to protect local residents from an influx of outside cars being parked on the street. Generally, there is a large institution or another draw nearby. Standard permit parking programs don't work as well when the over demand for on-street parking is generated by the residents of the area themselves. The last couple of proposals for new parking permit programs have fizzled out when the residents come to understand the limitations, inconveniences, and costs of the permit program. I am on the Joaquin Parking Committee and the Downtown Parking Committee. We are actively looking at the best way to use current technology to craft an on-street parking management program that is flexible and provides better outcomes. I'll be interested to see how the applicants want to set up their program and if they are open to the ideas we are evaluating in other areas of the City.' Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused The applicants realize that this will be a painful and controversial process. The City has struggled to enforce our occupancy limits and over-occupancy has created on-street parking congestion in the area. The thought is that the permit parking program will make it harder to have too many cars for one property and that this will lead to more voluntary compliance on occupancy. I'm thinking about how the permit program will work with our new license-plate scanners and if we can pattern the program after what we are discussing for Downtown and Joaquin.
7. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. City-wide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
   Community Development has identified deficiencies in the Campus Mixed Use Zone pertaining to design regulation. The zone currently only requires one door on each street frontage, has no habitable first floor requirement or any regulation of windows and visual permeability at the first floor. Staff is studying amendments to the zone to provide sufficient regulation of these design elements. Staff has also integrated previously proposed amendments to the materials standards into these proposed amendments.
   
   The amendments under consideration include the following.
   • A minimum habitable first floor depth as measured from the street facing façade. In the downtown this is 30’.
   • A minimum number of pedestrian building entrances. For residential in the downtown an exterior entrance is required for each street facing unit.
   • A minimum requirement for first floor windows and openings.
   • Any commercial included in the site, whether required or voluntary, to be sited along a street frontage.
   • Site design regulations to ensure parking is located interior to a building or site and that vehicle access is consolidated.
   • Additional articulation of building material controls.
   Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. There was broad support when we heard this in our last meeting, but we continued the approval to provide more time for stakeholders to become aware and provide feedback before we make the decision. Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused The one developer how expressed some concern met with Community Development and the concern was resolved. No other concerned stakeholder came forward between the meetings.
8. An ordinance approving the annexation of approximately 2.547 acres of property generally located at 1860 South and Colorado Avenue, Provo. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20190140)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. My preview for work meeting item 5: 'I like the idea of this agreement that tries to help the city move forward with the broader annexations but still helps the applicant by moving the first annexation forward in a timely manner. I do worry, though, that despite the agreement, moving forward with the first one without doing the whole group will make it harder to complete the annexations.' Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused See my report for item #5 in the earlier meeting.
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of the real property generally located at 800 North University Avenue and known as Amanda Knight Hall from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Joaquin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190244)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. My preview for work meeting item 6: 'This is a great example of the community advocating for something that was important to them and institutions listening to the feedback and carefully considering how the communities desires could be accommodated. I am interested to learn more about the parking situation.' Continued to the September 10, 2019 Council Meeting. After all the work by so many passionate individuals, BYU, and other partners to find a way to preserve this landmark, we need to find a way to approve the proposal. At the same time, there is far less parking onsite than normally required. The applicant/future landlord says that they will rent to fewer people with cars. That is similar to what we've been told by other applicants. Joaquin Village is a pertinent example of something that was approved with lower off-street parking because the Council at the time expected to be putting in a parking permit program. Unfortunately, the program didn't happen but the apartment complex did. It has been a cause for even scarcer on-street parking. We are revisiting the question of a parking permit program, and if we implement it then I won't worry about the parking impact of approving the Amanda Knight Hall proposal, but we can really count on it until it is done.
   
   In the end we continued it and asked the applicant to come back with a plan to show how they will ensure that they don't rent to people with more cars than can be parked off-street.
10. ***CONTINUED*** The Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Chapter 14.37 of the Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190217)
    This was not ready to be heard.
11. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance to amend Provo City Code 14.34.295 (Downtown Development Design Standards) to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Downtown, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
    This was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 23 July 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:30 PM, Tuesday, July 23, 2019

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

Business

1. A discussion regarding the creation of a Downtown Parking Committee. (19-002)
   Discussions about parking downtown have come up frequently in Council and committee discussions. The anticipated business and population growth as well as the relocation of the City Center building have made the need for a proactive approach to parking downtown more pressing. One option to address this need is to create a Downtown Parking Committee. I love Downtown Provo. One of the things I like about living where I do is that I can easily walk or bike to Downtown and avoiding the hassle and uncertainty of parking. Downtown parking is not a simple issue, but I think everyone can agree that there is plenty of room for improvement and that we are not utilizing our public resources as well as we should. A motion to create a Downtown Parking Committee, with the mission statement "To review the current state of and demand for public on-street and off-street parking in Downtown Provo, as well as the Strategic Parking Management Plan, in order to propose a vision for a functional, convenient, productive, and sustainable parking ecosystem and a high-level plan to bring about that vision.", with David Harding as chair, Gary Winterton as vice-chair, and with David Knecht as a committee member, was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. Downtown parking is not functioning optimally. This is a complex problem that we have been trying to address for a long time. I think we have done much of the background work. Consultants have created a "Strategic Downtown Parking Plan" which is more of a handbook which lays out many possible options. We have worked with the downtown business alliance. We have improved the consistency of parking enforcement. We have improved signage and communication. I feel that we are now in the position to create a master plan to guide our decisions and so we can proactively manage parking downtown. The difficulty in answering the request by the Blue Sky developers highlights the need for such a plan. With some effort, I believe that parking downtown can be a pleasant, convenient experience which will welcome rather than discourage visitors so that parking is no longer a hindrance to the economic vitality of downtown.
2. A discussion of proposed amendments to Provo City Code Section 15.03.035 (Grading) to clarify and change requirements related to grading and grading permits. (19-002)
   The Foothills Protection Committee has met for the last several months to discuss areas they can assist in the preservation and protection of the Provo City Foothills. This particular ordinance amendment stems from the discussion that Council had during the April 23, 2019, Work Meeting. This is the proposed legislation relating to the initial step that was discussed by the Committee to prevent grading issues in the future. The three things which are being discussed are:
   
   (1) Require a Project Plan Proposal with each grading permit. Currently, Provo City Code Section § 15.03.035(2) (Grading) indicates that grading permits can be “obtained at the office of the Provo City Engineer after completion of an application for permit complying with any and all permit requirements.” There are 12 requirements from in PCC § 15.03.035(2) for developers to fulfill. However, if developers were required to provide a plan to fulfill these requirements at the project proposal stage, they will be less likely to abandon grading projects. The additional effort on the part of those seeking a grading permit and gives additional information to Engineering in order to help them as they review projects.
   
   (2) Increase bonding requirements for grading permit projects. The grading permit requirements found in PCC § 15.03.035(4) currently require that:
   - the work is completed by a licensed qualified contractor,
   - payment of all required permit fees and bonds are received prior to commencement of any work, and
   - the project complies with any special conditions required by the City Engineer.
   The Foothills Protection Committee believes that the bonding requirements for grading permits should be increased. Any permit which requires cutting should be given special scrutiny to ensure that the projects are completed to the expected standards.
   
   (3) Require a landscaping plan as part of the project proposal. If each project has a landscaping plan, this would show the City the contractor intends to beautify the project upon completion and leave the project in better condition than when they began. This would also provide the Engineering Division additional information on how the contractor intends to beautify the area upon completion of the project. The landscaping component of the project proposal would also likely result in an increase of the bonding requirement. The City and nearby residents had a very bad experience a couple years ago with a grading project that turned into gravel operation. We had difficulties all along the way. This experience has led us to review the process that is in place that allowed the problems to occur. This committee is submitting these recommendations for changing the process. The discussion in the meeting will help me to better assess if these recommendations strike the right balance between ensuring that grading occurs responsibly and being too onerous. A motion to forward this for review by the Planning Commission was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. This looks good. I'm interested to see if the Planning Commission finds anything that causes concern. Good work, FPC!
3. A discussion of possible legislative efforts to be undertaken by the Foothills Committee of the Municipal Council. (19-002)
   Councilor Handley will review Provo City's current hillside code and the Salt Lake County ordinance on foothill protection to highlight what gaps the Foothills Protection Committee might address next. I really like the principles and balance struck in the Salt Lake County ordinance. I was a bit wary of how far this effort might try to go. Presentation only. The committee will continue to prepare policies and legislation, after which they will bring back future recommendations to the Council. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of this committee's efforts on broader foothill issues.
4. A discussion regarding a proposed Permit Parking Plan ordinance amendment. (19-002)
   In mid- to late-2018, the Policy Governance Committee began discussions to clean up and make amendments to certain elements of the Permit Parking code (see Provo City Code Chapter 9.80). The Permit Parking Areas currently in code have been subject to certain code language that has been outdated since the Parking Enforcement has gone 21st Century. There is no longer a need for actual permits due to the electronic system that Parking Enforcement has put in place. Then there were some procedural elements that the Policy Governance Committee chose to amend certain elements to tighten up the process and add a step for the Planning Commission to review the Permit Parking Area plans. This step is thought to help the Council obtain a land use perspective on these Permit Parking Area plans. Also, there is a fee added to the Consolidated Fee Schedule. This item was heard last time, but was continued to gather more information. Here is what I wrote last time: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.' A motion to refer this item back to the Policy Governance Committee and continue the item at the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019 was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. The Planning Commission indicated that they don't think they are in the best entity to review the applications. I agree, I think that this is more in the scope of the TMAC. The committee will take this back and will have these conversations before returning to the Council with an updated recommendation.
5. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a water carriage agreement with Central Utah Water and the US Department of the Interior. (19-083)
   The City utilizes A shared water conveyance pipe with other agencies in Provo Canyon. This agreement formalizes how the City will pay for its portion of related costs. We need to pay our share of the maintenance costs. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. This is a forty-year agreement. It is a great example of the boring, yet important work and collaboration between public entities that enables our reliable infrastructure.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

6. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with Mill Race Development, LLC for a project located between 500 S and 600 S, 100 W and University Avenue. (19-084)
   The Community Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation (RDA) purchased the property at 54 West 500 South in December of 2017 from Intermountain Farmer’s Association (IFA) in order to help IFA acquire their current location in the former OfficeMax building. This led to an opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the entire block and the RDA can now leverage their ownership of the existing IFA building into a larger development.
   
   RDA staff began to meet with the remaining property owners on the block to gauge their interest in participating with the RDA in the redevelopment of the block. Unbeknownst to staff, Mr. Justin Earl had begun negotiations to acquire the largest piece of property on the block. Once the transaction was finished, we had the opportunity to meet with him and ascertain that he would be interested in the redevelopment of the entire block of property.
   
   Mr. Earl met with his development team and presented a plan that will include an office tower, condominiums for sale and apartments for lease on the property. The development will also include meeting space and structured parking. Mr. Earl intends to offer some workforce housing as part of the office space. Should a firm lease space in the office tower, they would be able to contract for an apartment that would be available to their employees who make 60% of the area median income. Mr. Earl and his company have worked with the City’s Community Development department to provide both a Development Agreement and PRO Zone for this block and are now looking to have the attached Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in order to begin the construction process.
   
   The OPA provides for the transfer of property to Mr. Earl’s company with the requirement that the development could pay the RDA back after 10 years at the market value of $1,600,000 or pay the RDA back at a later date by appraising the development and paying the RDA one-fourth of the land value of the project, one-fourth being the RDA’s approximate holding in the block. The developer is also asking the RDA to consider providing tax increment to the project in exchange for public parking in the parking structure. I am comfortable in the delay of paying for the land. We purchased the land to spur development and that is exactly what is happening. I will feel more comfortable with the TIF request knowing that Provo will be better managing our public parking assets. Still, we need to make sure that the value that the public parking is providing the community is worth the taxes that will be offset. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. This agreement governs how the RDA property will be contributed in the project. The details of any TIF for the project will be worked out at a later date.
7. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
   Community Development has identified deficiencies in the Campus Mixed Use Zone pertaining to design regulation. The zone currently only requires one door on each street frontage, has no habitable first floor requirement or any regulation of windows and visual permeability at the first floor. Staff is studying amendments to the zone to provide sufficient regulation of these design elements. Staff has also integrated previously proposed amendments to the materials standards into these proposed amendments. The amendments under consideration include the following.
   A minimum habitable first floor depth as measured from the street facing façade. In the downtown this is 30’.
   A minimum number of pedestrian building entrances. For residential in the downtown an exterior entrance is required for each street facing unit.
   A minimum requirement for first floor windows and openings.
   
   Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. I support this effort to better define our design standards. I feel that we should be moving towards more form-based zoning requirements. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. The presentation only reinforced my impression from before. This is the direction that our zoning code needs to pursue.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

1. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. (19-003)
   Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Stephen Mongie and James Hamula serve on the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. Their appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the Municipal Council and have been submitted to the Council for review. I served on the TMAC before I joined the Council, so it is near and dear to my heart. I served with fewer and fewer of the current committee members, but I'm grateful to the new members who are aptly stepping into our shoes. Approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. They will serve the City well.
2. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'I support this effort to better define our design standards. I feel that we should be moving towards more form-based zoning requirements.' Continued by Council Rules to the Council Meeting on August 6, 2019. These are good changes, but we wanted to give people who will be affected to have more time to learn and submit feedback before we make the decision.
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 9.80 to update language and amend procedures regarding permit parking areas. (19-002)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'This item was heard last time, but was continued to gather more information. Here is what I wrote last time: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.' Continued during the Work Meeting on July 23, 2019. See the report of agenda item #4 from the earlier meeting.
4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a water carriage agreement with Central Utah Water and the US Department of the Interior. (19-083)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'We need to pay our share of the maintenance costs.' Approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. This is what I wrote after hearing this item in the earlier meeting, 'This is a forty-year agreement. It is a great example of the boring, yet important work and collaboration between public entities that enables our reliable infrastructure.'



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

5. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with Mill Race Development, LLC to transfer Agency-owned property for a project located between 500 S and 600 S and 100 W and University Ave. (19-084)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'I am comfortable in the delay of paying for the land. We purchased the land to spur development and that is exactly what is happening. I will feel more comfortable with the TIF request knowing that Provo will be better managing our public parking assets. Still, we need to make sure that the value that the public parking is providing the community is worth the taxes that will be offset.' Approved 6:0, with David Harding excused. This item was actually heard last in the meeting, after the lengthy discussion on item #6. I stepped out to talk with the applicant of item #6 and missed this vote. I support their decision.
6. A resolution approving a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
   Staff has been working with McKay Christensen on a proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Center Street and 100 East. The ground floor will be commercial and the remaining floors will be residential with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Christensen intends to provide all the necessary parking for his project in a parking structure at the center of the complex. However, the cost to provide parking onsite for his commercial uses is proving to be cost prohibitive. Mr. Christensen is requesting he be allowed to utilize a portion of the 204 parking spaces allocated to the Redevelopment Agency in the Wells Fargo parking structure. The Redevelopment Agency previously approved 63 East using 40 of those spaces for the residents of 63 East. We last considered this request in a formal meeting about a month ago. This was the direct impetus for creating the Downtown Parking Committee. Here is what I reported after we heard the item last time, 'Parking is not well managed downtown. Provo's RDA has invested in parking projects, but others are managing the resources. I think that the city needs to rethink our approach to downtown parking. I fear that if we grant this request we'll be doubling down on the old, broken model, tying up these resources for a quarter-century for far, far below the value of the stalls. Also, the request for dedicated stalls is problematic and very inefficient.' A motion to amend the exhibit to the resolution was approved, after which a vote on a motion to approve the resolution as amended failed 3:4, with George Handley, David Sewell, and David Knecht in favor; and with George Stewart, Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton, and David Harding opposed. This is as narrow of a decision as they come. A new day is dawning for parking in Downtown Provo. By turning down this proposal, this development and all of Downtown will have an even better parking situation.



Adjournment

Council Meeting - 9 July 2019

It's been a couple years since I missed an official council meeting. I will be missing the meetings on Tuesday. Fortunately, it is a lighter day of meetings than we've had in a long time. Our Work Meeting is starting at 3pm. Even the councilors who have been serving longer than me can't remember ever starting that early.

The items that will likely generate the most public interest are the urban deer removal program and the resolution on changing the form of the county government.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

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

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

1. A discussion regarding a proposed Permit Parking Plan ordinance amendment. (19-002)
   In mid- to late-2018, the Policy Governance Committee began discussions to clean up and make amendments to certain elements of the Permit Parking code (see Provo City Code Chapter 9.80). The Permit Parking Areas currently in code have been subject to certain code language that has been outdated since the Parking Enforcement has gone 21st Century. There is no longer a need for actual permits due to the electronic system that Parking Enforcement has put in place. Then there were some procedural elements that the Policy Governance Committee chose to amend certain elements to tighten up the process and add a step for the Planning Commission to review the Permit Parking Area plans. This step is thought to help the Council obtain a land use perspective on these Permit Parking Area plans. Also, there is a fee added to the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
2. A discussion regarding a resolution of support for the recommendation from the Utah County Good Governance Board regarding the Utah County structure of government. (19-060)
   After several weeks of deliberation, on Monday, June 10, 2019, the Utah County Good Governance Board joined Strengthen Utah County in recommending that Utah County change its form of government from a three-person commission to a full-time mayor with seven part-time council members. Five council members would be elected in geographic districts, and two would be elected at large. The recommended change will be placed on the ballot this November 2019. This change is long overdue. There is consensus in the community that this should happen and should happen this fall. I strongly support the recommendations. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. See my discussion for item #4 in the evening meeting.
3. A discussion regarding the proposed Urban Deer Control Plan. (19-047)
   The Urban Deer program has received preliminary approval from the Council to progress to the point where an Urban Deer Control Plan has been put together, a budget has been prepared, and the Council needs to approve the final pieces in order to make the Plan operational. To do this this resolution takes three steps: 1. This is the second required public hearing to renew our Certificate of Registration with the Division of Wildlife Resources 2. This resolution approves the Urban Deer Control Plan, and 3. Appropriates the needed funds to make it operational. The COR from the Division of Wildlife Resources will be authorized for another three-year period. This is the final step in making the Urban Deer Program move forward in the process. We've run this program for three years, but it is difficult to get good measurements as to what the impact has been. As we renew the program, we have an opportunity to make improvements based on what we've learned.
   
   The non-lethal portion of the old program was expensive, unsafe for the workers, and too often ended in death for the translocated deer. I don't believe the council will continue this portion. The lethal portion can only be used in the less populous areas of the city, where the urban deer mix with the mountain deer. This year there is a new option, it traps, like the old non-lethal option, but instead of transporting the deer they are euthanized. This option can be used in the denser parts of the city where the urban deer hang out. I believe the council will be renewing the program without the old non-lethal option. I hope that the council focuses on the new trap-and-euthanize option, but gives the operator enough flexibility to adjust to what makes the most sense. A motion to replace the text beginning in line 9 of the resolution with the text from the second paragraph of Exhibit A was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. A motion to change the language to read 'up to$15,000' for the appropriation was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. Clarifications were made to better communicate that the target of this program are the urbanized deer -- deer that live year-round in the city -- and not mountain deer who just visit the city looking for food in the winter, and to communicate that the main motivation for the program is to improve public safety.
4. A discussion regarding proposed amendments to Personnel Policies in Title 4. (19-082)
   As the Administration was preparing for implementing changes to leave policies that were proposed with the annual budget this year, a number of inconsistencies between current practices and some older provisions of the Municipal Code in Title 4 were noted. Many of the personnel provisions in Title 4 are no longer in alignment with standard personnel policies and administrative practices and are somewhat antiquated. A few of these include:
   • A provision that 'total remuneration' to employees cannot exceed the amount in the pay plan - for many years bonuses, temporary acting pay, sick leave buy back and other programs technically haven’t been in alignment with the code
   • Leave administration practices that have evolved over time that are no longer technically in compliance with older provisions of the code
   • A requirement that all new employees start at step 1 of their ranges - for at least 20 years starting wage for a new employee has been based on experience, market and other factors that have helped attract and retain quality employees. The police lateral program established last year, for example, would not be in keeping with the strict interpretation of Title 4.
   I believe Provo City Code is too specific and rigid when it comes to employee compensation. It should establish broad principles and policies and leave plenty of room for the administration to adopt best practices and adapt to the changing labor market to remain competitive and attract and retain quality employees to serve our residents. Presentation only. This item will return to the Council at a future date. The council discussed personnel compensation policy with the administration in broad terms, to try to come to an understanding regarding the level of specificity that should be targeted in the code re-write.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

5. A discussion regarding a proposed amendment to Provo City Code 14.50(30) to amend the title, purpose, and objectives to the 50 East Project Redevelopment Option Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLOTA20190170)
   The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the text of the existing 14.50(30) PRO Zone to allow the zone to be more adaptable to the proposed 64-unit condo project and potential future projects in other areas focused on entry-level housing. The existing language is specific in title, as well as, the purpose and objectives to a project that was not constructed. Planning Commission recommended approval. This won't change any of the regulations. It changes the descriptive language identifying the zone. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. Instead of creating a new zone, Community Development worked with the developer to find an existing PRO zone that was close to what they are planning to create. The one they found had been established years ago, but the project that it was created for was never built. This action just changes the description in the zone to make it applicable to this project and keeps it broad so that it will be applicable to possible future projects as well.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

1. Introduction of the new Foothills Neighborhood Chair, Ruth Thomas.
   
2. Introduction of the new North Park Neighborhood Chair, Eric Chase.
   
   

   Public Comment

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

   Action Agenda

3. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (19-003)
   The Mayor regularly makes appointments to various boards and commissions, with the consent of the Municipal Council. The following appointments will be presented to the Council for their consent:
   • Kris Whitehead - Airport Board
   • Adam Robertson - Airport Board
   • Scott Glenn - Arts Council
   • Jeff Ringer - Landmarks Commission
   • Diane Christensen - Landmarks Commission
   • Susan Fales - Landmarks Commission
   • Jaisa Bishop - Landmarks Commission
   • Jennifer Wright - Library Board
   • Rebecca Burton - Library Board
   • Cynthia Gagon - Library Board
   • Allyssa Pike - Library Board
   • Andrew Renick - Board of Adjustment
   Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I am grateful to the many people who volunteer their time to serve on our various boards and commissions. Their work is essential in the function of the city and is an important way for decisions to be made with broad public input.
4. A resolution supporting the Utah County Good Governance Advisory Board's proposal to include the change of government question on the November 2019 ballot. (19-060)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. Like I said in the Work Meeting preview, 'This change is long overdue. There is consensus in the community that this should happen and should happen this fall. I strongly support the recommendations.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. "The big news is that earlier in the day a Commissioner surprised the community with a maneuver that may effectively scuttle the effort to change the form of county government. The State Legislature created a provision in the law designed to prevent a County Commission from blocking the people's efforts to change the form of government. This provision was abused to do what it was designed to prevent. This Daily Herald editorial does a good job laying out the background of the situation. I am pleased that the Council passed this resolution of support and am still hopeful that the people of Utah County will get to vote this fall on whether to change the form of county government."
5. A resolution authorizing submission of a final Urban Deer Control Plan and authorizing the request for the Certificate of Registration ('COR') from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (19-047)
   This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I said earlier on this item, 'We've run this program for three years, but it is difficult to get good measurements as to what the impact has been. As we renew the program, we have an opportunity to make improvements based on what we've learned.
   
   The non-lethal portion of the old program was expensive, unsafe for the workers, and too often ended in death for the translocated deer. I don't believe the council will continue this portion. The lethal portion can only be used in the less populous areas of the city, where the urban deer mix with the mountain deer. This year there is a new option, it traps, like the old non-lethal option, but instead of transporting the deer they are euthanized. This option can be used in the denser parts of the city where the urban deer hang out. I believe the council will be renewing the program without the old non-lethal option. I hope that the council focuses on the new trap-and-euthanize option, but gives the operator enough flexibility to adjust to what makes the most sense.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. From the earlier meeting: 'Clarifications were made to better communicate that the target of this program are the urbanized deer -- deer that live year-round in the city -- and not mountain deer who just visit the city looking for food in the winter, and to communicate that the main motivation for the program is to improve public safety.'
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Division of Community and Neighborhood Services and Department of Development Services. (19-036)
   During the Mayor's State of the Union in January 2019, she announced that the Administration would be restructuring to create two separate departments in order to provide better service delivery to residents in the form of a one-stop shop for development. The two departments--Dept. of Community and Neighborhood Services and Dept. of Development Services--would be created by taking the tasks held in Economic Development, Redevelopment Agency, and then divvying up some of the services from Community Development and Public Works to get the employees for these departments. The Administration will address the Title 2 amendments necessary to formally create the Division of Community and Neighborhood Services and the Department of Development Services. Like I said earlier, 'This is a pretty big deal, and is the culmination of years of effort. I believe this restructuring will better serve the interests of Provo.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I am looking forward to improved services for both the neighborhoods as well as developers.
7. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code 14.50(30) to amend the title, purpose, and objectives to the 50 East Project Redevelopment Option Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLOTA20190170)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. From the earlier meeting, 'This won't change any of the regulations. It changes the descriptive language identifying the zone.' Approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. From the earlier meeting, 'Instead of creating a new zone, Community Development worked with the developer to find an existing PRO zone that was close to what they are planning to create. The one they found had been established years ago, but the project that it was created for was never built. This action just changes the description in the zone to make it applicable to this project and keeps it broad so that it will be applicable to possible future projects as well.'
8. ***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending the General Plan designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R) for approx 0.78 acres of real property generally located at 862 E Quail Valley Drive. Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190009)
   This item was not ready to be heard
9. ***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approx 0.78 acres of real property, generally located at 862 East Quail Valley Drive, from Public Facilities (PF) Low Density Residential (LDR). Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180430)
   This item was not ready to be heard
10. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.285 regarding the design standards for buildings in the Campus Mixed Use Zone. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190025)
    This item was not ready to be heard



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 18 June 2019

Sorry, everyone, for this being so late. There has been a lot of discussion and exploring going on related to parking, and this kept me from finishing up my previews. Besides the parking items, the department reorganization and new department is a pretty big deal. I also feel that allowing detached accessories is a big change that will have long term impact.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, June 18, 2019

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

1. Approval of minutes.
   
   

   Budget Committee

2. A discussion regarding changes to the FY 2019-2020 Tentative Budget. (19-004)
   Some changes have been made to the FY 2019-2020 Tentative Budget. In addition to noting these changes for the Council, John Borget will also discuss the changes to the Consolidated Fee Schedule and the new job descriptions updated after the addition of the deputy chief position in the Police Department. So far there have been few adjustments and no requests for changes. I believe this is due to the robust process that we went through before the budget was proposed and because the council and administration communicated and collaborated on the priorities addressed by the budget. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. We got a rundown on the adjustments that had occurred since the tentative budget was approved and they were all minor.



Business

3. A discussion regarding an appropriation for the Airport operating budget. (19-078)
   The Airport would like to increase their operating budget by $60,000; $30,000 for personnel, and $30,000 for operating costs. The need for the increase in personnel is mostly being driven by overtime expenses. The Airport typically goes through this budget by September. It has been increased in the FY2020 budget as a supplemental request, but needs to be increased in FY2019 to cover what has occurred in the current year. This cost is driven by staff's requirement to have someone at the airport for every commercial flight.
   
   The need for the increase in operating expenses is due to multiple other factors as well. The cost of snow removal at the airport this year was double what it was last year due to the amount of snow. They also had an unexpected one-time expenditure to receive environmental clearances for new hangar pads; the low bid received for our entry landscaping maintenance contract was much higher this year, and they also had some property appraisals done for potential land purchases. The Airport is covering the cost of this appropriation with higher-than-budgeted revenues. As of today, they are already $26,000 above budget. They are confident that with the remaining parking revenue set to come in (estimated at approximately $30,000, received in account 3832-Lease), $20,000 from Allegiant for passenger and landing fees, and $10,000 anticipated in fuel flowage fees, they will have the revenue needed to cover this appropriation. With increased usage come both increased expenses and increased revenues. This appropriation will allow the airport to use the increased revenues to pay for their increased expenses. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. The city staff at the airport are going to great lengths to keep the airport functioning well despite being understaffed. The growth and reports of great customer service are testaments to their efforts.
4. A discussion on the creation of Community and Neighborhood Services and Development Services. (19-036)
   During the Mayor's State of the Union delivery in January 2019, she announced that the Administration would be restructuring to create two separate departments in order to provide better service delivery to residents in the form of a one stop shop for development. The two departments - Dept. of Community and Neighborhood Services and Dept. of Development Services - would be created by taking the tasks held in Economic Development, Redevelopment Agency, and then divvy up some of the services from Community Development and Public Works to get the employees for these departments. The Administration will address the Title 2 amendments necessary to formally create the Department of Community and Neighborhood Services and the Department of Development Services. This past week I had a frustrated neighbor approach me because a lot subdivision request that affected her future plans was denied. She wanted to know who to talk to overturn this decision. I had to explain that it is not my role to overturn staff decisions, but to set city policies and provide oversight, to establish the framework in which the city provides services. Yes, it's all very bureaucratic, and it takes time and effort to make changes. This effort, years in the making, is an attempt to streamline the development process and to make it easier to navigate and get clear answers for people like my neighbor. It is not a trivial matter to create and reorganize city departments. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 9, 2019. The plan hasn't deviated much since we first received the broad outline. Most of the details have now been worked out.
5. A discussion regarding the parking requirements and Transportation Demand Management plans for multi-family developments. (19-074)
   The Housing Executive Committee has met to discuss the idea of amending the parking requirements for multi-family developments. There is currently an exception for non-profit entities with regards to those building multi-family developments. Council has attempted to provide alternatives to developers by approving a Transportation Demand Management program for developers of multi-family developments. This discussion is intended to provide further clarification on this issue. The city has struggled to find the right requirement for parking. Parking is expensive and impacts the cost of housing in the city. Too much parking needlessly raises the cost of housing. Too little impacts both the residents of the housing and the residents near the housing. The TDM program could be a way to allow savings on parking by developers designing and building aspects into their project that reduce the demand for parking. Presentation only. This item will be presented to the Housing Committee for review after a proposal is drafted. The council was supportive of the idea generally and agreed to move it to the next step for consideration.
6. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amendment to Provo City Code Chapter 9.17 (Civil Infractions) parking violations (19-023)
   "The amendments to the Civil Infractions chapter are necessary for two reasons. First, to restructure the fee schedule to comply with Utah Legislature HB0336 which modified the assessment of late fees for violations and will cause the City to be out of compliance as of July 1st, 2019. Second, a proposed increase to all the violation fees to generate an average increase of 25% to the annual revenue generated to cover expected Parking Enforcement operations for the next five budgeted years.
   
   A couple years ago, Parking Enforcement started the transition to become a stand alone function separate from Police and was officially under the oversight of the Customer Service Department in December of 2017. After a full year of analyzing the operations, including staffing, rebranding, equipment, establishing routes, etc.as well as identifying potential immediate and future needs for the enforcement effort, an operating costs vs. revenue analysis has been completed. An increase in the current operating budget and the budget for the next few years will be necessary.
   
   Provo's City's Civil Infraction or Parking Violation Code has not been modified for over 10 years, and the parking violation fee amounts longer than that. Since the City needs to restructure the fees to comply with the new law, and there is the data to propose and support an increase in fee amounts, it seems appropriate to satisfy both needs at this time. The proposed new fees are in line with surrounding cities and with BYU. The new structure allows for a discount as an incentive to pay on time rather than penalizing a late payer." Consistent, dependable, credible enforcement of parking regulations will do much to alleviate parking problems in Provo. I do want to make sure that we are complying with the spirit of the new state law, and not just the letter based on a technicality. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. See my report for Item #12 in the evening meeting.
7. A discussion regarding the HOME Consortium Interlocal Agreement. (19-075)
   This is a renewal of the HOME Consortium agreement that brings several local government agencies together with Provo as the lead entity. The consortium manages federal funds from the HOME Program. As the seat of the county, it makes sense for Provo to be the lead entity of the consortium. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. There were no surprises. The presentation followed the materials provided beforehand.
8. A presentation regarding the annexation process. (19-076)
   Annexation is a critical but sometimes complicated process. This presentation will outline and clarify the process and highlight the Council's role. We've seen an uptick in annexation requests, with one recently withdrawn and another on the meeting's agenda. We deal with these so infrequently that it will be good to review the process. Presentation only. There are two main steps for the council in the annexation process. The first question is early in the process and asks if we are even interested in considering the annexation. This is done by petition. If the petition is accepted then city staff research the proposed annexation and returns at the end of the process with a report and recommendation. That is when the council makes the final decision on the proposed annexation.
9. A discussion regarding the East Bay Annexation. (PLANEX20190140)
   It has been suggested that a parcel of land located at approximately 1860 South and Colorado Avenue be annexed into Provo City. The owners have submitted all of the necessary documentation. There are no conflicting water rights in the area. The plan for the area is to build a storage unit called East Bay Self Storage. Construction on the project is anticipated to be completed in April 2020. I believe this is in our existing annexation plan. So far, I haven't seen a reason to deny the petition. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. This is a fairly straight-forward request and will be good for Provo.
10. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
    Staff has been working with McKay Christensen on a proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Center Street and 100 East. The ground floor will be commercial and the remaining floors will be residential with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Christensen intends to provide all the necessary parking for his project in a parking structure at the center of the complex. However, the cost to provide parking onsite for his commercial uses is proving to be cost prohibitive. Mr. Christensen is requesting he be allowed to utilize a portion of the 204 parking spaces allocated to the Redevelopment Agency in the Wells Fargo parking structure. The Redevelopment Agency previously approved 63 East using 40 of those spaces for the residents of 63 East. Our discussion two weeks ago highlighted several complications with this request. I support the project and feel that the Redevelopment Agency has a part to play in this, but there is no simple way to approve the request. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. Parking is not well managed downtown. Provo's RDA has invested in parking projects, but others are managing the resources. I think that the city needs to rethink our approach to downtown parking. I fear that if we grant this request we'll be doubling down on the old, broken model, tying up these resources for a quarter-century for far, far below the value of the stalls. Also, the request for dedicated stalls is problematic and very inefficient.



Business

11. A discussion regarding an update to Provo City Code Title 10 making amendment to the Sewer and Water Chapters of the Title. (19-072)
    Changes to Title 10 - Water Resources Chapters 10.02 (Water Service - General Provisions), 10.03 (Sewer Service - General Provisions), and 10.04 (Pre-treatment Program). These changes update the code to create consistency with the development guidelines and comply with State and Federal regulations. We discussed this two weeks ago. The document for Chapter 10.04 is much easier to read, but it is still difficult to understand what exactly is changing. I have a couple questions, but based on our previous discussion, I assume I'll be ready to vote on this by the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. My questions were answered and this is a good code-maintenance step.
12. A discussion of proposed amendments to Provo City Code 15.03.035 (Grading) to clarify and change requirements related to grading and grading permits. (19-002)
    "The Foothills Protection Committee has met for the last several months to discuss areas they can assist in the preservation and protection of the Provo City Foothills. This particular ordinance amendment stems from the discussion that Council had during the April 23, 2019, Work Meeting. This is the proposed legislation relating to the initial step that was discussed by the Committee to prevent grading issues in the future. The three things which are being discussed are:
    1. Require a Project Plan Proposal with each grading permit. Currently, Provo City Code Section § 15.03.035(2) (Grading) indicates that grading permits can be “obtained at the office of the Provo City Engineer after completion of an application for permit complying with any and all permit requirements.” There are 12 requirements from in PCC § 15.03.035(2) for developers to fulfill. However, if developers were required to provide a plan to fulfill these requirements at the project proposal stage, they will be less likely to abandon grading projects. The additional effort on the part of those seeking a grading permit and gives additional information to Engineering in order to help them as they review projects.
    2. Increase bonding requirements for grading permit projects. The grading permit requirements found in PCC § 15.03.035(4) currently require that:
       • the work is completed by a licensed qualified contractor,
       • payment of all required permit fees and bonds are received prior to commencement of any work, and
       • the project complies with any special conditions required by the City Engineer.
       The Foothills Protection Committee believes that the bonding requirements for grading permits should be increased. Any permit which requires cutting should be given special scrutiny to ensure that the projects are completed to the expected standards.
    3. Require a landscaping plan as part of the project proposal. If each project has a landscaping plan, this would show the City the contractor intends to beautify the project upon completion and leave the project in better condition than when they began. This would also provide the Engineering Division additional information on how the contractor intends to beautify the area upon completion of the project. The landscaping component of the project proposal would also likely result in an increase of the bonding requirement.
    " I support the work of this committee and look forward to their presentation. I like the sound of what they are proposing so that we can prevent the problems we saw a couple years ago near the mouth of Provo Canyon. Presentation only. Additional clarification is needed on whether or not these proposed amendments apply to grading occurring in conjunction with a building permit. After this point is resolved, this item will be brought back to the July 9, 2019 Work Meeting. There were a lot of questions raised that will need to be answered by the committee before we can move forward with this proposal. The main one was how would this affect residential development.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

13. A discussion about a Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) to Low Density Residential and a General Plan Amendment from PF to Residential for 0.78 ac to allow 4 townhomes at 862 E Quail Valley Drive. Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190009&PLRZ20180430)
    The subject property is an infill parcel located between the existing office building on Quail Valley Drive and the Timpview High School Seminary. The applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation for the property from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R) to allow for a six-unit, single-family townhome development project. Planning Commission recommended approval. I believe it is best to have a variety of housing types mixed in throughout our city. I still need to understand this particular proposal better, but in general, this appears to be an appropriate place to have four townhomes. It is between a seminary and an office building and would be accessed directly from a main road. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. See my report for item #13 in the evening meeting.
14. A discussion regarding a request for ordinance text amendments to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A-Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190120)
    This item is an Ordinance Text Amendment to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S - Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A - Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone, as well as adopt related amendments. This item was first heard at the April 24, 2019, Planning Commission meeting where it was continued to the May 22, 2019, meeting. The amendment was discussed in detail at the May 22, 2019, Planning Commission’s Study Session along with the comments submitted by Paul Evans, the Pleasant View Neighborhood Chair. The item was then continued at the May 22nd meeting, to allow time for staff to present the changes discussed at the study session. Staff has made changes to the proposed amendment based on comments at the May 22, 2019 study session. The new changes are of two kinds: The first includes formatting and grammatical changes. The second group includes changes that add wording meant to clarify the intent of particular sections. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support the concept of this proposal, but I don't think we are ready to implement it. This will impact areas that already have an A or S overlay applied, but I don't feel the residents of these areas have been properly notified of the proposed changes. I also feel that we need reliable enforcement to educate and deter people from misusing these new uses, and I do not yet have confidence that we are there. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. See my report for item #15 in the evening meeting.
15. A discussion on a request for a zone change for approximately 2.12 acres of real property, from R1.10 to a Project Redevelopment Option Zone (PRO), generally located at 1320 S State Street. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190100)
    The subject property is an infill parcel located between the existing Provo School District bus barn site to the south, State Street to the east, a Provo City Power substation to the west, and the previously approved Autumn View townhome project to the north. The site has been vacant for a number of years and is located in an area intended for medium density development according to the Southeast Provo neighborhood plan. The proposed rezone will allow a new multi-family housing project consisting of 64 two bedroom condominium units divided among four (4) four-story buildings with four (4) units per floor. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. There is a lot to like about this proposal. I believe it will be a solid step towards addressing the affordability problems with housing in Provo. If I have a gripe about the project, though, it would be in the layout of the buildings. I'm not a fan of stacking apartment buildings as if they were rows of filing cabinets. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. See my report for item #16 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. Presentation of Awards from the Utah County Child Abuse Prevention Team. (19-077)
   We live in a great community because of the many people who volunteer and work on behalf of others. Presentation only. Three groups were honored and their stories were truly inspiring.
2. Presentation by the Utah Geographic Information Council Conference Map Contest winner. (19-079)
   Stan McShinksy is a web developer for our GIS Team and creates amazing map-based art. Presentation only. Take a look at his work of art!
   

   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 execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement to authorize Provo's participation in the UT Valley HOME Consortium in US Dept of Housing and Urban Development's HOME Investment Partnership Program (Fed FY20-22) (19-075)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 7 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. This is a good arrangement for all of the participating entities.
4. A public hearing and an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020, in the amount of $254,958,760. (19-004)
   This is the final public hearing as part of the budget process as required by Section 10-6-111(3) of the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities. More information about the budget process can be found on our website. This should be the final step in passing the budget for next year. A substitute motion was made to revise the final total budget; correct references for consistency; amend the certified tax rates in lines 58 to 60; and amend the consolidated fee schedule to increase the airport parking fee to $6. The ordinance was subsequently approved 7:0. We first heard an item explaining the amount of utility fees that are transferred into the city's general fund. These transfers are important to the city and help keep property taxes down on our residents and businesses. More than half of the land in Provo is owned by non-taxable entities, but many of these entities use significant city services like police and roads. Utilities are paid by everyone, so this is one way that these non-profits can help contribute to the cost of the services they use. The trick is to run our utilities so efficiently that we can charge roughly the same as other nearby communities for our utilities, and still transfer money (roughly 11%) to the General Fund.



Stormwater Service District

5. A public hearing and a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $5,123,278 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-006)
   This is the final public hearing required to establish the budget. This should be the final step in passing the budget for next year. A substitute motion was made to update the budget total and the resolution approved 7:0.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

6. A public hearing and a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of 2,429,132. (19-005)
   This is the final public hearing required to establish the budget. This should be the final step in passing the budget for next year. A substitute motion was made to update the budget total and the resolution was approved 7:0.
7. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
   This was item 10 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 10 in the earlier meeting. A motion to call the question failed 2:5, with Councilors David Harding, David Knecht, David Sewell, George Handley, and Gary Winterton opposed. A substitute motion to continue the item to the July 9, 2019 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. If you haven't seen my report for item #10 in the earlier meeting. The council was unsettled regarding the request to lease the parking stalls for 24 years. We have not found a solution that works for the developer as well as for the public parking downtown.



Action Agenda

8. A resolution appropriating $139,530 from the General Fund in the Fire Dept. General Fund for the purchase of a temporary apparatus facility during the relocation of Fire Station 2 applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-073)
   This is a resolution appropriating $139,530 from the General Fund for the purchase of a "membrane" structure for the housing of fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles during the demolition and reconstruction of Fire Station #2. The structure will then be relocated to fleet services for reserve apparatus storage and fleet maintenance purposes. We talked about this last week. This is how I reported that discussion, "1. The cost to rent is more than the cost to buy (though it is a different structure). 2. Since this is a purchase that will last longer than the immediate need during the building of the new fire station, project leaders were uncomfortable with using bond money for the purchase. 3. Because actual costs for the temporary staging site are higher by about the amount estimated for the structure rental, the whole amount of the structure purchase, set-up, and eventual move is being asked for as an appropriation." Approved 7:0. I've explained this item a few times. Talk a look at the "preview" to the left. The cost is more than anticipated, but we will be getting an asset that will be of value to our fleet managers for decades.
9. A resolution appropriating $60,000 from the General Fund in the Airport Fund for personnel and operating costs applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-078)
   This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 3 in the earlier meeting. A substitute motion to correct the resolution to state that the appropriation would come from the Airport Fund balance was approved, after which the resolution was approved 7:0. See my preview and report for item 3 in the earlier meeting.
10. A resolution accepting or denying an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 2.55 acres of property generally located at 1860 South and Colorado Avenue. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20190140)
    This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 9 in the earlier meeting. A motion to accept the petition was approved 7:0. From my report in the earlier meeting: "This is a fairly straight-forward request and will be good for Provo."
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct and update Title 10 (Water Resources). (19-072)
    This was item 11 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 11 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. From my report earlier: "This is a good code-maintenance step"
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 9.17 Civil Infractions (Parking Violations). (19-023)
    This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 6 in the earlier meeting. Approved 5:2, with Councilors David Sewell and George Handley opposed. Our parking fines are far less than neighboring entities. Right now we have a very low initial fine, but it escalates as time goes on. This ordinance raises the fees to be comparable with others, but offers a discount for people who pay early to help motivate people to pay their fines quickly.
13. An ordinance amending General Plan regarding a designation change from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R) for approximately 0.78 acres located at approximately at 862 East Quail Valley Drive. Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190009)
    This was item 13 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 13 in the earlier meeting. Continued to July 9, 2019 Council Meeting. The applicant has tried to address concerns raised by concerned neighbors, but missed the mark on a few of his efforts. There was conflicting information about whether the School District is interested in the property. We continued the item for three weeks to see if the neighborhood and applicant could continue to negotiate and the get more clarity on a few questions.
14. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 0.78 acres of real property, generally located at 862 East Quail Valley Drive, from Public Facilities (PF) Low Density Residential (LDR). Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180430)
    This was item 13 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 13 in the earlier meeting. Continued to July 9, 2019 Council Meeting. same as above
15. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to consolidate Chapter 14.30 (S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone) with Chapter 14.46 (A-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone) and adopt related amendments. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190120)
    This was item 14 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 14 in the earlier meeting. Continued to a future meeting. Overall this is a good proposal, but we need to implement it wisely and with plenty of notice to neighbors who will be affected by it. We will likely bring pieces of it forward and implement it in a piecemeal fashion.
16. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 2.1 acres generally located at 1320 S State St, from Residential (R1.10) to a new Entry Level Housing (ELH) Project Redevelopment Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190100)
    This was item 15 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 15 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. One councilor asked the applicants when they are planning for their next project in Provo. There is a lot to like in their proposal. It is a good step towards housing that is more affordable to beginning homeowners. This will be a condo project.
17. ***CONTINUED*** The Community Development Department requests approval of the 2019 Moderate Income Housing Plan, which is an update to the existing plan. City-wide application. PLGPA20190194
    This item was not ready to be heard
18. ***WITHDRAWN*** Julie Smith requests the annexation (Peay Annexation) of 13.45 acres of property into the incorporated limits of Provo City, located at approximately 5400 N Canyon Road. North Timpview and Riverbottoms Neighborhoods. PLANEX20180355
    This item was withdrawn by the applicant.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 4 June 2019

This will be the first public hearing on our $280M budget. We will be making some decisions about Downtown parking. But the item that will likely generate the most public feedback will be the offer to buy Timp Kiwanis Bounous Park.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, June 4, 2019

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

1. A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
   Blue Sky Development is planning a mixed use development at the corner of Center Street and 100 East. They will park their residential tenants but need assistance parking their commercial tenants and are requesting the use of some of the Agency's spaces in the Wells Fargo tower. Provo's RDA (Redevelopment Agency) helped pay for the parking structure next to the Wells Fargo building. We own some of the parking stalls there. This was done to help make the Wells Fargo project happen, as well as to give us the ability to use that parking in the future to help make future projects happen. Well, the future is now. The Blue Sky project is both a residential as well as a commercial project, similar to what we've been asking for in our Downtown. The project will have parking on site for the residential component, but wants to rent some of our spaces in the Wells Fargo garage for their commercial customers.
   
   I do have some questions about how this will work and be managed. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 4, 2019, however a motion to continue the item was approved 7:0. Right now the parking in the garage is not managed. For the most part, it is open and free to the public. When asked, the presenter explained that the plan for the foreseeable future is for the parking stalls to continue to be unmanaged. There isn't really a good way to ensure that the stalls are being used by patrons to the businesses and restaurants who would be leasing the spaces. I, as well as other councilors, have concerns about entering into long term leases of these spots. I support the Blue Sky project, but I'm not sure this is the best way to provide parking for the project.



Business

2. A discussion regarding an update to Provo City Code Title 10 making amendment to the Sewer and Water Chapters of the Title. (19-072)
   Changes to Title 10 - Water Resources Chapters 10.02 (Water Service - General Provisions), 10.03 (Sewer Service - General Provisions), and 10.04 (Pre-treatment Program). These changes update the code to create consistency with the development guidelines and comply with State and Federal regulations. This is mostly a code clean up and streamlining by referring to applicable State and Federal regulations. The changes to the section on sewer treatment are fairly extensive, so it is harder to follow what is actually being changed. Presentation only. This item will be heard at a future Council Meeting. We gave it a preliminary thumbs-up. It'll be brought back to a future Council Meeting. Hopefully, the third document will be formatted in a way that it is more understandable.
3. A discussion regarding the repeal of Provo City Code Section 2.60.040 (19-071)
   This section of the code reflects historic procedures in the Council office that predated the current use of technology to facilitate publication of meeting materials. This was a good catch by our staff. Departments don't need to submit a paper copy of proposed ordinances to me. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 4, 2019. There were no concerns with this proposal.
4. A discussion regarding an appropriation for a temporary apparatus facility during the relocation of Fire Station #2 (19-073)
   When the new Fire Station is being built the Fire Department is going to be temporarily relocated during that time. They have a location they'll be leasing for living quarters for the firefighters and intended to lease the location for the fire apparatus. However, when they ran the numbers, they found the cost for leasing the apparatus during this time to be near what it would cost to purchase outright. They believe they can re-use this temporary facility for apparatus storage and move it to the Public Works Fleet Management and re-assemble for apparatus storage. My understanding is this is for the structure used to shelter the fire truck when not in use. The cost to rent is not much less than the cost to buy and if we own the structure then we will be able to use it in the future. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting onJune 18, 2019. 1. The cost to rent is more than the cost to buy (though it is a different structure). 2. Since this is a purchase that will last longer than the immediate need during the building of the new fire station, project leaders were uncomfortable with using bond money for the purchase. 3. Because actual costs for the temporary staging site are higher by about the amount estimated for the structure rental, the whole amount of the structure purchase, set-up, and eventual move is being asked for as an appropriation.



Budget Committee

5. A discussion regarding Fire Department budget requests. (19-004)
   The Fire Department requested two appropriations. First, they requested a capital equipment replacement fund creation. This would be similar to the Recreation Center where they put money into a fund so they can replace equipment as needed. And second they requested a civilian Dispatch Director, someone who could manage the Dispatch office and wouldn't require Civil Service entry. They were granted funding for the civilian Dispatch Director, but not the replacement fund. The Chief will come and explain each of these requests in more detail and spend time answering questions for the Council. This is the last in the series of discussions with departments regarding their budget requests and what actually made it into the budget. Presentation only. The new Dispatch Director frees up a sworn police officer who can help with our police staffing needs. I support the use of the replacement fund, though we will not be able to fully fund this year's contribution. Use of these kind of funds make our budget more sustainable and predictable. We are paying for what we are using, rather than expecting future tax-payers to bond for replacements.
6. A discussion regarding the Provo City Citizens' Budget. (19-004)
   Council staff have prepared a user-friendly document that highlights and compares items from the proposed FY2020 Provo City budget. This summary is very helpful to anyone looking for a (relatively) quick overview of the current budget and financial health of the city. Presentation only. I don't know how much longer this stretch of sustained economic growth will last, but we've been blessed with prosperity. I feel that we've been making some difficult decisions now that will put the city on a solid foundation to face times that aren't as prosperous.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

7. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.38.085(7) to clarify limitations on signage within the North University Riverbottoms Design Corridor. City-wide application. PLOTA20190026
   Provo City Community Development is requesting an ordinance amendment to subsection 14.38.085(7), to clarify prohibited signs in the North University Riverbottoms Design Corridor. Section 14.38.085 was enacted in 1996 to provide consistent design through this part of that City, and minor adjustments have been made over the years. Due to recent concerns about what types of signs are allowed, staff has brought forward this proposal to clean up language and clarify what signage is prohibited. The proposed language explicitly prohibits any signs that are not otherwise authorized by subsection one, which clarifies the restriction for property owners and residents in the area. This ordinance would fix some ambiguity that might be argued to create a loophole in the sign ordinance. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 4, 2019. See the report for item #11 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. Judge Romney receives Utah State Justice Court Judge of the Year Award
   Judge Romney has served the city well for a dozen years in this capacity. It is great to see his exemplary service recognized by his peers. Presentation only.
2. Introduction of the new Wasatch Neighborhood Chair, David Acheson
   I'm grateful to neighborhood chairs from across the city who give so much for the betterment of our community. Presentation only.
   

   Approval of Minutes

3. April 23, 2019 Council Meeting
   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

4. A public hearing regarding a resolution approving the Program Year 2019 Annual Action Plan, Fifth Year update to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, as amended. (19-059)
   The CDBG and HOME Programs provide the City of Provo and other local governments with the opportunity to develop viable urban communities by funding activities that provide decent housing, a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. Funds are awarded to carry out a wide range of community development activities directed towards neighborhood revitalization, homeownership and condition of housing stock. The Programs are administered by the Community Planning and Development Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Every year, as Lead Entity for the Utah Valley HOME Consortium, Provo City submits an Annual Action Plan (an update to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD) outlining the goals, objectives and the proposed use of federal CDBG and HOME resources to address housing, economic development, and community development projects to be undertaken. This is the second of two required public hearings. We are implementing a new procedure that allows for better coordination between local funding governments in the valley that will reduce the amount of paperwork and regulations that our local charities have to manage. When the plan was first presented a month ago, there were a couple of oddities that the new procedure had produced. It appears that those oddities were fixed. Approved 7:0. The oddities were still there. Between the three agencies, a couple of items were funded above the requested amount, even while other really important programs didn't get the funding they sought. We were assured that all of the money we were directing would be used for the residents of Provo. If we had reduced the contribution amount to those programs, it would mean that fewer people from Provo could be helped.
5. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020, in the amount of $254,958,760, and amending elements of Provo City Code. (19-004)
   This is the first of two public hearings as part of the budget process as required by Section 10-6-111(3) of the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities. More information about the budget process can be found on our website. There will be one more public hearing on the budget at the June 18th council meeting, when we will consider adopting the budget. I highly recommending anyone interested in our budget to read the "Citizen's Budget" summary prepared by the Council Office. Public hearing only; no final action taken. We intend to adopt the budget at our next meeting.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

6. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of 2,429,132. (19-005)
   This is the first of two public hearings required to establish the budget. The next public hearing is scheduled to take place at the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. Same as the city budget, but for our Redevelopment Agency. Public hearing only; no final action taken. We intend to adopt the budget at our next meeting.
7. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
   This was item 1 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 1 on the work meeting agenda. This item was continued during the Work Meeting on June 4, 2019.
8. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $5,123,278 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (19-006)
   This is the first of two public hearings required to establish the budget. The next public hearing is scheduled to take place at the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. Same as the city budget, but for our Stormwater Service District. Public hearing only; no final action taken. We intend to adopt the budget at our next meeting.



Action Agenda




Stormwater Service District

9. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the sale of the Timp-Kiwanis Park to the Provo School District. (18-018)
   Provo School District needs to expand the Timpview High School campus and has submitted a contract for the purchase of the Timp Kiwanis Bounous Park (TKP) property adjacent to the high school. TKP is on the surplus property list. If approved, the sale is contingent upon approval of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) conversion proposal of TKP from the National Park Service (NPS). If approved for sale and upon approval from the NPS, the proceeds are required, per LWCF requirements, to be used for the purchase of 60 acres of property in Southwest Provo. We have received the LWCF conversion approval. There have been so many steps in this process that required council action. I believe that we are finally getting to the end of the process. Now is the time to execute all that we've been talking about for so long. I am looking for an outcome that helps the school district and keeps a comparable level of park amenities for the residents in this area of our city. A motion to substitute the implied motion with a version of the resolution including a contingency provision was approved, after which the item was approved 5:2, with David Sewell and George Handley opposed. This was the blockbuster item of the day. We have discussed this in public meetings for years. There is a new park that will be developed just three blocks north of this plot. This deal resolves several difficulties for both the school district and the city. The only hang up was that the school district had said many things about how the property would be used and would be available to the public in the future, but hadn't put those words in writing and it wasn't clear if they were taking those words back.
   
   The contingency provision was that the district had to put their intent regarding no major structures and public access in writing. They did this and the deal has now been executed.
10. A resolution appropriating $2,200,000 in the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan Fund for the purchase of property located on Lakeview Parkway, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. (19-069)
    The Parks and Recreation Department is intending to purchase a parcel of land located on the west side of Provo just off the Lakeview Parkway and they are intending to use this parcel for open space, regional fields, and in ways they believe will benefit the economic development of the west side of Provo. This discussion was started when the City discovered they were non-compliant with a parcel of property that was purchase with Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). The property had fallen out of compliance due to the requirements of Timpview High relative to the parcel. The LWCF rules indicate that parcels purchase with this money cannot limit access to the community. Since Timpview High was regularly limiting the use by using a portion of the property for sports practices and limiting participation from the community on a regular basis, the decision was made to sell the Timp-Kiwanis Park property to the Provo School District. The LWCF further has restrictions on where that money can be spent. In order to comply with LWCF regulations the decision was made to take that money and put it into this parcel to use for the purposes stated. The appropriation will be funded by the transfer from the General Fund and then repaid from the revenues from the sale of Timp-Kiwanis Park. This project will benefit the whole of Provo, especially our youth and the sports programs geared toward them who do not have enough fields to play on. Approved 7:0. Provo will be able to provide enough fields for our children and adults to play sports on, and will be able to host regional tournaments.
11. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to clarify limitations on signage within the North UniversityRiverbottoms Design Corridor. City wide Application. (PLOTA20190026)
    This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 7 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. I'm glad that ambiguity is addressed.
12. An ordinance repealing Provo City Code Section 2.60.040 (19-071)
    This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 3 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. It's important to always be maintaining our code. Clean, understandable code is part of transparency.
13. ***CONTINUED*** Brady Deucher requests a Zone Change from R1.10 to Medium Density Residential for approximately 2.1 acres located at 1320 S State Street. Spring Creek neighborhood. PLRZ20190100
    This item was not ready to be heard.
14. ***CONTINUED*** Brady Deucher requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 14.37.050 to allow the city to consider parking reductions for affordable housing developments. City-wide application. PLOTA20190170
    This item was not ready to be heard.
15. ***CONTINUED*** Community Development Department requests Ordinance Text Amendments to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A-Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. City-wide application. PLOTA20190120
    This item was not ready to be heard.
16. ***CONTINUED*** Julie Smith requests the annexation (Peay Annexation) of 13.45 acres of property into the incorporated limits of Provo City, located at approximately 5400 N Canyon Road. North Timpview and Riverbottoms neighborhoods. PLANEX20180355
    This item was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment