Council Meetings - 1 May 2018

Sales tax, contracts, sponsorships, bonds, grants, tax-increment, tentative budget, and more. Nearly every item on tomorrow's agenda impacts the finances of the city.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, May 1, 2018

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

Business



1. A discussion on the donation of a surplus fire engine (18-059)
   The Fire Department received a new fire engine in February. It is customary to surplus the oldest engine in the fleet when a new engine is received. Chief Miguel has proposed donating the surplus engine to the Recruit Candidate Academy at Utah Valley University. We have a symbiotic relationship with the Academy, and get many direct and indirect benefits from having a strong Academy. The estimated auction value of between $2k and $8k is well below the value of the donation. Continued. Legal flagged this one. I'm sure we can still make this happen, we just need to make sure we do it correctly.
2. A presentation from the Mountainland Association of Governments on third quarter funding in relation to airports and transportation taxes overall (18-054)
   Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) is presenting on third quarter funding in relation to airports and transportation taxes overall. MAG is the regional transportation planning organization for Utah, Wasatch, and Summit Counties and may have funding resources available for airports. Mayor Kaufusi recently attended a meeting where it was mentioned that regional funding can go to airports. She asked MAG to discuss the option with City leaders. MAG suggested that they do a broader presentation as well to explain the overall regional funding. Presentation only. We spend a lot of money on transportation as a society.
   
   Provo needs to submit a description of the airport for Mountainland's Transportation Plan in order to be eligible for some funding assistance on possible future airport expansion.
3. A discussion on options for funding on Miss Provo and parade float (18-055)
   Provo City and Miss Provo have been partners in promoting Provo for many years, with the City providing limited financial support for the Miss Provo Organization, and a parade float to promote the City with the expectation that Miss Provo participants would ride in the parade. Since 2016, the City Council Office has been Provo City’s liaison to the Miss Provo Organization—a role that had previously been fulfilled by the Mayor’s Office. As a result, the Council Office budget includes funding for Miss Provo and the associated city float. This discussion will address support regarding regarding the Miss Provo pageant and their involvement with the Provo City float. What's the point of having a Provo City float? Is there any value in entering our float in the parades around the valley? What about other cities entering floats in the Freedom Festival Parade? What are the costs? Is it worth doing? What value do we receive from sponsoring the Miss Provo Organization? Is it worth the cost? Discussion only. This item will be brought back to the May 15, 2018 Work Meeting. I wrote this earlier for another publication:
   
   "Traditionally, Provo City has entered a city-themed float into a dozen or so local parades each year. Traditionally, the winner and runners-up of the Miss Provo Scholarship Pageant have been highlighted on the float. This has also been the practice of many other cities in Utah Valley. In the past several years, the Miss Provo Organization has managed the upkeep and refreshing of the Provo City float, as well as getting the float to the various parades and driving the float in the parades. Because of these traditions, Miss Provo and the Provo City float have often been lumped together in budget discussions. I'm hoping that this year we can address these efforts as separate questions.
   
   "To provide value to our tax-payers, the benefits of our activities should out-weigh their costs. Independent of Miss Provo, what is the purpose of Provo City owning a float and entering it into the various local parades? What are the benefits of this activity? What are the costs, in direct funding, but also in the efforts and attention of City Staff?
   
   "Separately, if the float serves a public relations and promotional role, what message do we want to make with it? What is our brand? Does it make sense to continue with the tradition along with our fellow cities, or does it make sense to stand out and be a little different? For example, Provo City has recently been branding itself as the City of Starts, one year we could highlight a different start up in each parade atop our float.
   
   "Lastly, two years ago the Provo City Council decided to increase funding by $10,000/year to directly sponsor the Miss Provo Scholarship Pageant. Some of the money helps fund the scholarships for the winners, and some of the money helps pay for the program expenses. We need to ask if this is a good use of taxpayer money, what is the purpose, what are the benefits, and what are the costs?"
4. A discussion on the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Self-Assessment Report for Provo 2017 (18-053)
   The State of Utah requires this assessment as part of of the permit process for municipal wastewater systems. The self-assessment is broken into three parts, Financial, Collection, and Treatment. We are doing great in the Collection and Treatment sections (though much of our treatment is nearing or beyond its useful service life). We pretty much fail in the Financial section because for decades we did not charge sufficient sewer rates to pay for the services we were receiving. We've just started to play catch-up. There is far more to come. Presentation only. There were no surprises. The preview covers it.
5. A discussion on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Variance Resolution (18-051)
   A resolution is being submitted for Council’s approval on the City’s financing plan for the plant, which needs to be submitted to the State by June 1 in order to meet the requirements of the City’s water quality regulation various. The variance resolution is tentatively scheduled for the May 15 Council meeting. The State imposed some deadlines as part of the deal to allow Provo time to build a new treatment plant before meeting the now tighter sewer treatment plant regulations. This will allow us to put the money into the new plant, rather than upgrading a crumbling plant that will fail soon anyways. Presentation only. The plan is to build a new treatment plant in phases.
6. A discussion on the Program Year 2018 Annual Action Plan, Fourth Year Update to the 2015 Consolidated Plan, including CDBG and HOME Funding recommendations (18-056)
   This introduces the 2018 draft of the Annual Action Plan on proposed usage of CDBG and HOME funds. These are federal funds provided through Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Two public hearings will be held and an open comment period will begin with the May 1 Council meeting. This Annual Action Plan guides the use of Federal Funds and our coordination with housing and service providers in the community. This serves as the master plan for addressing homelessness and affordable housing in the valley. I believe the overall plan and the objectives are sound. I'd like to have some discussing on the allocation of funding across the county, as well as the effectiveness of the selected projects to achieve the goals. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the May 1, 2018 Council Meeting. The Action Plan includes the recommendations of three different committees who review applications for the funding. They work with estimates because the federal allocation happens later. Coincidently, the final numbers were released earlier that day. The funding is a half million dollars more than expected. During the month-long public review period, we will be looking into how to ensure this unexpected portion is programmed wisely.
7. A discussion on tax increment financing (18-057)
   In recent months, the Council has encountered several opportunities to approve retail deals involving tax increment financing. Some Council members have wondered whether continuing to make tax increment financing deals is in the best interest of the City. Dixon Holmes will lead a discussion on tax increment financing and answer questions the Council may have. Frequent readers of this blog know that I have concerns about our use of tax-increment incentives. I am looking forward to this opportunity to review the purposes of these incentives and hopefully get to the point where we have an easily articulable strategy for their use. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to a future Work Meeting. It was a very helpful presentation, but there wasn't much time for discussion. We will likely discuss it further in the next Work Meeting on the 15th.
8. A discussion on retail (18-058)
   Scott Bowles, Provo Towne Center Manager, requested an opportunity to discuss with Council members the topic of retail from business and strategic planning perspectives. Scott use to work for Provo City in the Office of Economic Development. Presentation only. Mr. Bowles contrasted the long and delicate process to bring in retailers and contrasted that with the public impression that mall managers or city officials just need to call up the stores the public wants and invite them into our community.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission



9. A discussion on an ordinance text amendment to Section 14.14A.070 to increase the height limit for assisted living facilities in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone from 30 feet to 40 feet. Although this project is in the Riverbottoms neighborhood, the proposed amendment has citywide implications because it could apply to future LDR zones. (PLOTA20180054)
   This is a request to increase the height limit for assisted living facilities within the LDR zone from 30 feet to 40 feet if the facility is 200 feet away from the nearest detached one-family residential structure. The applicant is looking begin phase 2 of their development at 4100 N University Avenue and they would like to go to three stories. I have a few questions about this one. With these extra allowances, does this use really fit in an LDR zone? Why are detached one-family structures called out? Wouldn't it be better to create a buffer from the edges of the zone? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the May 1, 2018 Council Meeting We discussed our concerns and it carried over to the evening meeting, see the report for agenda item #7 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting



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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

• Roll Call
• Prayer
• Pledge of Allegiance

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

1. A presentation on the Provo Serves initiative
   Mayor Kaufusi is championing a new initiative to encourage Provo citizens to make an extra effort to serve their neighbors. I love the idea and am looking forward to participating in it. Presentation only. I love this initiative and hope the community rallies around it. It's all about neighbor serving neighbor and residents serving the community. As an added incentive, each time someone posts to social media a picture of service with the hashtag "provoserves", $2 will be donated to a charity that provides prostheses to people who need them. Details will be at service.provo.org (but this site hasn't gone life at the time writing.
2. A presentation of the proposed tentative budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 20, 2019 (18-005)
   The City’s administration is required by Utah State law to present the proposed budget to the Council at the first Council meeting in May. Council will vote to tentatively adopt the proposed budget at the May 15 Council meeting. Watch for updates and timelines on the budget page on the website. This is the first of at least three public meetings on the budget. It'll be the first time we get to see the budget. Despite months of pre-meetings, there are several aspects that I curious about how they will look in the final budget proposal. Presentation only. The budget will take quite some time to get through, but here are some highlights from the presentation.
   • It is a balanced budget (This is required by law, but wouldn't it be nice if the federal government could balance a budget?)
   • No property tax increase is proposed
   • Four officers and an analyst will be added to the Police Department
   • There is a (one-time) cost of living adjustment of 1% for all employees
   • There is a bump in funding for cyber security (ask Atlanta why this is important)
   • The budget now includes performance indicators, as requested in past years.
   Want to know more? Here is a link the to actual proposed budget.



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 adding personal property to the surplus property list and authorizing the Mayor to dispose of the property (18-059)
   The Fire Department received a new fire engine in February. It is customary to surplus the oldest engine in the fleet when a new engine is received. Chief Miguel has proposed donating the surplus engine to the Recruit Candidate Academy at Utah Valley University. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting, "We have a symbiotic relationship with the Academy, and get many direct and indirect benefits from having a strong Academy. The estimated auction value of between $2k and $8k is well below the value of the donation." Continued.
4. A resolution approving a Substantial Amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan to incorporate the use of the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. (18-046)
   An amendment is necessary to incorporate the use of the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program as a resource. This will fund infrastructure improvements necessary due to the Duncan Aviation expansion. We heard this in the Work meeting last week. I said this last time, "The policy question is whether we should commit future CDBG funds to pay for this infrastructure. We have previously decided to head in this direction." Approved 7:0. There was little discussion because this is just a technicality to implement the plan that we had previously decided on.
5. A public hearing on the Program Year 2018 Annual Action Plan, Fourth Year Update to the 2015 Consolidated Plan, including CDBG and HOME Funding recommendations (18-056)
   This is the first of two required public hearings and initiates a public comment period (May 1 - June 5) regarding the 2018 draft of the Annual Action Plan on proposed usage of CDBG and HOME funds. These are federal funds provided through Housing and Urban Development (HUD). From the earlier meeting, "This Annual Action Plan guides the use of Federal Funds and our coordination with housing and service providers in the community. This serves as the master plan for addressing homelessness and affordable housing in the valley. I believe the overall plan and the objectives are sound. I'd like to have some discussing on the allocation of funding across the county, as well as the effectiveness of the selected projects to achieve the goals." Public hearing only; this item will be voted on at the June 5, 2018 Council Meeting. See the report for agenda item #6 in the earlier meeting.
6. A resolution approving the Wastewater Self-Assessment in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. (18-053)
   The State of Utah requires this assessment as part of the permit process for municipal wastewater systems. From earlier, "The self-assessment is broken into three parts, Financial, Collection, and Treatment. We are doing great in the Collection and Treatment sections (though much of our treatment is nearing or beyond its useful service life). We pretty much fail in the Financial section because for decades we did not charge sufficient sewer rates to pay for the services we were receiving. We've just started to play catch-up. There is far more to come." Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused. There were no surprises. The preview covers it.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the height limit for assisted living facilities in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The project initiating this proposed change is in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood, but the proposed amendment would have a citywide impact. (PLOTA20180054)
   This is a request to increase the height limit for assisted living facilities within the LDR zone from 30 feet to 40 feet if the facility is 200 feet away from the nearest detached one-family residential structure. The applicant is looking begin phase 2 of their development at 4100 N University Avenue and they would like to go to three stories. From earlier, "I have a few questions about this one. With these extra allowances, does this use really fit in an LDR zone? Why are detached one-family structures called out? Wouldn't it be better to create a buffer from the edges of the zone?" A motion to continue this item until the next Council Meeting with a request to Community Development staff to bring back a recommendation on a vehicle that would allow the project to move forward with the requested height of 40 feet that would not involve changing the definition of our current zones (unless the recommendation is PRO-zone) was approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused. The MDR idea got legs. Several city councilors were uncomfortable with carving out such a specific exception for when a use more intense than LDR can go into an LDR zone. We asked Community Development to bring back a proposal to rezone the project area as MDR (or some other zone that would accommodate the project).
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding allowing motorcycle parking to count toward vehicle parking requirements. Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180025)
   This would allow two motorcycle spaces to be substituted for one required vehicle parking space in the Arbors on the Avenue PRO Zone, with a limit of no more than one out of every 50 required vehicle parking spaces. The first hearing of this item was at the April 24 Council meeting. From last week, "The applicant requested the ability to convert up to 1 out of every 25 required spaces into two motorcycle spaces. I think this is a good opportunity to try this out, and think it could be helpful in other areas of the City."
   
   Last week we discussed the idea that the adjacent properties could work together to improve access. This might require the elimination of a couple other parking stalls. I'm interested to see if there were any developments on this front over the past week. Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused. Such a short "result" for such a long discussion. It is in everyone's best interest to interconnect the access for these developments, but it may be difficult to work out all of the details. We discussed holding up the amendment as an incentive to work out an agreement, but, in the end, decided to grant the amendment and to just ask nicely that they work in good faith to find an access solution.
9. ITEM CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE: The Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to Section 14.34.295 Downtown Development Design Standards to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Central Business District, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, and Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
   Previously noticed for the May 1 Council meeting, the item was not ready to be heard at this time.

Council Meetings - 24 April 2018

There doesn't appear to be any highly controversial items on Tuesday's agendas. Much of it is about infrastructure.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 24, 2018

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

Business



1. A presentation on the Public Works Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. The Public Works Department will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. It's Public Work's turn. They are one of the last departments to present. Presentation only. The water fund is the only utility fund (outside of energy which is in its own department) that is currently on a sustainable path.
2. A presentation regarding use of the Utility Transportation Fund (18-048)
   This is a required annual report on the use of Utility Transportation Funds over the past year. When Provo implemented the UTF, we required these yearly reviews to ensure the fee is still needed and is accomplishing its purpose. Presentation only. The utility transportation fee has allowed us to properly maintain our recently replaced streets in good condition. It is less expensive it maintain a street in good condition than it is to replace a street once it has deteriorated. Previously we were in emergency mode and were only replacing the worst streets. There are still a number of poor streets that will need to be replaced, but we are letting them get to their absolute end-of-life before replacing them, so that we can focus more of the funds on maintaining the good ones. Eventually we should get on top of all of our streets, which means all will be kept in good condition and we will be able to focus future funds into other areas like sidewalks.
3. A discussion on wastewater planning (17-131)
   Discussions on wastewater planning continue. The purpose is to inform the Council of upcoming decisions they’ll need to make regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This plant represents a huge investment for the City. Significant effort is being expended to analyze our options to enable us to make the best decision possible for the City. Discussion only. We've all but officially decided to replace the treatment plant, rather than try to patch the current one. We will still need to decide on the location as well as whether we should phase in the new treatment plant and run the old one as long as possible, or if we should bond big (while rates are near historic lows) and build the new plant all at once.
4. A discussion on an appropriation of $433,000 in the Airport Capital Improvement Fund for airport parking lot utilities and access applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-043)
   This appropriation is being requested due to construction of a new taxilane, hangar pads, and a parking lot, necessitating the installation of utilities to service the new hangar pads and new access road. This utility work will be needed in the future and it is less expensive to do the work before the area is paved. They are asking for $328,000 from the General Fund and the remainder ($105,000) from the Water Fund. A motion to take an additional $29,000 from the General Fund and $76,000 from the Water Fund instead of the total $105,000 from the Water Fund was approved 7:0. The Council was not comfortable with using the Water Fund to pay for other utility projects.
5. A presentation from Bill Hulterstrom of United Way of Utah County to discuss 2018 Utah County Community Assessment. (18-045)
   The United Way of Utah County recently released the 2018 Utah County Community Assessment. It addresses education, health, and housing in the county. Additional Background: "The Assessment covers topics such as demographic information, education, housing, income and general health." United Way coordinates much of the public and charitable efforts in the Valley to address the needs of our lower income residents. Presentation only. There are many take-aways. The best way to deter crime in your neighborhood is to get to know your neighbors. Many of our college students are poor. Half of our poor are college students. Our poor, non-college student population is comparable with other communities.
6. A discussion regarding a Substantial Amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan to incorporate the use of the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program as a resource (18-046)
   An amendment is necessary to incorporate the use of the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program as a resource. This will fund infrastructure improvements necessary due to the Duncan Aviation expansion. Additional Background: "The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 108) provides communities with a source of financing for economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and other physical development projects, including improvements to increase their resilience against natural disasters. This flexibility makes it one of the most potent and important public investment tools that HUD offers to state and local governments.
   
   "Section 108 offers state and local governments the ability to transform a small portion of their CDBG funds into federally guaranteed loans large enough to pursue physical and economic revitalization projects capable of revitalizing entire neighborhoods. Such public investment is often needed to inspire private economic activity, providing the initial resources or simply the confidence that private firms and individuals may need to invest in distressed areas."
   
   These hearings satisfy program requirements. The policy question is whether we should commit future CDBG funds to pay for this infrastructure. We have previously decided to head in this direction. This will be an additional opportunity to hear from the public, and to decide if we want to make it official. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the April 24, 2018 Council Meeting. Committing CDBG money for this project will lower the amount available for other projects in the future.
7. A discussion on a new sustainability coordinator (18-047)
   The Sustainability Committee has broached the subject of hiring a sustainability coordinator for Provo City. This would be a new position. There are many considerations to take into account regarding future staffing needs. There are many neglected staffing needs in the City. While we are playing catch up in areas like our police force, it is difficult to justify creating a new position like this. But what if such a position could more than pay for itself in savings that would go unrealized without the position? Discussion only. I'd gauge about equal parts interest and wariness among councilors on this idea. It is tough to fund this position when there are so many other pressing needs in the City.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission



8. A discussion regarding a request for a General Plan Text Amendment to Chapter 6 Southwest Area Neighborhoods to delete the housing density maximum of four units per acre. Fort Utah, Lakeview North, Lakeview South, Lakewood, Provo Bay and Sunset Neighborhoods. (PLGPA20180011)
   This is a request to remove the housing density maximum from the General Plan regarding the Southwest Area Neighborhoods. This seems like a hard sell, particularly outside of the ongoing efforts to create a long-range master plan for the Southwest Area. City Staff and the Planning Commission both recommend denial. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the April 24, 2018 Council Meeting. See the results for item 8 in the evening meeting (below).
9. A discussion regarding a request for an ordinance amendment to Section 14.50(10).170 (Parking, Loading, and Access in the Arbors on the Avenue Pro Zone) to allow for motorcycle parking to count towards the vehicle parking requirement. Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180006)
   This would allow two motorcycle spaces to be substituted for one required vehicle parking space in the Arbors on the Avenue PRO Zone, with a limit of no more than one out of every 50 required vehicle parking spaces. The applicant requested the ability to convert up to 1 out of every 25 required spaces into two motorcycle spaces. I think this is a good opportunity to try this out, and think it could be helpful in other areas of the City. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the April 24, 2018 Council Meeting. See the results for item 9 in the evening meeting (below).



Closed Meeting



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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for April 2018.
   Presentation only.



Public Comment

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




Consent Agenda

Items on the consent agenda are generally routine in nature, have been fully vetted in other meetings, or do not need additional discussion. They are approved together as one item.
2. Approval of the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting minutes.
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 6.14.080 to bring code into compliance with Utah State Code. (18-041)
   This would bring City Code in line with a 2017 change to Utah State Code defining proximity restrictions for alcoholic beverage licenses and where they will be granted within specific proximity measurements to a community location (church, school, etc.). The State preempted our ability to regulate these distances. This update aligns our code with the State statute.
4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application for a Utah County Municipal Grant to be used for Provo River Trail renovation. (18-037)
   This is an annual grant offered by Utah County for communities within the county. Funding for the grant comes from the “Restaurant Tax” Funds distributed to communities based on population data. Provo’s portion is $59,757.17. This is a reimbursement grant. Provo City expends the funds and must submit for reimbursement. Funding will be used to pay for a portion of the Provo River Trail Enhancement Project phase 1 construction costs. Last year’s grant funded design and engineering services for this project. This $60k grant will be put towards the $3.5M project.
Items 2 through 4 on the Consent Agenda were approved by unanimous consent.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo



5. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation approving the signature of a Partial Assignment of the Parking Lease to PEG Development. (18-044)
   The Redevelopment Agency leases parking spaces in the Wells Fargo parking structure to the developer of 63 East. Ownership of the 63 East development has now changed hands and this would transfer the parking lease agreement to the new owner. This just transfers the lease over to the new owner. I don't see any reason not to support it. Approved 7:0.



Action Agenda



6. Public Hearing on Substantial Amendment to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan to incorporate the use of the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (18-046) An amendment is necessary to incorporate the use of the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program as a resource. This will fund infrastructure improvements necessary due to the Duncan Aviation expansion. This item was heard in the Work Meeting as item #6. Read my preview there. A motion to continue this item to the May 1, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. From earlier, "Committing CDBG money for this project will lower the amount available for other projects in the future."
7. A resolution appropriating $433,000 in the Airport Capital Improvement Fund for airport parking lot utilities and access applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-043)
   This appropriation is being requested due to construction of a new taxilane, hangar pads, and a parking lot, necessitating the installation of utilities to service the new hangar pads and new access road. This item was heard in the Work Meeting as item #4. Read my preview there. Approved as amended in the April 24, 2018 Work Meeting 7:0. These infrastructure improvements are needed. We are approriating the funds now, before the parking lot is built, so that we won't need to pay to tear up and replace the parking lot to put in the utilities later.
8. A resolution to amend Chapter 6 Southwest Area Neighborhoods of the General Plan. (PLGPA20180011)
   This is a request to remove the housing density maximum from the General Plan regarding the Southwest Area Neighborhoods. This item was heard in the Work Meeting as item #8. Read my preview there. An implied motion to approve the changes failed 0:7, with all Council members opposed. This is just one important aspect that is currently being studied as the development policies are being developed for west Provo.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding allowing motorcycle parking to count toward vehicle parking requirements. Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180025)
   This would allow two motorcycle spaces to be substituted for one required vehicle parking space in the Arbors on the Avenue PRO Zone, with a limit of no more than one out of every 50 required vehicle parking spaces. This item was heard in the Work Meeting as item #9. Read my preview there. A motion to continue this item to the May 1, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. The amount of stall conversion that they need may depend on if there will be cooperation between the two properties in order to improve street access. The Council is hopeful something can be worked out in the intervening week.
10. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City to negotiate and execute a post-performance Sales Tax Increment Reimbursement Agreement between Provo City Corporation and Days Market Grocery Store. (18-040)
    This is a sales tax increment agreement with owners of Days Market, located on North Canyon Road, in order to provide retail incentive to offset certain costs associated with a $1 million remodel with the hope of doing additional work within the store not covered by the construction loan. As I've said before, I love Days Market and wish they could open two more stores in the City. But I don't feel that this project raises to the level of something that should receive public funding. The Council has indicated that we should have a discussion about what our policy should be on strategic use of tax-increment incentives. I am not comfortable approve any new incentive until we've had this discussion. Approved 5:2, with Council members David Harding and Kay Van Buren opposed. I was not convinced to change my mind during the discussion.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 9.19.090 (Possession and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) to include the prohibition of tobacco use within Parks and Recreation facilities. (18-035)
    This is an amendment to Provo City Code Chapter 9.19.090 on the prohibition of alcohol possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages in City parks. It would include prohibiting the use of tobacco products, including variations such as e-cigarettes, and would would expand the park definition to “city park, trail, or recreational facility.” This is a good measure to improve the public enjoyment of our recreational assets. Approved as amended 7:0. An aspect of the wording was still gnawing at me after reviewing the proposal over a couple months, so I asked our counsel if he thought it covered a specific scenario. He and the presenting police officer disagreed, so we tabled the item while they worked out language that they both agreed would cover the scenario. Ideally, I should have brought up the question eariler, but I'm grateful for the work of such competent civil servant who were able to work out a solution on the fly.
12. An ordinance amending proposed changes to Provo City Code regarding the Downtown Neighborhood. (18-038)
    The Downtown Neighborhood was originally established as a business district. With more mixed use development increasing the number of residents in the neighborhood, the current method of representation (the Neighborhood Chair is appointed by Downtown Provo, Inc.) needs to be adjusted. The Neighborhood Advisory Board, in consultation with the Downtown Neighborhood Chair, is proposing two equal Chairs (one for residents and one for businesses) to ensure representation for both neighborhood interests. Here is what I said before we heard it in our Work Meeting two weeks ago: "I've been perplexed with how the growing number of residents in the Downtown Neighborhood should be represented in the Neighborhood Program. I have raised concerns with past proposals. I think this proposal strikes the right balance and I am looking forward to support its implementation." Approved 7:0. This is a good arrangement as downtown continues to grow and mature.
13. A resolution ratifying the Mayor's signature on the Second Addendum to the Fifth Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement by and between Provo City and Utah County relating to the Ice Sheet Authority. (17-055)
    This addendum adjusts the date where the sale of the facility by public auction would be required. This is necessary due to the County’s meeting schedule since the new interlocal agreement would not be signed in time to prevent activation the auction requirement. This means that the sheet won't be sold before the County can officially enter into the new agreement. Approved 7:0. Part 1. See the more important item below
14. A resolution ratifying the Sixth Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Provo City and Utah County relating to the Provo City/Utah County Ice Arena Properties. (18-050)
    This resolution would ratify the terms and conditions and authorize the Mayor’s signature on the new interlocal agreement regarding the Ice Sheet Authority. This is the actual agreement that transfers the operation and management of the Ice Sheet to Provo City. Approved 7:0. This ensures that the Ice Rink won't be sold and that Provo is free to operate the Sheet in a way that will provide patrons an even better experience while reducing the public subsidy.

Adjournment

Council Meetings - 10 April 2018

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 10, 2018

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

Business



1. A presentation to Bryce Mumford for five years of service award
   Bryce Mumford is being honored for reaching over five years of service as a policy analyst in the Council office.Bryce has been with the Council Office twice as long as I have. I appreciate his research and project management, but I also enjoy the personality he brings to the Office. Presentation only.
2. A presentation on a retail sales tax incentive for Days Market (18-040)
   The Economic Development Department will provide an overview and proposal for a potential sales tax increment agreement with owners of Days Mark, located on North Canyon Road, in order to provide retail incentive to offset certain costs associated with a $1 million remodel with the hope of doing additional work within the store not covered by the construction loan. Avid readers of this blog know that I have mixed feelings about tax-increment incentives. I worry that Provo does not have a coherent, long-range strategy for these incentives, and that we are offering them to anyone who asks even if the investments are in the normal course of business operations. I am aware of the concerns that we favor large, non-local, just arriving businesses over our home-grown, long-term businesses. I would be thrilled to offer some sort of incentive if this grocer was looking to open a new market in Provo, particularly in one of our underserved (for convenient grocery) areas. But I worry that a remodel of an existing store isn't the right use of this tool. But I'll hear out the presentation and decide afterward. A motion to place this item on the Action Agenda for the April 24, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 5:1, with David Harding opposed and George Handley excused. What is our strategy when using tax-increment incentives? We'll dive into that, but not before extending these to another business. I love Day's market, and wish that they would open additional stores in other places in Provo. But I'm not sure gratitude for great service to the community justifies tax-increment incentives. We seem so reticent to raise taxes, even to keep up with inflation, yet so willing to give away tax revenue that would otherwise pay for the same services.
   
   I caught up with Mr. Day after the presentation and had a good conversation with him. I hadn't fully understood some of the aspects involved in the request. Perhaps the incentives are justified here, but without an articulated strategy, it is hard to judge.
3. A discussion on an ordinance amendment to Provo City Code 6.14.080 Proximity Restrictions for the Premises of Licensed Beer Retailers (18-041)
   This would bring City Code in line with a 2017 change to Utah State Code defining proximity restrictions for alcoholic beverage licenses and where they will be granted within specific proximity measurements to a community location (church, school, etc.). There is not much of a decision to be made here. We need to make this change in order to be compliant with a new(ish) State statute. A motion to place this item on the Consent Agenda for the April 24, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 6:0, with George Handley excused. Due to the new State Statute, our current code is unenforceable. Functionally, the proximity restrictions go from 600 feet for common pedestrian travel and 200 feet in a straight line to 300 feet (on foot) and 200 feet in a straight line.
4. A presentation by the Provo Bicycle Committee
   An update on the activities of the Provo Bicycle Committee. The work of the Bicycle Committee has made our streets safer for all and is helping bicycling to be a more viable option here in Provo. Presentation only. The Committee chose to focus their presentation on the Complete Streets proposal that is currently working its way through the process. Much of the discussion between the presenters and councilors focused on the details of a proposal that has not been finalized. We will be meeting with the Planning Commission next week to discuss the broader policies and procedures.
5. An update on the Victim Services Grant (18-028)
   The Provo Police Victim Services Division is mostly funded by local, State, and Federal grants. They are required (as part of the grant) to provide the Council with two updates per year on the grants. This item was postponed from the March 6th work meeting. Here is what I said in the preview back then, "Victim Services presents every six months. It is always a sobering presentation. On the one hand, it is heartbreaking that this division directly serves more than 1% of our residents each year. On the other, it is inspiring to see the professional and compassionate service that this dedicated team provides." Presentation only. The statistics from 2017 are painful to consider. We must do better as a community. I am grateful that we have this team to assist the survivors. What can we do to be better at prevention?
   "Victims Served by VSD"
   • Domestic Violence: 644
   • Adult Sexual Assault: 144
   • Child Sexual Assault: 162
   • Child Abuse: 83
   • Elder Abuse: 73
   • Stalking/Harassment: 204
   • Adult Physical Assault: 157
   • Criminal/Child Protective Orders: 297
6. A discussion on proposed changes to Provo City Code Sections pertaining to neighborhood meeting requirements (18-036)
   Neighborhood chairs felt that the noticing process for different steps in the development approval process needed some updates and clarification. To address this, a Council subcommittee, formed from members of the Development Approval Process Review (DAPR) Committee, would like propose changes to Provo City Code Chapter 2.29.040 (Neighborhood Program), 14.02.010 (Zoning), and 15.17.040 (Land Use and Development). The changes will address It looks like the background information was cut short. Perhaps I'm biased by being on the Development Approval Process Review Committee, but I think this proposal strikes the right balance between speed of decision and robustness of public involvement. A motion to refer the amendments to Provo City Code titles 14 and 15 to the Planning Commission for review was approved 6:0, with George Handley excused. This makes it clear that Neighborhoods have the ability to meet to consider and give feedback regarding General Plan and Zoning Changes, and clarifies the process.
7. A presentation on the Energy Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. The Energy Department will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. It's Energy's turn. One of the nice things about the Energy Department is that they cover all of their costs AND contribute significantly to the rest of the City's budget. I hope Provo residents appreciate the great situation we have by owning our own power company. The service is outstanding. Our rates are lower than nearby towns with private utilities. AND 11% of the revenue is transferred to General Fund to pay for other City services which helps keep our property taxes low. Presentation only. Our power rates are below the area average, yet the reliability and service is even better. Because the residents of Provo are the "shareholders" of our power company, the profits are reinvested in the City. These reinvestments include all of our street lights (which will be slowly transitioning to "Dark Sky" friendly fixtures and LED lighting), forestry management, and transferring millions of dollars each year to our General Fund which keeps our property taxes low.
8. A presentation on the Provo Airport and potential budget requests (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. The Provo Airport will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. There are some big decisions in the near future regarding the airport which may have a large impact on their budget. I'm interested to hear where we are at. Presentation only. Our commercial air service is pretty much maxed out because of the size of our terminal. Expanded commercial service generates more revenue, but we can't get their without investing in a new terminal. Much of the operations of the airport are self sustaining. Much of the improvements at the airport are federally funded. In the last two decades, City funding of airport operations has been reduced from over a half million (in today's dollars) to less than $100,000.
9. A discussion on a proposal to prohibit tobacco product use within parks and recreation facilities (18-035)
   This is a proposed amendment to Provo City Code Chapter 9.19.090 on the prohibition of alcohol possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages in City parks. It would include prohibiting the use of tobacco products, including variations such as e-cigarettes, and would would expand the park definition to “city park, trail, or recreational facility.” This started as a student presentation into the health hazards associated with e-cigarettes, with the request that we consider banning them from Public Parks similar to cigarettes. After looking into the different ways that Provo could do that, it appears that these changes to Code Chapter 9.19.090 is the best way to do it. A motion to place this item on the April 24, 2018 Council Meeting agenda was approved 7:0. There was no opposition.
10. A discussion on representation of the Downtown Neighborhood (18-038)
    The Downtown Neighborhood was originally established as a business district. With more mixed use development increasing the number of residents in the neighborhood, the current method of representation (the Neighborhood Chair is appointed by Downtown Provo, Inc.) needs to be adjusted. The Neighborhood Advisory Board, in consultation with the Downtown Neighborhood Chair, is proposing equal Co-Chairs (one for residents and one for businesses) to ensure representation for both neighborhood interests. I've been perplexed with how the growing number of residents in the Downtown Neighborhood should be represented in the Neighborhood Program. I have raised concerns with past proposals. I think this proposal strikes the right balance and I am looking forward to support its implementation. A motion to place this item on the Action Agenda for the April 24, 2018 Council Meeting, with wording modifications which removed references to co-chairs and which provided additional clarification, was approved 7:0. The only discussion was on some of the wording. We decided to move forward with the title of Chairs, rather than Co-Chairs. I believe this is a good step forward in response to the changing face of our Downtown.
11. A discussion on the 2018 Utah County Municipal Grant for the Provo River Trail Renovation (18-037)
    This is an annual grant offered by Utah County for communities within the county. Funding for the grant comes from the “Restaurant Tax” Funds distributed to communities based on population data. Provo’s portion is $59,757.17. This is a reimbursement grant. Provo City expends the funds and must submit for reimbursement. Funding will be used to pay for a portion of the Provo River Trail Enhancement Project phase 1 construction costs. Last year’s grant funded design and engineering services for this project. I am excited for the Provo River Trail project. It will make this community gem even better. A motion to place this item as a resolution to be heard at the April 24, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. This is a small amount in comparison to the $3.5M overall price tag.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission



12. A discussion on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 14.41 Major Home Occupations to extend daytime business hours from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm, and a discussion of possible changes to the Home Occupations chapter generally (17-0025OA)
    At recent work and Council meetings, the Council has considered an applicant’s request to extend daytime business hours from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. (The Planning Commission’s recommendation was to extend the businesses hours to 9:00 pm.) Several Council members expressed concern about the implications of longer hours being the default for major home occupations across the City. Other suggestions were proposed at the March 27 work meeting and this is a continuation of that discussion. This has been a hard one to balance the competing interests. Neighborhoods need to be protected from the potential of obtrusive business activities, but we don't want to stifle home businesses that wouldn't negatively impact their neighbors. A motion to request that Community Development staff prepare a proposal for recommended amendments to titles 6 and 14 of the Provo City Code regarding home occupations and accessory and supplementary apartments was approved 7:0.
    
    A motion to forward this amendment to the Planning Commission for review was approved 6:0, with David Harding excused. I invite anyone who experiences difficulties with Home Occupation Regulations to contact me. I'm not sure we have struck the right balance, but I'm not sure how to make it better (with ideas that the Council as a whole, would endorse).



Closed Meeting



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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


• Approval of Minutes
  Approved by unanimous consent.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


1. Neighborhood Spotlight: Timp Neighborhood
   Presentation only. Shannon Bingham, chair of the Timpanogos Neighborhood, highlighted the importance of walkability and bikability in this central neighborhood. She discussed the tragic death of Caleb Lane, a 15 year old boy who grew up in the neighborhood, who was struck by an automobile as he crossed 500 N in a crosswalk. She asked for all users of our streets, drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, to be alert and to watch out for each other. And she asked the City to prioritize street safety.
   
   I am grateful for the work of Ms. Bingham to represent and improve her neighborhood and I am grateful to be able to work with her on this issue.
2. A presentation on the Pioneer Village
   Presentation only. We heard from Steve Nelson, the "mayor" of the Provo Pioneer Village. Please check out this "flower" in our community, as Mr. Nelson calls it.



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.
Many people came to speak to the Complete Streets Policy item, which had been postponed shortly before the meeting, so they spoke during the public comment section. There were 20 people by my count who encouraged the City to prioritize street safety and supported Complete Street principles. It was heart-wrenching to listen to Jason Lane talk about his son, Caleb Lane, who was killed March 16 while in a crosswalk.



Action Agenda



3. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 422-490 South State Street, from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
   This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. I am disappointed that no stakeholder meetings between neighbors and the developer were held since our last meeting when we heard this item. I want more quality married student housing in Provo, but I want it to integrate well into the existing community. This will be a difficult decision if it is a take-it-or-leaving-it proposal. This item was continued to the May 15, 2018 Council Meeting at the request of the developer. This was also a last minute postponement. I hope that this extra time will be used to get this right.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding parking requirements in the Supplementary Residential (S) Overlay Zone. Citywide Impact. (PLOTA20180025)
   There are two areas of the City where the Supplementary Apartment Overlay (S) exists, both being adjacent to BYU Campus. The (S) Overlay is very similar to the Accessory Apartment Overlay zone with one clear distinction – the number of allowed unrelated individuals. The (A) overlay allows two unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment, while the (S) overlay allows four unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment. Despite the difference in occupancy, the required parking ratio is the same; four spaces are to serve the principal residence and the accessory apartment. It is proposed that the parking standards be raised two additional spaces to reflect the higher occupancy allowance of the (S) overlay. The more I look into this and hear from the public, the more I believe it is not needed and will be harmful. A motion to refer this item to the Housing Committee and to continue the item indefinitely was approved 6:0, with David Harding excused. Shortly into the discussion I excused myself to get to an important neighborhood meeting. I was able to voice my opposition to passing the ordinance. I am pleased with the outcome.
5. **CONTINUED** The Provo City Transportation and Mobility Committee proposes that the Municipal Council adopt by resolution a Complete Streets Policy and incorporate said policy as an appendix to the General Plan. Citywide impact. (PLGPA20180028)
   This was continued by the Planning Commission so it is not ready to be formally heard by the Council. I support Complete Street policies, this is so important to our community. But it is important enough that we need to get it right, so I'll try to be patient as it is worked out behind the scenes.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 27 March 2018

Provo is in the midst of an affordable housing crunch. We will be considering a proposal that will help provide some quality housing units for a group (married students) that is underserved by our housing inventory. But I am concerned about how well the development will integrate into the neighborhood. Take a look; it's items 6 and 7 on the Work Meeting agenda. Other hot topics are parking, legal difficulties with the County, and more legal difficulties with the County about parking.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Landmarks Commission

12:00 PM, Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes. We had a great visit with the Landmarks Commission. Not only is it their role to identify, designate, and protect the City's historic and cultural heritage, a big part of their job is to foster awareness and appreciation of our historic and cultural heritage. They shared this great photo of District 5 with the Council. I had never seen it before. Click on it to see a larger rendition.

1. A review of the purpose and duties of the Landmarks Commission.
   The Landmarks Commission consists of seven Provo residents, appointed by the Mayor, who survey and inventory historic resources of Provo as well as conduct reviews and make recommendations concerning historic preservation issues, among other duties. Provo is a great place to live, in large part due to the lives and sacrifices of those who came before us. Historic landmarks across the City add so much character to our community and remind us of our heritage and culture. Our historic program allows owners to voluntarily designate their properties. With designation comes regulations which are designed to protect the properties. There often is a significant cost to preserve structures to historical standards, and there is little incentive given to owners to have their properties designated.
   
   I am grateful to the people of Provo who choose to add their historic properties to our registry. I am also thankful to the members of the Landmarks Commission for their service to the City in this area.
2. A discussion of the Landmarks Commission initiatives.
   • Historic Home TourI believe this yearly event, associated with the Freedom Festival, has always been held in District 5. This year it is focused on my home neighborhood of Dixon! The walking tour is in June and July, with two Open House days (June 14th and 15th) where visitors can see the interior of several homes. See the Freedom Festival page for more details, and download the Historic Provo self-guided tour booklet.
   • Walking Tour AppGet the free app at the AppStore and at Google Play.
   • Outreach and social mediaCheck out their YouTube playlist to learn more about some historic places in Provo. You'll be inspired to go out and experience these places in person.
   • Preservation AwardsThe inaugrual Stephen Hales Award - For Individual Contribution to Preservation in Provo was given to his wife, Calli Hales. Stephen Hales was elected as District 5's representative on the Provo Council in 2013 and tragicly passed away in 2014. Calli Hales was appointed by the Council to fill the vacancy until a special election was held in 2015. Both Calli and Stephen are life-long contributors in our Community.
     
     2017 Preservation Awards were given to:
     • Habitat for Humanity for the George Taylor Jr. House
     • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the Provo City Center Temple
     • Encircle LGBT + Family & Youth Resource Center for the Alexander House
     As you can see, historic preservation and appresiation is alive and well in Provo City!
   • CLG Grants ProjectsThis year a $10,000 federal grant (administered by the State) is being matched by the Provo City School District to conduct a study on Dixon Middle School. Some critical decisions about the future of the school will be made in the next few years. If you are interested in its future, consider following the "Save Dixon Middle School" Facebook group.
3. A discussion on Landmarks Priorities.
   The Commission and Council are discussing possible incentives. There are regulations on registry structures which restrict what owners can do with them and often make them more expensive to maintain and renovate. If there is public value in preserving these structures, perhaps there should be a public contribution to their preservation.
   • Incentives
   • Surveys
4. A discussion on how the City Council can help the Landmarks Commission.
   • Adopt incentives
   • Funding

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, March 27, 2018

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

Business

1. A discussion on a proposed amendment to the C-PACE agreement (16-092)
   Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) is a State-run program that finances energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation upgrades to commercial properties. On September 6, 2016, the Council passed a resolution approving a C-PACE agreement with the Governor’s Office of Energy Development. The agreement outlined how an entity would be able to use C-PACE funding within Provo City. The C-PACE program was significantly updated during the 2017 State legislative session. Shawna Cuan, Managing Director of the Governor’s Office of Energy Development, will present the changes to C-PACE and explain how they affect Provo City. I believe that no one has used this program in the year and a half since we approved it. Perhaps it needs to be publicized more. Also, we excluded solar from the program while we were actively discussing how to structure solar fees. Now that that issue has been resolved, I believe we should remove that exclusion. A motion requesting that the Administration enter negotiations with OED, discuss with the Energy Department, move forward with option 1, remove the solar restrictions in the previous version, and return to discuss with the Council was approved 7:0. I believe that if we turn the program over to the State Office of Energy Development, then there will not be any solar restrictions. I spoke with an Energy Department representative, and it doesn't appear that there will be any concerns over this, so I believe we will be able to move forward quickly on this.
2. An update on Downtown Provo Inc. (18-027)
   Quinn Peterson from Downtown Provo, Inc. (DPI) will present on what DPI is doing to benefit downtown Provo. From everything I've seen, Mr. Peterson has done a great job turning DPI around, and it is beginning to fulfill the function for which it was created. Presentation only. Great things are continuing at DPI. One helpful development is that DPI has worked with local business owners to come to a consensus on how they would like to see parking addressed in Downtown Provo. Right now our parking system is not serving anyone well. DPI is asking that we take specific steps in enforcement, way-finding, and city-owned structured parking management. Once these steps are taken, the businesses will support paid on-street parking if there is still the need. This sort of collaborative approach is so constructive and effective. This is an example of why DPI exists, and the kind of thing that should have been happening all along and is now finally happening.
3. A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. The Parks and Recreation Department will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. Presentation only. We have a pretty amazing Parks and Rec Department. The presentation highlighted some of their on-going successes, including what they conclude is the most successful Rec Center in the United States. I didn't hear any specific budget requests. They did warn that we need to consider the on-going landscaping costs with new projects. For example, we look closely at the construction costs of the Bulldog Bullevard revamp, but we also need to consider that new landscaping will add costs to the Parks and Rec Department for up keep.
4. A presentation on the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (18-005)
   Every year, the Finance Division prepares a Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and presents the CIP to the Council in advance of the budget season. The CIP is a short-range plan which identifies capital projects and equipment purchases, provides a planning schedule and identifies options for financing the plan. The Provo City Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan is 176 pages of light reading. It lays out all of the coming capital projects -- airport, streets, sidewalks, trails, sewer, water, parks, building, and so on. Not everything is set in stone, but it shows the direction that we are headed. Presentation only. We just walked through the document together, hitting the highlights, summaries, and giving the Council a chance to ask questions.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

5. A discussion on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 14.41 Major Home Occupations to extend daytime business hours from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm, and a discussion of possible changes to the Home Occupations chapter generally (17-0025OA)
   At recent work and Council meetings, the Council has considered an applicant’s request to extend daytime business hours from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. (The Planning Commission’s recommendation was to extend the businesses hours to 9:00 pm.) Several Council members expressed concern about the implications of longer hours being the default for major home occupations across the City. Council Member Dave Sewell has prepared a presentation for the Council’s consideration that proposes a different standard for operating hours than in the recent proposal and identifies several additional proposed changes to the home occupation ordinance, based on suggestions from constituents, Council Member Stewart, and Community Development staff. We've been talking about this for a couple of months. We now have a more comprehensive review of the regulations and a cohesive proposal. I support everything the proposal is trying to do, and only have a few questions about the methods to achieve those objectives. A motion to bring this item back for discussion at the April 10, 208 Work Meeting was approved 7:0. We've had a few home occupations abusing ambiguities in the code, or outright flaunting the regulations, causing problems with their residential neighbors. I support making adjustments to the code, but I hope that we don't swing the balance too far away from home occupations. Provo is known for our entrepreneurial spirit and start-ups. Many start-ups started up in homes.
6. A discussion on a General Plan Map Amendment from Commercial to Residential for 1.52 acres of land located at 490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood (17-0002GPA)
   This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting.
7. A discussion on a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) for 1.92 acres of land located at 422-490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
   This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. (for items 6 and 7) In my opinion, this is the most important issue of the day. On one side we have an affordable housing crunch. This project is designed as married student housing, a group that is far larger in our community than the housing we have designed for them. This pushes them out into other forms of housing, increasing the competition and lowering the availability of these other types, which drives up housing costs. From this perspective, this project is exactly what we need in Provo right now.
   
   From the other perspective, this is a fairly large and monolithic project that doesn't blend well into the existing neighborhood. The neighbors have pushed for a number of changes, but so far the developer is continuing forward with the original proposal. Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval, with the condition that the two buildings are limited to three stories, as opposed to the four that is in the proposal. But the developer is moving forward with the request for four stories.
   
   This is a tough one to balance. We need more housing of this type, but it needs to be done well, in ways that enhance our existing neighborhoods. Along State Street is a good place for higher densities, but this proposed development would also project into the neighborhood. I met with the applicants to discuss some ways that the project could be altered so that it would integrate better into the neighborhood. We talked about several options. The minimum change that we talked about would allow it (from their understanding) to fit into the MDR (medium density residential) rather than the HDR zone. I am disappointed that they didn't decide to move forward with even this small change.
   
   See the proposal. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting. We previewed the item and had a little discussion among councilors. The majority of the discussion took place in the evening meeting so check out the report of items 6 and 7 in that meeting (below).
8. A discussion on a text amendment to Chapter 14.30 (Supplementary Apartment Overlay) to adjust the parking standards. Citywide Impact. (PLOTA20180025)
   There are two areas of the City where the Supplementary Apartment Overlay (S) exists, both being adjacent to BYU Campus. The (S) Overlay is very similar to the Accessory Apartment Overlay zone with one clear distinction – the number of allowed unrelated individuals. The (A) overlay allows two unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment, while the (S) overlay allows four unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment. Despite the difference in occupancy, the required parking ratio is the same; four spaces are to serve the principal residence and the accessory apartment. It is proposed that the parking standards be raised two additional spaces to reflect the higher occupancy allowance of the (S) overlay. This is the first I've heard about this request. I know there is a parking crunch in this area, but I wasn't aware that there was much redevelopment or active conversions going on. I do worry about over requiring parking in areas that could become less auto-centric because of their proximity to the BYU campus and Downtown, and with the coming upgrades to public transit. I'm interested to learn more about the motivations behind this request. This item was already scheduled for the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting. The related presentation was continued until the evening meeting due to a time shortage.



Redevelopment Agency Item

9. A discussion on the Downtown Provo Parking Structure terms of agreement (18-034)
   On Monday, March 19, Mayor Kaufusi and representatives from Utah County and PEG Development signed a terms sheet regarding the development of parking structures in downtown Provo. The legal agreement will likely be negotiated within 90 days from when the term sheet was signed. While the Council is not legally required to ratify the term sheet, it is still appropriate for the Council to provide input, if desired. I am thrilled that we have come to terms with the County to resolve the Convention Center Parking Impass. I hope this marks the start of a more collaborative relationship between the leaders of the City and the County. At the same time, though, the Council needs to make a serious assessment whether this deal is in the best interests of the residents and tax-payers in the City. Our obligation is to provide 350 parking spaces. This deal calls for us to put in $2M in property and property tax increment of not only this property, but an expanded zone. Perhaps this is reasonable for not only the parking obligation, but also to facilitate this development, but I think it is an important question to ask, and important to get a good answer. A motion to consider the first resolution as the implied motion for the resolution on the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting agenda was approved 6:1, with David Harding opposed. I didn't feel that I had enough information to make an informed decision, so I supported moving forward with the second proposed resolution which would allow for Council review of the final agreement.



Closed Meeting

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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Roll Call
• Prayer
• Pledge of Allegiance

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the March 2018 Employee of the Month.
   Presentation only. A big CONGRATS and THANKS to Cathy Smits, the Aquatic Supervisor at the Rec Center



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.
Beth Alligood, a neighborhood chair and area representative, urged us to use a scalpel rather than a machette when making changes to the Home Occupation regulations.



Consent Agenda

2. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the recodification of Provo City Code. (18-033)
   In the past, the Provo City Code was not available online and was printed and distributed widely in a hardcopy format. Each year, a new volume of the City Code was published as the “Provo City Code, 2008 Edition,” the “Provo City Code, 2009 Edition,” etc. The first part of the code (Title1) would also be updated with the current volume’s year to say that the current version of the City Code superseded any previously codified version. Because the Provo City Code is primarily accessed online now, the Code can technically be updated after any Council meeting throughout a given year. As a result, staff are proposing that the Council alter the language of Title 1 to remove the year from the Title. Simple clean-up. The Consent Agenda were approved 7:0.



Action Agenda

3. A resolution ratifying the Mayor's signature on the first addendum to the Fifth Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Provo City and Utah County relating to the Ice Sheet Authority.
   This one was added last minute. It is regarding the Ice Sheet dispute with the County and effectively gives both sides another month to negotiate before the Rink gets auctioned off. Approved 7:0. Hopefully this saga will be resolved within a month.
4. An ordinance granting Zayo Group LLC a nonexclusive franchise to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah. (18-010)
   This is a fairly standard required franchise agreement required for operating within the city. A minor change to the section on the dedication of fiber was made. Here is a summary of the changes: "1) The language was changed to insure that the City cannot use the fiber or allow others to use the fiber in a manner that competes with Zayo. 2) Although Zayo must provide 4 strands of fiber for City use throughout the term of the agreement, the company is not required to provide Single Mode Fiber. Zayo indicates that it uses SMF 99.9%, but cannot guarantee it 100% of the time. The IS department has assured that this should not be an issue." Approved 7:0. We probably could have taken care of this one on the consent agenda.
5. A resolution appropriating $178,620 in the Fire Department, General Fund for the purchase of wild fire equipment and other needs applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-031)
   The Fire Department recently received compensation for helping fight fires in other locations during the past year. The compensation is greater than what Provo’s Fire Department had to spend on these other fires. As a result, the Fire Department staff would like to use the excess money to purchase equipment that will help them fight wildfires in the future. As I've said previously, "There are different ways that this 'excess' money could be used. This seems like a reasonable way to use it. It will grow our capacity for future needs." Approved 7:0. I only half joked that the Firefighters should be taken out to a steak dinner, since they are the ones who earned this money.
6. A resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map designation for property generally located at 490 South State Street from Commercial to Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0002GPA)
   This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. Approved 7:0. Items 6 and 7 were discussed together. We continued item 7 until next time, but moved forward with the General Plan amendment. That part was non-controversial.
7. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 422-490 South State Street, from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
   This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. This is what I wrote about these items in the Work Meeting above, "In my opinion, this is the most important issue of the day. On one side we have an affordable housing crunch. This project is designed as married student housing, a group that is far larger in our community than the housing we have designed for them. This pushes them out into other forms of housing, increasing the competition and lowering the availability of these other types, which drives up housing costs. From this perspective, this project is exactly what we need in Provo right now.
   
   From the other perspective, this is a fairly large and monolithic project that doesn't blend well into the existing neighborhood. The neighbors have pushed for a number of changes, but so far the developer is continuing forward with the original proposal. Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval, with the condition that the two buildings are limited to three stories, as opposed to the four that is in the proposal. But the developer is moving forward with the request for four stories.
   
   This is a tough one to balance. We need more housing of this type, but it needs to be done well, in ways that enhance our existing neighborhoods. Along State Street is a good place for higher densities, but this proposed development would also project into the neighborhood. I met with the applicants to discuss some ways that the project could be altered so that it would integrate better into the neighborhood. We talked about several options. The minimum change that we talked about would allow it (from their understanding) to fit into the MDR (medium density residential) rather than the HDR zone. I am disappointed that they didn't decide to move forward with even this small change.
   
   See the proposal. Continued to the April 10, 2018 Council Meeting. Without the developer proffering a development agreement, our options are to zone this parcel HDR, MDR, or LDR (high, medium, or low density residential). Based on the discussion, I don't see the Council approving HDR. I think it would be a toss-up between MDR and LDR. Votes for MDR would be to allow more married-student housing which will help with our affordable housing problem. Votes for LDR would be because the neighbors are clearly against a four-story development, and the proposal doesn't integrate well into the neighborhood. I am hopeful that a development agreement will be proffered which addresses the neighbor concerns and we can get a good development that is beneficial to Provo broadly as well as the immediate community.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding parking requirements in the Supplementary Residential (S) Overlay Zone. Citywide Impact. (PLOTA20180025)
   There are two areas of the City where the Supplementary Apartment Overlay (S) exists, both being adjacent to BYU Campus. The (S) Overlay is very similar to the Accessory Apartment Overlay zone with one clear distinction – the number of allowed unrelated individuals. The (A) overlay allows two unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment, while the (S) overlay allows four unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment. Despite the difference in occupancy, the required parking ratio is the same; four spaces are to serve the principal residence and the accessory apartment. It is proposed that the parking standards be raised two additional spaces to reflect the higher occupancy allowance of the (S) overlay. This is what I wrote about this item in the Work Meeting above, "This is the first I've heard about this request. I know there is a parking crunch in this area, but I wasn't aware that there was much redevelopment or active conversions going on. I do worry about over requiring parking in areas that could become less auto-centric because of their proximity to the BYU campus and Downtown, and with the coming upgrades to public transit. I'm interested to learn more about the motivations behind this request. Continued to the April 10, 2018 Council Meeting. We asked several clarifying questions and discussed the concern by the public and neighborhood chairs that they weren't aware of this item. We continued it for two weeks to allow the public more time to consider it. I still don't see a strong argument for this proposal and I see many strong reasons not to do it.
9. Consideration of the proposed terms of agreement regarding a parking structure in downtown Provo (18-034)
   On Monday, March 19, Mayor Kaufusi and representatives from Utah County and PEG Development signed a terms sheet regarding the development of parking structures in downtown Provo. The legal agreement will likely be negotiated within 90 days from when the term sheet was signed. While the Council is not legally required to ratify the term sheet, it is still appropriate for the Council to provide input, if desired. Whether we take up this issue in the evening meeting depends on how our discussion goes in the afternoon meeting (item 9) A motion expressing the will of the Council that the Administration try to ensure that the ground floors of the parking structures have habitable space, and that the parking structures will be less than 8 stories tall was approved 7:0. Version B of the resolution, allowing the Mayor to execute the final agreements, was approved 7:0. I first voted for a failed motion to consider the resolution that would have allowed the Council to approve the final agreement. I just want to make sure we know what this deal will cost us, and that we aren't giving up too much relative to our liabilities that we are resolving.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

10. Consideration of the proposed terms of agreement regarding a parking structure in downtown Provo (18-034)
    If the Council passes a resolution regarding agenda item 9, it also needs to be passed by the Redevelopment Agency of Provo. This is the flipside of the previous item. We would have to approve any resolution as the RDA board as well. Version B of the resolution, allowing the Agency CEO to execute the final agreements, was approved 6:0, with David Knecht excused. See the report for item 9.



Adjournment