Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a time-stamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting.
/ PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCILRedevelopment Agency of Provo
Regular Meeting Minutes
5:40 PM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Room 200, Municipal Council Chambers
351 West Center, Provo, Utah
Opening Ceremony
Roll Call
THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION WERE PRESENT:Council Member David SewellCouncil Member David Harding
Council Member David KnechtCouncil Member George Stewart
Council Member Kim SantiagoCouncil Member Vernon K. Van Buren
CAO Wayne ParkerCouncil Attorney Brian Jones
Council Executive Director Clifford Strachan
Excused:Council Member Gary Winterton
Mayor John R. Curtis
Conducting:Council Chair David Sewell
Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance – Brian Taylor, Sunset Neighborhood Chair
Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards1 / A presentation of the Employee of the Month for September 2017 (0:10:07)
Gene Nelson, Provo City Library Director, presented the Employee of the Month Award for September 2017 to Jen Nelson, Librarian. In her current position as Children’s Librarian, Ms. Nelson was in charge of all programming including children’s story time and special events. When not working, Ms. Nelson enjoyed spending time with her four children, working on a Master’s Degree, hiking, or reading a good book.
2 / A presentation of the Justice Court Annual Report(0:14:17)Judge Romney presented the annual report for the Provo City Justice Court. The Justice Court personnel provided excellent customer service to our court customers as evidenced by an annual customer service survey. Even though court customers were not generally happy about having to go to court, the total average satisfaction rating from more than 200 court customers, was 3.44 on a scale from one to four.
Judge Romney reviewed the following statewide statistics for fiscal year 2017 showing that justice courts handle more cases than their general jurisdiction district courts:
- Justice Courts 428,836 case filings
- District Courts253,691 case filings
- Juvenile Courts 28,274 case filings
Of those case filings, the following numbers were criminal cases:
- Justice Courts68,273 criminal cases
- District Courts42,111 criminal cases
Provo City Justice Court Statistics:
- Criminal Cases2,173
- Small Claims2,179
- Traffic Cases7,682
The Utah court system was composed of the following:
- Utah Supreme Court – 5 justices
- Utah Court of Appeals – 7 judges
- State District Court – 83 judges
- Juvenile Court – 33 judges
- Justice Court – 98 judges.
Judge Romney reported the President of the National Center for State Courts recently stated that Utah’s judicial system was the best organized, most efficient, and best managed among all the states and was used as a model internationally.
Public Comment(0:27:00)Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda.
There was no response to the request for public comment.
Action Agenda3 / Resolution 2017-45 consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (0:28:06)
Motion: / An implied motion to approve Resolution 2017-45, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule.
Wayne Parker, Provo City Chief Administrative Officer, presented. He noted the following individuals had been presented to the council and recommended for the council’s approval to serve on boards in the city:
- Natalie Gibbs – Parks and Recreation Board
- Stuart Wheeler – Arts Council
- Scott Glenn – Arts Council
There was no response to the request for public comment.
Chair Sewell called for a vote on the implied motion to approve the resolution.
Roll Call Vote: / The motion passed 6:0 with Council Members Harding, Knecht, Santiago, Sewell, Stewart, and Van Buren in favor. Council Member Winterton was excused.Chair Sewell amended the agenda to discuss Items No. 6, 10, and 12 before Item No. 3.
6 / Resolution 2017-46 approving the transfer of the Hunter Power Plant assets from Provo City to the Utah Municipal Power Agency and approving the Assignment and Assumption Agreement. (0:31:23)Motion: / An implied motion to approve Resolution 2017-46, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule.
Travis Ball, Provo City Energy Director, presented. Provo City purchased 6.25 percent interest in the Hunter Power Plant in 1980. When the Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA) was formed in 1985, Provo City signed a power sale agreement to purchase all power required for Provo from UMPA. The agreement included power generated from the Hunter Plant and the downtown plant. All members of UMPA have mutually paid for and benefitted from the Hunter agreement.
Future costs for environmental upgrades and decommissioning will be paid by the UMPA member cities through the power sales agreement. This required the transfer of Hunter Power Plant assets to UMPA in order to meet the terms of the power sales agreement.
There was no response to the request for public comment.
Chair Sewell called for a vote on the implied motion to approve the resolution.
Roll Call Vote: / The motion passed 6:0 with Council Members Harding, Knecht, Santiago, Sewell, Stewart, and Van Buren in favor. Council Member Winterton was excused.10 / Ordinance 2017-43 amending the Aspen Loop Road dedication to more accurately match the final plat. Provost Neighborhood. (0:33:43)
Motion: / An implied motion to adopt Ordinance 2017-43, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule.
Bill Peperone, Community Development Deputy Director, presented. The proposed ordinance would vacate a section of the Aspen Loop Road in order to facilitate realignment for a planned development at that location.
There was no response to the request for public comment.
Chair Sewell called for a vote on the implied motion to adopt the ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: / The motion passed 6:0 with Council Members Harding, Knecht, Santiago, Sewell, Stewart, and Van Buren in favor. Council Member Winterton was excused.12 / Ordinance 2017-44 amending Provo City Code to adopt Public Works Standards by reference, as required by State Code. Citywide impact. (0:36:25)
Motion: / An implied motion to adopt Ordinance 2017-44, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule.
Josh Yost, Provo City Planner, presented. During the last Utah State legislative session,amendments were made to Utah Code requiringcities to adopt certain public works standards for public utilities and infrastructure related to site development. Provo City Public Works requested Title 15 of the Provo City Code be amended to add Section 15.03.020(3) which would adopt those public works standards required by Utah Code.
Mr. Yost stated the planning commission approved adoption of the ordinance with the understanding that Public Works would return and present additional standards that had not been included in this amendment. The additional standards were related to bicycle and pedestrian facility design and alternate right-of-way street designs. Public Works agreed to present these to the planning commission later in the year. Those additional standards would be presented to the council later.
Chair Sewell invited public comment. There was no response to the request.
Brian Jones, Council Attorney, reviewed two changes made to the ordinancesince the item was published on Thursday. The implied motion would apply to the version shown on the screen, which included the following amendments.
- Section (3)(a)(i) and (ii) were previously listed as one item. Since the manual of APWA Standards and Specifications were two different volumes, they were listed separately.
- Section (3)(a) removed a phrase that would have automatically updated the city adoption of the national standards if they were updated by the national body. Council determined they would formally adopt any changes as they were updated nationally.
With no council discussion, Chair Sewell called for a vote on the implied motion to adopt the ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: / The motion passed 6:0 with Council Members Harding, Knecht, Santiago, Sewell, Stewart, and Van Buren in favor. Council Member Winterton was excused.4 / An ordinance enacting a new Provo City Code provision regarding rental contracts. (0:41:18)
Chair Sewell introduced this item and stated a vote would not be taken that night. This would be the first of two public comment opportunities to speak on this item. He also noted that an open house would be held the next night (Wednesday, September 20), for citizens to meet with experts and discuss different aspects of the proposal.
Marcus Draper, Assistant City Attorney, presented. The zoning committee had been looking into issues related to over occupancy. Some of these issues included outside investment leading to inflated values of home prices, parking problems, and people unaware of occupancy restrictions (three single, unrelated individuals or one family). In order to increase the education of landlords and tenants, and to increase enforcement of occupancy violations, the proposed ordinance would require tenants to enter into a written contract that would specify occupancy restrictions.
A rental dwelling license was required in order to rent dwelling units to others. As part of the application process, Community Development would issue an approval letter stating what the legal occupancy and uses would be for that property. That letter would be included in the contract between a tenant and landlord. The goal of the proposed ordinance was to enforce compliance of the law, not to press criminal charges.
In response to a question from Mr. Knecht, Mr. Draper replied that if a person sublets their apartment to someone else, they should notify the landlord. The landlord would require a separate contract with the person subletting the apartment. He emphasized that the landlord should have ultimate control of the property and who was living there.
Mr. Draper said the city could request a copy of a rental contract, listing the names of people renting, if the city had reasonable cause to suspect over occupancy.
In response to questions from Chair Sewell, Mr. Draper said, in many cases, the landlord will say they were not aware of how many people were actually living in the rental dwelling. By requiring a written contract, both the landlord and/or tenant could be held responsible for over occupancy. If the investigation concluded the tenant had sublet the apartment without notifying the owner, the tenant may be responsible.
Under the current penalty system, after receiving a violation notice for over occupancy the tenant would be given a certain period of time to come into compliance. If they refused to move out, criminal charges could be filed. The penalty would be a Class C misdemeanor with a fine of up to $250. The violation of a rental dwelling agreement was a Class B misdemeanor.
Ms. Santiago noted that, by the very nature of receiving money from a sub lessee, a contract exists. Mr. Draper agreed, stating that if there was an offer, and acceptance of that offer, it was called consideration. A contract existed, even in the absence of a written contract.
In response to a question from Mr. Harding, Mr. Draper stated that compliance with the proposed ordinance would need to occur within one year, even in the event of an oral contract. Mr. Jones stated there had been extensive discussion about enforcement timing, however, that language had not been inserted into the ordinance yet.
A landlord with a new application for, or renewal of, a rental dwelling business license would have to show compliance with the requirement of a written contract with each tenant. If a contract already existed, the landlord would be required to provide a copy of the rental dwelling license application approval letter and a copy of the Tenant’s Rights and Responsibilities document provided by Provo City when the rental dwelling license was up for renewal.
In response to a question from Ms. Santiago, Mr. Draper explained that Utah Code 10-3-84 provided Provo City with the ability to enact any law for the general welfare of its citizens. He felt the proposed ordinance met that intent.
In response to a request from Chair Sewell, Mr. Jones contacted the Utah Property Rights Ombudsman to obtain an opinion on the proposed ordinance. A formal opinion was not provided; however, the ombudsman stated he had no concerns with the majority of the ordinance and had no problems with what the city was trying to accomplish.
Chair Sewell invited public comment. (1:17:53)
Tracy Hall, owner of an owner occupied residence in South Provo, stated that Provo City was not a party in the contract. He questioned whether Provo should insert themselves into the contract process, even if it was best practice to have a written contract. He asked if it was appropriate for Provo City to use criminal law to address an education issue.
Isaac Paxton, Provo, stated this ordinance was criminalizing a rental agreement. It would discourage a citizen from obtaining a rental dwelling license agreement. He recommended setting a civil fine for the tenant and/or landlord.
Mr. Jones clarified that it was already a crime to rent without a license. The proposed ordinance did not change that.
Brian Taylor, Sunset Neighborhood Chair, stated that Mr. Draper did not prove that a signed contract would make occupancyenforcement more efficient. Some of his neighbors that had called code enforcement had been met with hostility. The change must be enforceable. He questioned the amount of money it would take to enforce additional code violations.
Hannah Petersen, Provost Neighborhood Vice Chair, supported the proposed ordinance. She stated that education was just one step in the over occupancy enforcement process and was grateful to see the enforcement move forward. There was a significant monetary incentive for landlords that do not obtain rental dwelling licenses and did not respond to zoning officers. She was heavily involved in zoning enforcement and recognized that people felt hurt, attacked or unwanted when zoning laws were enforced. She said the city wanted balanced neighborhoods. If this ordinance was not passed, what were they saying to the neighborhoods?
TiffaniLehmitz, Provost Neighborhood, supported the ordinance. She had been on both sides of the ordinance because, in the past, she and her husband lived in a home in Sandy that was probably over occupied. She liked educating the tenants about the zoning laws. It provided transparency so the city could enforce the zoning laws already in place.
Neil Wagstaff, landlord since 1964, had contracts with his tenants that spelled out how many could live in the home. However, he had no legal right to go into the property without their permission so he could not enforce the over occupancy law. He was in favor of educating the tenants but did not want the landlord to be responsible if he was unaware of over occupancy. He stated it was difficult, and expensive, to evict a tenant.
Mr. Jones reported that Provo City Code 6.26.150(6) stated the landlord was only criminally guilty if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violate this section. If a landlord was not able to determine who was living in the home, the landlord was not in violation of the ordinance. That was why the ordinance was drafted to be enforceable against both the landlord and/or the tenant, depending on who was at fault.
Scott Taysom, Provo, was grateful for soft enforcement, but felt it needed to be in writing or it was not part of the ordinance. He felt the ordinance was based on hearsay and not actual data. As for singles moving into neighborhoods bringing down school attendance, public data from 2008 to 2017 showed some student declines at Spring Creek Elementary were not abnormal and was not caused by singles moving into the area. There was not enough housing for young professionals. Further cracking down on this would make it harder to provide sufficient housing.
Bryce Bunting, Provost Neighborhood, stated he was an elected member of the Provost School Community Council. He was in support of the ordinance because, as a homeowner in the neighborhood, he had a reasonable expectation that existing ordinances would be adhered to. He reported statistics as they related to the Provost Elementary (acknowledging that causality was difficult to prove) showed the persistence rate (the number of students enrolled as kindergartnersthat would finish as sixth graders) decreased from 70 percent in 2005 to 40 percent in 2017. The mobility rate (percentage of students that moved during the school year) was 22 percent in 2016. The city and taxpayers have spent $14 million on a new building that may not be filled in in ten years.
Julianne Gray, resident of west Provo, reported that ten years ago she was a graduate student living in Deer Haven with two roommates. They had to leave a room empty in order tocomply with the ordinance. She recommended enforcing the laws that were already on the books instead of creating new bureaucracy. The ordinance was not applicable to all citizens. Her neighbor had eight people living in a two-bedroom apartment and had six cars and yet they were in compliance. The ordinance discriminated against people because of their marital status.