PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting 12:00 PM, Tuesday, June 01, 2021 Hybrid meeting: youtube.com/provocitycouncil or 351 W Center Street, Provo, UT 84601 **REVISED AGENDA** Item 2 has been added, and all subsequent agenda items have been renumbered. This meeting will be conducted as a hybrid meeting, with some in-person components as well as continued virtual meeting access. The meeting will be available to the public for live broadcast and on- demand viewing on YouTube and Facebook at: youtube.com/provocitycouncil and facebook.com/provocouncil. If one platform is unavailable, please try the other. If both services are down or unavailable, after a reasonable (but short) time waiting to see if the services resume, the remainder of the meeting will be postponed to the next week, with appropriate public notice given of the rescheduled date. If you do not have access to the Internet, you can join via telephone following the instructions below. The in-person meeting will be held in the Council Chambers with limited seating to accommodate social distancing and related public health measures.

To listen to the meeting by phone: June 01 Work Meeting: Dial 346-248-7799. Enter Meeting ID 852 2429 6948 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #.

Agenda

Roll Call Prayer Approval of Minutes

December 1, 2020 Work Meeting March 30, 2021 Work Meeting May 25, 2021 Budget Work Meeting

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

1. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately .25 acres of real property, generally located at 790 West. 500 South, from Residential (R1.6) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210128)

Business

2. A presentation regarding the Fire Master Plan. (21-069)

3. A presentation regarding Provo 360. (21-065)

4. A presentation regarding proposed changes to the FY 2022 budget initiated by the Council at the May 25, 2021 Work Meeting. (21-015) 5. A presentation regarding changes to the FY 2022 Provo City Fee Schedule (21-015)

6. A presentation regarding a Local Government Disaster Fund. (21-066)

7. A presentation regarding Property Taxes (21-064)

8. A discussion regarding the Residential Dwelling License Program. (21-063)

9. A discussion regarding Budget Intent Statements for FY 2022. (21-015)

10. A presentation from the Foothills Protection Committee. (21-068)

11. A presentation regarding the Intent Statement for the Southwest Area Plan. (21-067)

Closed Meeting 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.

Adjournment Hybrid Meeting Protocol For the past year, the Provo City Municipal Council has been meeting without an anchor location, pursuant to Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act, and has instead conducted all meetings online. Notwithstanding the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and Utah County’s moderate level of coronavirus transmission, the Municipal Council has determined to hold its meetings at an anchor location AND online. We invite interested persons to participate:  in the Council Chambers located at the City Center building; OR  online by watching the live broadcasts at youtube.com/provocitycouncil and facebook.com/provocouncil. There will be limited seating available in the Council Chambers and we encourage attendees to maintain appropriate health protocols such as wearing masks and social distancing. Public comment may be received in person OR online (by calling in or logging onto the Zoom Webinar) which are detailed in meeting notices and agendas, and on the broadcasts. Follow the instructions provided on public notices of each meeting.

If you have a comment regarding items on the agenda, please contact Councilors at [email protected] or using their contact information listed at: provo.org/government/city-council/meet-the-council

Materials and Agenda: agendas.provo.org Council meetings are broadcast live and available later on demand at youtube.com/ProvoCityCouncil To send comments to the Council or weigh in on current issues, visit OpenCityHall.provo.org.

The next Work Meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 15, 2021. The meeting will be conducted as a hybrid meeting. Work Meetings generally begin between 12 and 4 PM. Council Meetings begin at 5:30 PM. The start time for additional meetings may vary. All meeting start times are noticed at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Notice of Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) In compliance with the ADA, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aides and services) during this meeting are invited to notify the Provo Council Office at 351 W. Center, Provo, Utah 84601, phone: (801) 852-6120 or email [email protected] at least three working days prior to the meeting. Council meetings are broadcast live and available for on demand viewing at youtube.com/ProvoCityCouncil.

Notice of Telephonic Communications One or more Council members may participate by telephone or Internet communication in this meeting. Telephone or Internet communications will be amplified as needed so all Council members and others attending the meeting will be able to hear the person(s) participating electronically as well as those participating in person. The meeting will be conducted using the same procedures applicable to regular Municipal Council meetings.

Notice of Compliance with Public Noticing Regulations This meeting was noticed in compliance with Utah Code 52-4-202 and Provo City Code 14.02.010. Agendas and minutes are accessible through the Provo City website at agendas.provo.org. Council meeting agendas are available through the Utah Public Meeting Notice website at utah.gov/pmn, which also offers email subscriptions to notices. Network for public internet access: Provo Guest, password: provoguest Pending minutes – awaiting approval

Please note: these minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Minutes 12:00 PM, Tuesday, December 01, 2020 Electronic meeting: youtube.com/provocitycouncil

Agenda (0:00:00)

Roll Call The following elected officials participated: Council Chair George Handley, conducting Council Vice-chair David Harding Councilor Bill Fillmore, arrived 1:05 PM Councilor Shannon Ellsworth Councilor Travis Hoban Councilor David Shipley Councilor David Sewell Mayor Michelle Kaufusi, arrived 12:10 PM

Prayer Councilor David Harding offered the prayer.

Business

1. A discussion regarding the preservation of Bridal Veil Falls for natural and recreational purposes. (20-246) (0:14:44)

Council Chair George Handley outlined the background of this discussion item. As part of the City Council’s efforts regarding foothills and canyon preservation in the City, the Council wished to speak to the issue of the future of Bridal Veil Falls as the County Commission engages in discussions on the same. Councilors briefly discussed the item and whether a jointly issued letter or a resolution would be more effective in conveying the Council and Mayor’s message. Mayor Michelle Kaufusi also suggested an emissary of the Council read the letter into the Commission’s public comment. Councilors loved the Mayor’s idea to present the letter in person at the Commission meeting. Mr. Handley invited a motion regarding the Council’s consideration of the resolution at the meeting later that evening.

Motion: Shannon Ellsworth moved to place the resolution for adoption on the Council Meeting that evening. Seconded by David Shipley. Vote: Approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore excused.

1 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

2. A discussion regarding Impact Fees and how they apply to non-profit home builders of low income housing. (20-241) (0:28:04)

Brian Jones, Council Attorney, shared background information on impact fees, including the authorization in State law regarding use and management of impact fees, including exemptions. Councilor David Shipley expressed that he was not interested in allowing exemptions for (and therefore subsidizing) regular developers who would just put in 20% low-income housing to get the discount or benefits. John Magness, Policy Analyst, shared details on the City’s impact fees. Mr. Magness shared examples of the parks and recreation impact fees for various types of new developments to illustrate how different policies could affect the calculation. Mr. Magness highlighted several other policy considerations relating to impact fees.

Councilor David Harding expressed appreciation for Mr. Shipley’s earlier comments. He noted that impact fees had real costs and expressed concern with a recent State law that was diverting City money to other areas in the state. Mr. Harding felt that having projects incorporate a certain percentage of affordable units was a great way to encourage more housing types throughout the City. Councilor Shannon Ellsworth was interested in this topic and noted the Housing Committee could discuss it further. Mr. Shipley referenced his earlier concern and wondered how a policy could be structured to avoid these situations. Mr. Jones recommended the committee study it, but a possible way could be to identify a percentage threshold which could be used as a criteria.

Motion: Shannon Ellsworth moved to delegate the discussion of impact fees for low- income and affordable housing to the Housing Committee for further review and recommendations. Seconded by David Harding. Vote: Approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore excused.

3. A presentation from Utah Strong Recovery Project regarding the resource they have available mental health. (20-242) (0:53:13)

Cindy Wilmshurst, a crisis counselor with the Utah Department of Human Services, presented. Ms. Wilmshurst shared details on the Utah Strong Recovery Project, which is a FEMA-funded initiative in all 50 states. Data has shown that approximately 20% of people are struggling with impact of stress of COVID-19 on their well-being. She shared a video highlighting more information. She noted that most counselors involved with the program have been FEMA-trained for disaster response, which is typically localized and time-limited. Pandemic response is very different in nature, but many of the skillsets of the counselors apply in this context as well. She observed that this high rate of stress is a very common response to a very uncommon experience, such as a pandemic. Presentation only.

4. A presentation from Brigham Young University students regarding ways to make Provo more livable to students at the university. (20-243) (1:12:34)

Robert Mills, Planning Supervisor, introduced the presentation and then turned the time to the BYU student group. Spencer Duncan, student, presented. He noted that students pay high rents for low livability. Their group has been collaborating with BYU’s Y-Serve on quarterly service activities geared at improving housing in the campus area. Y-Serve has the organizational

2 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval structure needed to mobilize volunteers and there is a lot of interest at BYU in the civic engagement minor and other programs which could incorporate these types of activities as a class assignment to add further momentum. In response to a question from Councilor Shannon Ellsworth about the quality of living conditions, Mr. Duncan explained that many complexes and apartments are poor quality. This perpetuates students not feeling invested in the places they live and is a barrier to engaging students in the broader community and neighborhoods. Zeke Peters, student, shared more about other initiatives to involve students more in local government. They have formed a social media committee which can help provide Provo with direct information about students; in return, the City can share direct information geared toward students. Councilor George Handley thanked the class for their work on these projects. Presentation only.

5. A presentation regarding a pre-proposal to rezone property located at 50 East 3900 North from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (20-244) (1:34:04)

Dan LaFontaine, applicant, shared background on his proposed development and the history with the application review process, neighborhood feedback, and other project constraints. In response to a question from Councilor David Shipley regarding the average square footage and starting price, Mr. LaFontaine indicated the units ranged between 2500-3200 square feet, with prices beginning at $300,000 depending on the materials and finishes.

Brian Jones, Council Attorney, outlined the procedural framework for this application. A vote at the last Council Meeting failed, meaning that the Council took no action. Mr. Jones noted that a motion for reconsideration must take place in the same meeting in which a vote failed. Councilor David Sewell noted that as Council Chair George Handley had noted, none of the Councilors were aware of the technical problems that Mr. LaFontaine experienced. Mr. Sewell also expressed that Mr. LaFontaine’s characterization of the neighbors was not charitable or accurate; he was a valued and respected member of the neighborhood, and the neighbors’ concerns were strictly with the compatibility of the project for the site. Councilor David Harding felt that the Low-Density Residential zone was appropriate for the project, noting that he was wary of requesting this return to a Council Meeting if there was not sufficient Council support.

Motion: David Harding moved to place this item on a future Council Meeting agenda as an ordinance to either LDR or VLDR. No second was received and Councilors discussed the motion.

Mr. Handley and Mr. Sewell both preferred the Very Low-Density Residential zone. Councilor Shannon Ellsworth noted the Council essentially decided no on LDR with their earlier vote; it did not make sense to revisit this when there was already not sufficient support.

Substitute motion: David Harding moved to consider a rezone to VLDR. No second received.

Amended motion: David Harding amended the motion to authorize the Council Chair to place consideration of a rezone to VLDR on the agenda within the next two months if the applicant wished to amend the proposal. Seconded by David Sewell. Vote: Approved 7:0.

3 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

Administration

6. A discussion regarding a resolution transferring $235,000 from the General Fund to the Golf Fund to compensate for Golf Fund operating losses. (20-245) (2:12:19)

David Mortensen, Budget Officer, outlined this transfer request. This was part of an audit procedure to address deficit fund balances. Scott Henderson, Parks and Recreation Director, shared more background information. He outlined the impacts to the golf course operations during the construction season, along with the additional challenges presented by the pandemic. Brett Watson, Golf Course Manager, explained that the reopening of Timpanogos Golf Club in 2020 has been record-setting. Councilors commended Parks and Recreation on their management and effective implementation of new programming in their facilities.

Councilor David Harding asked whether Parks and Recreation did a transfer to the General Fund, and if so, if that would be a better source for this transfer instead. Mr. Henderson explained that this year, the recreation center had covered its operational costs, but as a result of the revenue losses experienced during the pandemic, they did not carry their usual $400,000 for future capital needs, nor did they do their usual $500,000 transfer to the General Fund. Presentation only. This item is scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 15, 2020.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding permitted uses in the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1), Community Shopping Center (SC2), And Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zones and related provision. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190429) (2:32:12)

Javin Weaver, Planner, presented. Mr. Weaver outlined the process by which staff conducted this review and he highlighted the changes to permitted uses in these zones, including minor consolidations. During the presentation, Councilor Shannon Ellsworth asked for clarification on several points and Mr. Weaver addressed those questions as they arose. Ms. Ellsworth asked about several uses which were permitted in only one of the three zones; staff felt that museums were more appropriate in a regional shopping center zone than in the smaller zones. Councilor David Harding noted some of the idiosyncrasies with the SLU codes system. He hoped that in the future, the City may be able to implement more broader updates to outdated code, but he felt this was a positive step forward. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to enact the Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200140) (2:51:20)

Javin Weaver, Planner, presented. Mr. Weaver overviewed the properties which would be impacted in the proposed zone change, including 68 parks, eight trailheads, nine cemeteries, nine greenways, six nature preserves, three recreation ranges, and three golf courses. Of these properties to be rezoned, 103 were owned by the City and one was owned by the federal 4 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval government. Councilor Shannon Ellsworth asked what the impetus was for this proposal. Mr. Weaver explained that staff had seen a need to create an open space zone to better represent this intent as is already stated in Provo’s General Plan. Many other cities use this type of zone, and where Provo did not have the proper mechanism in place to carry out that general plan goal, staff determined this would be an appropriate solution. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

9. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approx 1,291 acres of property located within the boundaries of Provo City, from various zone classifications to Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR). Citywide Application. (PLRZ20200304) (2:51:20)

This item was presented in tandem with the previous agenda item. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

10. An ordinance amending Provo General Plan Sections 1.2.9 and 1.2.10 related to the Key Land Use Policies (North Area Guiding Principles) And Urban Growth and Land Use Annexation. Citywide Application. (PLGPA20200357) (2:58:57)

Robert Mills, Planning Supervisor, presented. Mr. Mills explained the changes proposed to the text and maps in the affected General Plan sections. Areas 5 and 6 would include properties that should be zoned as the Open Space, Preservation, and Recreation Zone upon annexation into the city. Properties in Area 5 were privately held, while properties in area 6 were publicly owned. The intent was to better communicate the intentions with these properties, which were valued for their open space and recreation potential. Some text was also being amended to discourage the use of PRO or SDP zones in the future. Councilor David Harding had several questions, which he indicated he would defer to the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to remove references to “Community Development Director.” Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200310) (3:04:49)

Robert Mills, Planning Supervisor, presented. The ordinance text would update the city code to be accurate following the City’s departmental reorganization. Councilor Shannon Ellsworth asked about removing gendered language from city code; Mr. Mills and Brian Jones, Council Attorney, indicated that staff have begun drafting language to accomplish this. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify spacing requirements for accessory structures in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200291) (3:07:33)

Dustin Wright, Planner, presented. This text amendment would clarify several elements in the code relating to the RC zone. Most properties in other residential zones do not have major setbacks for accessory buildings like sheds, so this would be edited to be more consistent with other sections in city code. A shed would need to be located at least six feet from a main

5 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval building. Councilor David Harding asked whether accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were allowed on areas of properties where a main building would not be allowed. Mr. Wright explained that a separate section of code regulated the setbacks for ADUs. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

13. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.34 acres of real property, generally located at 590 West 300 South, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200287) (3:11:57)

Dustin Wright, Planner, presented. He outlined the requested zone change. The VLDR zone would allow for a duplex to be constructed on the proposed subdivided lot at the subject property. The Planning Commission has recommended approval. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

14. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 4.6 acres of real property, generally located at 34 S 2530 W, from Agricultural (A1) to Residential (R1.8). Provo Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200156) (3:14:25)

Dustin Wright, Planner, presented. The applicant plans to subdivide this property to build 15 single-family homes. Mr. Wright reviewed the general plan and future land use map designation for the area. Much of the surrounding property is currently agricultural or adjacent to residential; the future designations for this area are residential. Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval, and the proposed subdivision plat was also approved. Councilors asked questions and shared comments on the proposal as well as housing planning in the area.

Councilor David Shipley wanted to revisit sewer capacity on the west side and how to prioritize wastewater capacity on smaller projects, when large projects must be phased to accomplish their projects within the constraints of the wastewater system. Mr. Wright explained that larger developments must happen in phases of up to 40 units at a time. Since this site is only 15 units, Public Works had no concerns about sewer capacity for this site. In response to a question from Councilor David Harding, Mr. Wright shared a site plan illustrating the subdivision layout, including tie-in streets. Mr. Harding had hoped the project would have had more mixed housing. Councilors Shannon Ellsworth and George Handley echoed this desire to promote different housing types and suggested that in the future, staff share data and maps illustrating housing density and concentrations to depict housing trends in different parts of Provo. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

15. An ordinance amending the General Plan Map Designation of real property located at 1555 N Canyon Road from Commercial to Residential. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLGPA20200062) (3:24:49)

Aaron Ardmore, Planner, presented on this and the following items together. Initially, staff had recommended denial of this proposal, but since the initial review in August, the applicant has revised their project plan to meet the requirements of the Campus Mixed Use zone. The total number of units has been reduced from 96 to 86, while keeping the original amount of parking.

6 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

The units are a mixture of studio, one-, and two-bedroom. Mr. Ardmore also shared renderings regarding how the applicant planned to address storage and landscaping. This revised proposal has received a positive recommendation from both staff and the Planning Commission. This location is ideal for student housing and supports the general plan goal to provide more housing in the area. Councilor Shannon Ellsworth asked why kind of housing this was; she observed that the units did not feel like livable space. Mr. Ardmore indicated it was theoretically planned for married student housing; the applicant would remodel all the units and install stovetops. This proposal demonstrated creative reuse of a building that has presented many problems in recent years. Councilor George Handley asked about the demand for married student housing; Ms. Ellsworth indicated her understanding was that there is continuing demand for that housing type in Provo. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

16. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.91 acres of real property, generally located at 1555 North Canyon Road, from General Commercial (CG) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200085) (3:24:49)

This item was presented in tandem with the previous item on the agenda. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020.

17. **CONTINUED** An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 11 acres of real property, located at 1920 W Center Street, from Community Shopping Center (SC2) to Neigh. Shopping Center (SC1) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). (PLRZ20200282)

Closed Meeting 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.

Motion: Shannon Ellsworth moved to close the meeting. Seconded by Travis Hoban. Vote: Approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore excused.

Adjournment Adjourned by unanimous consent.

7 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

Please note: these minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Minutes 12:00 PM, Tuesday, March 30, 2021 Electronic meeting: youtube.com/provocitycouncil

Agenda (0:00:00)

Roll Call The following elected officials participated: Council Chair David Sewell, conducting Council Vice-chair David Shipley Councilor George Handley Councilor Bill Fillmore Councilor Shannon Ellsworth Councilor David Harding Councilor Travis Hoban, arrived 12:09 PM Mayor Michelle Kaufusi, arrived 12:06 PM

Prayer Councilor Shannon Ellsworth gave the prayer.

Business

1. A presentation regarding Administrative Services' fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015) (0:10:37)

John Borget, Administrative Services Director, introduced the presentation. Each division within the department presented in more detail on their operations and budgets. Dan Follett, Finance Division Director, reviewed the city debt going up to the latest-audited financial statements. He noted the types of debts and shared details about different debt sources. The City was able to make an advanced repayment on the recreation center bond, which saved the city $3 million in interest (and thus saved property taxpayers $3 million). Mr. Follett reviewed the other debt categories and responded to Councilors’ questions. Councilor George Handley asked whether the City had an overall bond rating or if it was broken down into categories. Mr. Follett indicated that sales tax revenue was most indicative of the economic health of the Provo community; Provo has a AAA rating for sales tax. Mr. Follett shared more insight into the bond ratings, noting that Provo’s AA+ rating for General Obligation bonds was very respectable.

Daniel Softley, HR Division Director, presented on the Human Resources budget. HR was part of the City’s pandemic response, including implementing and administering pandemic leave in 1 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval accordance with federal law, as well as implementing COVID-19 mitigation strategies within the City organization (including CDC updates, contact tracing, quarantine, and return-to-work practices). They also hoped to implement their new software by the end of June. Mr. Softley also reviewed relevant general plan goals and how HR supports these functions by promoting the development of Provo’s workforce. Mr. Softley noted that the division had no important unfunded or supplemental needs; in the new fiscal year, important budget items would be a software support position for IS, as well as continued support for their efforts toward fair compensation, including updating pay tables, making grade adjustments, and preparing for potential minimum wage increases. In response to a question from Councilor David Harding, Mr. Softley offered clarification as to how the grades for management level positions worked.

Amanda Ercanbrack, City Recorder, shared updates on the division’s functions, including municipal elections in 2021 and the increasing and evolving nature of records requests through GRAMA. She has also worked with each department to appoint a certified records officer within their department. Ms. Ercanbrack continued to prepare the City’s vault records and materials for the future move to the new building. The Recorder’s office also assisted with digitization of some historic photos in collaboration with the Provo Library.

Kyle Hanson, Information Systems Division Director, presented on the IS budget. He noted that their division were major participants in the City’s COVID-19 response, as they provided technical support and skill to deploy the use of remote collaboration tools, expanded remote access, and phone updates throughout the City organization. In response to a question from Councilor Bill Fillmore about the City’s cybersecurity standing, Mr. Hanson noted that several supplemental requests addressed this area. Mr. Hanson reviewed the IS supplemental requests:  Restore training and travel budget to pre-pandemic levels and align the funding such that each full-time employee is granted the same travel and training benefit  Workday analyst position (support and manage 30+ integrations of the new HR system)  Server infrastructure support  Citywide Office365 standard for all employees  Back-up archive (a protected backup that cannot be changed or altered)  CityView analyst position  Email security gateway (to prevent and identify phishing attempts)  Ivanti Patch Manager (to manage and verify consistent, critical Windows updates)  GIS aerial imagery  Web automation tool (as the City considers a redesign of the look and feel of the site, this would ensure that the City website provides a positive experience to users) Presentation only.

2. A resolution appropriating $105,000 from Wildland Fire Response Revenues into the Fire Department in the General Fund for an employee salary adjustment warranted by a recent salary market study. (21-048) (1:09:26)

John Borget, Administrative Services Director, introduced the presentation. He explained that the City conducts a market-grade study on a regular basis, but the normal review was disrupted by the pandemic. Mr. Borget highlighted the negative impacts that the Fire Department was experiencing in their recruitment as a result. 2 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

Daniel Softley, HR Division Director, also presented. He noted that many agencies have made significant adjustments to their public safety salaries in the last two years; since Provo did not make any adjustments last year, the City was in a worse position. Rather than wait until the beginning of the new fiscal year, they intended to move forward now as the Fire Department expected to have nine vacancies by July 1, 2021. Mr. Softley noted that it was not unheard of to do off-cycle pay adjustments, and as several employees plan to retire, or have experienced medical issues or career changes, the Fire Department needed to be prepared to address recruitment needs as soon as possible. Mr. Softley noted some of the challenges with attracting quality candidates; due to the current pay rates, the ratio of EMTs to paramedics has shifted and the department is able to provide less services. There is also a concern that having an out-of- balance ration can create issues with minimum staffing levels, as well as make the City vulnerable to lose paramedics to other agencies. As new paramedics graduate in May, they hoped making these market adjustments prior to the new fiscal year would put the City in the best position possible. Mr. Softley outlined the proposed remedies, including formalization of a lateral transfer program and introducing an additional level for advancement within the step.

Mr. Softley noted that the total cost moving forward would be accounted for in the Mayor’s tentative budget; this appropriation would remedy the current fiscal year ($105,000 for mid-April to the end of June). Mr. Borget reviewed the draft resolution. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 30, 2021.

3. A presentation regarding the Police Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21- 015) (1:22:30)

Police Chief Rich Ferguson presented. Chief Ferguson highlighted and reviewed the general plan goals as they related to the department and their efforts to promote a high quality of life in Provo. Chief Ferguson reviewed recent accomplishments of the PD, including responses to civil unrest, the pandemic, and new public safety facilities with a dedicated Emergency Operations Center. He shared details of the department staffing levels and training goals, noting recommendations outlined in the in the 2012 Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) report. The Police Department has had three officer-involved shootings in two years; one officer was killed by gunfire. Chief Ferguson shared unfunded and underfunded needs in the department, noting their increasing needs as calls for service rise and the population continues to grow; this means that officers are spread thin in their duties and often officer safety may be compromised.

Chief Ferguson indicated that the Provo Airport expansion was not contemplated when the PERF report was drafted. The September 11 attacks taught important lessons about policing in airport settings. The department’s strategic plan for policing at Provo Airport has identified the need for a professional presence at airport when it opens; currently a patrol officer handles coverage at the airport during flight arrivals and departures, but this represents a critical opportunity cost. Chief Ferguson has proposed an additional 5 officer positions for the Provo Airport; these would be senior or experienced officers who receive daily briefings on international and domestic terrorism, narcotics, and human trafficking, as well as specific training geared toward securing the airport and surrounding properties. Providing the necessary training and equipment takes time, so they have prepared this requested far in advance. Presentation only.

3 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

4. A presentation regarding the Provo Power Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015) (1:55:35)

Travis Ball, Provo Power Director, presented. Mr. Ball reviewed the relevant general plan goals and noted that the Power Department had no underfunded, unfunded, or supplemental requests. He shared highlights of several major projects, including the Gillespie substation, distribution automation, and several smaller miscellaneous projects. Mr. Ball also reviewed the department’s targets and important metrics. Provo Power provides many valuable services to residents, including rebates, conservation initiatives, electric vehicle charging stations, and urban forestry.

Mr. Ball reviewed the department’s personnel levels, noting that the AMI (advanced metering infrastructure) system has automated much of the department’s fieldwork and reduced some of their staffing needs. Mr. Ball also shared comparisons of Provo’s power rates compared to other Utah cities. He noted that the comparison was not completely accurate, in that it was not accounting for the City’s ongoing capital investments and preparations for the future. In response to a question from Councilor David Harding about time-of-use rates, Mr. Ball indicated that a study was underway, and they hoped it would be complete by the end of fiscal year 2021. Mr. Harding commended Provo Power on their planning for future power needs and noted the great value the department provided both to city residents as well as to the City with the enterprise fund transfer. Presentation only.

5. A discussion of the City's Real Property Holdings and Surplus Property List. (21-045) (2:30:10)

Tara Riddle, Property Coordinator, presented. She shared a general overview of her job responsibilities and the challenges associated with property management for the City. When she began in this role in the 1990s, there was not much in the way of records or organization. She has introduced thorough management systems and she collaborates with the Utah County Recorder’s Office on an annual reconciliation process, which is used to maintain the City’s property listings and data for the City’s annual audit. Ms. Riddle reviewed the City-owned property map recently created by the City’s GIS division. She noted several recent corrections and that this map layer would be updated any time new rights-of-way were acquired, property is sold or surplused, and property was obtained. It is less common for the city to purchase property for investment or land bank purposes; most purchases are associated with specific projects. Occasionally a property is no longer needed due to a project being completed or changing in scope; she briefly reviewed the process used to analyze and determine if it should be surplused. Ms. Riddle shared details of the property app which would be released soon, providing access to historical pictures, land records, purchase agreements, memos, ordinances and resolutions, easements throughout the city, and more. This new tool would be an exciting resource for city property management. Councilor Shannon Ellsworth asked about the maintenance of city-owned properties and what the policy was for vacant and unutilized properties. Ms. Riddle explained that each property was associated with a particular department; some property maintenance may slip through the cracks simply on account of the volume of properties. As property manager, she coordinates weed abatement and code enforcement for these properties. Presentation only.

4 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

6. A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Needs Assessment Results. (21-046) (2:44:19)

Scott Henderson, Parks and Recreation Director, and Mike Svetz, PROS Consulting, introduced the presentation. Mr. Henderson explained that citizens are key in the Parks and Recreation success story; this needs assessment sought to identify what Provo citizens like, don’t like, or perceive as needs in the City’s parks and recreation facilities. Mr. Svetz outlined the timeline for the process and what they had achieved with each milestone. Citizens throughout the City responded to the survey and Provo residents recognize the many benefits available to them through the City’s Parks and Recreation Department; many residents made huge use of these many amenities during the pandemic.

In response to a question from Councilor David Harding, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Svetz explained that the top 10 facilities a decade ago compared to now reflect some facilities that have been discontinued or dropped off, as well as some readjusted categories to accurately reflect the department’s offerings. Mr. Svetz noted that the survey revealed the challenges with word-of- mouth publicity, which can result in inaccurate or old information. Generally, however, survey respondents most prefer the communication types of email, activity guide, social media, and the department website—these are all things the City has control over.

Mr. Svetz also reviewed the facilities, services, and programs which were most important to households in Provo, noting that even a relatively small percentage is still thousands of residents, based on Provo’s population alone. Some programs or services may be aimed at niche groups or audiences, but these numbers indicate the relevance and importance of such programs. Water and river access came in as the #1 unmet need, followed by adventure activities such as rock climbing, zip lines, rope climbs, etc. Another highly rated unmet need was an environmental education center—this correlates back to the department’s programs and services and could represent the opportunity for a visionary project sometime in the future. Many survey respondents indicated a priority is for the department to maintain and improve existing facilities, including improvements or additions to restrooms, taking care of existing trails infrastructure, building new trails, and upgrading picnic facilities, playgrounds, and aquatic amenities. Mr. Svetz noted that trail systems ranked highly among these services.

Specific polling on the RAP (Recreation, Arts, and Parks) tax indicated that over 50% of voters would support it again in 2028 when it comes up for expiration. About 40% would need more information before they can decide, and only about 6% of the community has said they would not support tax increases for parks and recreation purposes. Mr. Svetz reviewed the priorities revealed in the survey results and shared an overview of the coming steps in the process.

Mr. Harding thanked the Parks and Recreation Department for their work on this survey and the resulting data which helps inform City decisions. Mr. Harding suggested that it might be helpful to gather more granular data on the revenue coming from different programs to better illustrate their effectiveness and to better assess the costs associated with different programs. In response to a question from Councilor Bill Fillmore, Mr. Svetz indicated that the regional sports park would alleviate utilization of current athletic fields; the current overuse of these facilities creates pressure on maintenance crews during droughts and a short growing season. The regional sports

5 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval park will also attract visitors to Provo and allow residents to stay home instead of traveling to tournaments out of state. Councilor Shannon Ellsworth appreciated this approach and study as well. She asked how the City could better implement connectivity in its trails systems despite the constraints and obstacles of the built environment; she observed that the trails in east and west Provo are not well-connected and could be much better. Mr. Svetz indicated that the technical phase, which was next in the process, would go into more depth examining these issues. He noted that they received many specific questions during their community meetings about opportunities for connectivity in Provo’s trails. He indicated this video segment had excellent responses from staff which could help inform the Council on their plans. He hoped that would be shared with the Council in the future. Mr. Fillmore also asked about Slate Canyon and whether there was a specific focus on southeast Provo to improve recreation amenities. Mr. Svetz indicated that residents shared a great deal of community support for investment in Slate Canyon. That location would work well for an adventure area and they would continue to explore the options during the technical planning stage. Presentation only.

7. A presentation on the need for Provo City sustainability program which includes a Sustainability Director and a Sustainability Plan. (21-048) (3:28:22)

Councilor George Handley presented. He highlighted the impact of sustainability, in terms of social, economic, and environmental factors; the impact of decisions should be considered holistically so that decisions in one area did not undervalue or devalue other important areas. Mr. Handley also noted the religious significance and importance of sustainability, which resonates with many Provo residents’ beliefs. As a City, sustainability is relevant to many aspects of the City organization—Provo is an entity that has a carbon footprint, deals with water and land management, and promotes health and safety in the built environment. Ideally, sustainability should be integrated at all levels of city government and there are major implications for the future vitality of the City. Mr. Handley proposed that the City create a sustainability plan for the City and install a sustainability coordinator to help create and execute the plan in cooperation with City officials, both elected and appointed. Mr. Handley outlined several possible means of funding and obtaining a sustainability plan, as well as the pros and cons of each.

Motion: David Harding moved that the Council support the proposal and ask for the Foothills Protection Committee proceed with what has been proposed—to hear the two proposals outlined—and bring their recommendation to the Council as to which option to pursue. Seconded by Bill Fillmore. Vote: Approved 7:0.

8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding legislative staffing. (21-049) (3:55:13)

Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director, presented. The proposed ordinance affects only two sections, 2.50.090 and 2.50.130, and would reassign responsibility for the staffing of the Council office to the Executive Director. Mr. Strachan briefly reviewed the proposed text. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 30, 2021.

9. A discussion on Rank Choice Voting and the possible use for the 2021 Municipal

6 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

Elections. (21-047) (3:59:56)

Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director, presented. Mr. Strachan shared an overview of ranked-choice voting (RCV), including details of the pilot project authorized by the State Legislature, and next steps for the Council to consider. In response to a comment from Councilor David Harding, Mr. Strachan shared more details about the distinctions between utilizing RCV in the primary versus the general election. Councilor Bill Fillmore shared comments on RCV. He was interested in RCV due to the situations like the state’s gubernatorial election in 2020 (which had numerous candidates in the closed Republican primary). He was troubled, however, by some of the data with plurality in RCV results. Mr. Fillmore was interested in hearing the Mayor’s thoughts. Mayor Michelle Kaufusi and Isaac Paxman, Deputy Mayor, both shared brief comments on RCV. With several pilot programs in the pipeline, they wondered whether it was worth the expense and cost of doing RCV now. Mr. Strachan noted the uncertainty with some of the other pilot programs, such as star voting. Councilor David Shipley asked Amanda Ercanbrack, City Recorder, if she had any inclination as to whether RCV would be used in the primary versus general election. Ms. Ercanbrack explained that the biggest appeal of RCV were the cost savings of not holding a primary election, but she thought testing a new method in a primary election may be a safer approach. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Shipley, Ms. Ercanbrack noted that the timeline for educating the public in advance of a primary election would be tight, but that she would make it a priority if the Council decided to pursue RCV.

Councilor George Handley expressed his preference to use RCV for a primary election; although it did not result in the cost savings, he noted that having a dozen candidates for a longer campaign season was not necessarily desirable. He thought the best advantage of RCV was the way it gave a better chance to candidates who were most appealing to the broadest voter base. He thought all those benefits would still be felt in the primary, while not unnecessarily drawing out the campaign season for all candidates, as well as keep a consistent voting process for the general election (which typically draws out more voters). Mr. Harding noted that the state had set aside some funds for educating voters. The cost savings were not the deciding factor in his view; he felt RCV would provide a better experience for voters, as well as better capture the will of the voters. Councilor Shannon Ellsworth shared her comments as well; she noted that many citizens liked RCV because it seemed to minimize partisan divides. She did not find RCV as compelling for Provo given the non-partisan nature of Provo’s elections. Councilor Travis Hoban was personally supportive of RCV, but he was wary of committing the City to the method where there were still so many unknown factors and questions. He felt it was not well-enough vetted to move forward. Councilor David Sewell felt some better options for other voting methods were on the horizon and he preferred to wait to try these improved methods. Mr. Strachan shared trends from past municipal elections in Provo noting that there tended to be more candidates in the mayoral and at-large races than in the district-specific races.

Motion: David Harding moved that the Council place this item on Open City Hall and to revisit this item at the Work Meeting on April 20, 2021, and to make a decision at that time. Seconded by Bill Fillmore.

Mr. Strachan indicated that it may require a little more time for staff to draft the Open City Hall topic and he suggested a revised timeline.

7 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

Amended motion: David Harding amended the motion to have the Open City Hall results ready by the Work Meeting on May 4, 2021. Seconded by Bill Fillmore. Vote: Approved 6:1, with David Sewell opposed.

Closed Meeting 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.

Motion: Shannon Ellsworth moved to close the meeting. Seconded by George Handley. Vote: Approved 7:0.

Adjournment Adjourned by unanimous consent.

8 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

Please note: these minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Minutes 3:00 PM, Tuesday, May 25, 2021 Hybrid meeting: youtube.com/provocitycouncil or 351 W Center Street, Provo, UT 84601

Agenda (0:00:00)

Roll Call The following elected officials participated: Council Chair David Sewell, conducting Council Vice-chair David Shipley Councilor George Handley Councilor Bill Fillmore, arrived at 3:16 PM Councilor Shannon Ellsworth Councilor David Harding Councilor Travis Hoban Mayor Michelle Kaufusi, arrived at 3:25 PM

Prayer The prayer was offered by John Borget, Administrative Services Director.

Approval of Minutes

October 20, 2020 November 10, 2020 May 18, 2021 Work Meeting Approved by unanimous consent.

Business

1. A discussion regarding Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget Revenues. (21-015) (0:11:39)

John Borget, Administrative Services Director, and David Mortensen, Budget Officer, presented. Mr. Borget reviewed the revenue categories for the city, noting that general and enterprise funds are the two largest revenue sources. The enterprise funds are comprised of the various city utilities, the largest components of which are the Energy Department, Wastewater, and Water funds. The bulk of General Fund revenues come from sales tax. In the recent increase in budgeted revenues, the majority of that increase came from enterprise funds, followed by the general fund. Mr. Borget reviewed the enterprise fund revenues in more detail. Mr. Borget noted

1 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval that the variability to these funds was on account of different grants that the City had received; the large increases and decreases were all related to funding of specific capital assets.

Councilor David Harding asked about revenues from wastewater but noted that Mr. Borget’s overview of grant-funded projects addressed some of his questions. Mr. Harding wondered whether it might be more accurate or beneficial to compare years with and without grants factored in. Mr. Borget explained the nuances of these revenue sources and how to look at revenues holistically in order to make the best analyses of city budgets. Almost 70% of the increased revenue in the General Fund was due to sales taxes. Mr. Borget reviewed a chart showing how sales tax had been trending (budgeted and actual) since 2018. In each of these years, actual revenue has exceeded budgeted revenue, as well as increasing overall. Mr. Borget also shared metrics illustrating sales tax percentage increases in past years. Councilor David Shipley asked about the budgeted sales tax figures for FY2021. Mr. Borget confirmed that the City estimates the FY2021 actual figure for sales tax will be just over a 10% increase. Councilor George Handley asked if Mr. Borget had a way to assess the sales tax health of Provo compared to neighboring cities or cities with a similar makeup to Provo. Mr. Borget shared more context on the sales tax distribution calculation used in Utah. Mr. Handley and Mr. Harding both commented on the importance of online collection of sales tax as it positively impacted revenues.

Mr. Mortensen shared details on other tax types relating to the general fund. The Recreation Arts and Parks Tax revenue followed similar trends as sales tax. Property tax revenues had a slight upward trend; the modest year-to-year increases were typically a result of new population or commercial growth. Franchise fees also experienced modest upward growth. B&C Roads revenue is received from the state and has remained fairly level over time. Fees revenue, which includes parks and recreation fees, development application fees, and other similar services, experienced decreases in the current and last fiscal years as a result of the pandemic. FY2021 figures show a turnaround, so while the projected numbers may not reach the budgeted amount, it will be by a much narrower margin. Mr. Harding observed that initial worries about sales tax proved to be misplaced as sales tax remained strong, while fees suffered during the pandemic. Other revenue includes grant revenues; similar to grants in other revenue funds, it can be challenging to predict, so actual amounts tend to exceed the budgeted projections. Mr. Mortensen noted that typically when grant funds are received, they are handled as specific appropriations.

Mr. Mortensen highlighted details regarding the American Rescue Plan Act funds the City anticipated receiving. Mr. Mortensen noted several areas in the City which were impacted during the pandemic and how ARPA funds could be programmed to compensate for lost revenues and cuts to positions. Finance advised against funding ongoing positions with ARPA revenues. Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director, noted that the Council could examine the supplemental requests to identify whether any could appropriately be funded with ARPA or other funds.

Mr. Borget felt that they have been pretty aggressive with the budgeted revenues; it was not likely that actuals would exceed these amounts. Even budgeted sales tax was a reasonable goal, but he felt they would not exceed it by much. The Finance division has reviewed other revenue categories to make sure the City can achieve the Council and Administration’s priorities. He felt that a more aggressive approach would put the City in a difficult position.

2 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

Mr. Harding asked for clarification on the wastewater revenues exceeding those of culinary water; it seemed like an atypical ratio. Mr. Mortensen shared more details on the changes to revenues in recent years. Wayne Parker, CAO, noted that historically it has not been this way; water is generally the higher category, but in Provo the lines crossed operationally about 2-3 years ago. Mr. Parker noted that this was becoming more common across the country, particularly as EPA standards for wastewater effluent have changed. To meet the new standards, many cities found themselves in this situation with those revenues swapping places. Council Chair David Sewell thanked Finance staff for their presentation. Presentation only.

2. A discussion regarding a FY2022 Budget Supplemental Request for additional Parking Enforcement Personnel. (21-015) (0:53:17)

David Mortensen, Budget Officer, presented. Mr. Mortensen shared background information on this request for more analysis regarding parking enforcement personnel. Mr. Mortensen shared how these figures were calculated and noted that adding another officer did not necessarily double the output of tickets issued; quantifying the impact was a little more challenging than it may seem at face value. Finance added a revenue factor to their calculation to try to compensate for the unknown quantities. They have also changed the budgeted positions to budget for the highest level; if a more experienced candidate is selected, it is a more accurate reflection of that staffing level in the budget. Finance also budgeted some equipment costs and adjusted the office specialist as a part-time position to better ensure the positive net impact.

Councilor David Shipley indicated his support for hiring one full-time parking enforcement officer and a part-time office staff as a way forward. He also acknowledged the challenges and the political unpopularity of increased parking compliance. He thought moving forward with this format, then analyzing the results of hiring those two positions and the resulting revenue would allow the Council to make any needed adjustments down the road. Councilor David Harding shared comments on some of the underlying assumptions with the calculations. Mr. Harding noted that for the goal of compliance, a slow and incremental approach might be best. Mr. Harding also commented that an enterprise fund could be a solution. Mr. Mortensen shared the financial principles the City uses, registering Finance’s concern that there was not a strong impetus for having an enterprise fund that was tied to government-imposed, non-exchange functions of government. He noted that many cities with enterprise funds for parking typically had parking garages or meters as the tangible services associated with those revenues.

Councilor David Sewell asked for clarification on the current parking enforcement staff. Gary McGinn, Community and Neighborhood Services Director, said they had one full-time staff and 4 current part-time staff, but have had up to 6 part-time employees in the past. He hoped that parking enforcement could make a positive difference for quality of life and felt the department had more flexibility with fulltime employees. Mr. Sewell supported moving to fulltime staff; he felt that making this change would add additional stability and expertise, as well as increased effectiveness instead of constantly cycling through parttime staff members. Several Councilors briefly discussed the notion of making a revenue-neutral change to staffing and how that might work, noting that a fulltime employee would also require the benefits as a cost factor. Mr. Harding was interested in tracking the parking enforcement revenue separately, even if it was not a separate enterprise fund. In response to a question from Councilor Shannon Ellsworth, Mr.

3 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval

McGinn highlighted the metrics they could evaluate with regards to enforcement. Mr. McGinn also indicated that they were currently beyond their ability to enforce on all the parking requests they receive; he felt they would have more bandwidth to do so with two full-time parking enforcement officers. He felt there was a demand for enforcement sufficient to merit the staffing, without it becoming a revenue-raising activity for the City.

Motion: David Shipley moved to fund one additional parking enforcement officer and one part-time support staff, evaluate revenue and qualitative data in 6 months, and hire a second full-time staff if things worked as expected. Seconded by David Harding. Vote: Approved 7:0.

3. A presentation regarding a plan to phase-in sworn police officer to reach the desired number of FTE’s need for public safety ratios of 1.22 police officers per 1000 residents. (21-015) (1:22:42)

Wayne Parker, CAO, presented. Mr. Parker shared staffing statistics from 2014-2021, which reflected the years in which changes could be implemented as recommended in the 2012 Police Executive Research Forum report. Mr. Parker highlighted different paradigms with which to consider police staffing including population base and growth, workload, citizen satisfaction, crime rates, minimum staffing (or officer safety), and response times. Mr. Parker reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of each of these measures for analysis. Mr. Parker also outlined how investments in other certain City staffing or services would also contribute to the effectiveness of the police force. Mr. Parker summed up the considerations, noting some factors in other municipalities. He suggested the City develop key indicators, using elements of the proposed factors, which would help to direct the staffing calculations of Provo’s Police Department, after which the City could update the staffing study incorporating these new standards or methods.

Councilor George Handley suggested that citizen satisfaction was important information for the City to have regardless; it was an important tool for the development of personnel to better develop their staff and department. In addition to a survey, Mr. Handley wondered whether the City had contemplated a regular feedback mechanism. Mr. Parker explained that the Police Department had some feedback mechanisms, but they could definitely use more depth. They currently track complaints about officers, utilize a Citizens Advisory Board, and citizen surveys. Mr. Handley felt this type of feedback could result in vital data for the City. Mr. Parker indicated they were amenable to further cooperation to work through these issues with the Council.

Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director, noted that Police Chief Rich Ferguson had suggested a new PERF report once the department had moved into the new city facility; conducting a new report in the new facility would provide a more accurate look at the health of the department.

Mr. Parker explained that the Police Department has routinely had salary savings (arising from staff retirements, downtime between new hires, etc.). For many years, the City would identify these payroll savings at the end of the fiscal year and authorize the Police Department to make some equipment purchases with the surplus funds. Based on past data on salary savings, they have restructured how these savings are applied; rather than evaluating at the end of the fiscal year, they have structured this buffer into the original budget. The budget essentially accounts for

4 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval funding 138 employees in the budget, but authorizes up to 140 employees, knowing that the typical salary savings amounted to about 2 FTEs each fiscal year. The funds freed up by this process are then budgeted to operational needs, where the department has felt constrained in the past, without having a detrimental effect on staffing. Presentation only.

4. A presentation from the Carryover Committee regarding budget carryovers. (21- 015) (1:49:25)

Councilors David Shipley and David Harding presented. Mr. Shipley explained that the committee hoped to share their work with the Council and get the Council’s feedback on the policy direction to take things in the future. Mr. Shipley noted a significant improvement this year—they received a color-coded report from Finance which showed an accounting for prior year carryovers and the purpose for each. Color-coding helped them to understand why funds may have stayed in the department and this process will continue moving forward. Mr. Shipley reviewed several relevant terms and how they pertained to the Council’s duties, clarifying the differences between carryover, encumbrances, and surplus. Encumbrances typically relate to an open contract or purchase and does not require detailed Council review. Surplus dollars would go back to the general fund, but the Council can weigh in on policies that could dictate how these are used. Carryovers were unused funds during a financial year which are transferred to a budget for the following year. Mr. Shipley noted that Executive Director Cliff Strachan’s committee notes have given a good overview and shared updates throughout the process.

Mr. Shipley invited Mr. Harding to share comments on carryovers. Mr. Harding explained that this process began several years ago as the Council had a presentation on carryovers but were told they had no part in reviewing or approving them. Mr. Harding noted that state law said that surplus money should return to the General Fund at the conclusion of the year, but that the City’s process had been happening differently. Mr. Harding outlined the concerns which had motivated this larger conversation and he shared a graphic showing the interplay between budget cycles.

Mr. Shipley reiterated the committee’s conclusions, underscoring the Council’s influence in the early stages of the budget process. In the future, the intent is that the Council clearly articulate the intended outcomes of the approved budget, so that they can hold a department accountable to said outcomes. Mr. Shipley explained that the Council could pre-authorize the Mayor’s use of outstanding funds; the intent is to incentivize departments to use funds purposefully. If the Council has a suggestion on this or something they wanted to see from carryover excess, this would be a good time to discuss and highlight any such items. Mr. Strachan noted that the intent was to allow Council members to think about these ideas leading up to the meetings on June 1, 2021. Mr. Strachan shared other ways in which the Council might best express their legislative intent while maintaining a necessary degree of flexibility in the process.

Councilor Shannon Ellsworth asked about the process for updating the budget ordinance to capture these policies. Mr. Shipley noted that this was a pertinent question as to whether or not the Council wanted to update the legislative intent section of the budget document. Mr. Strachan suggested that Councilors send him any of their requests for the legislative intent section in the next several days in preparation for the Work Meeting discussion on June 1, 2021. Ms. Ellsworth also expressed a hope that departments could utilize some surplus funds to further employee and

5 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval professional development. Mr. Shipley and Wayne Parker, CAO, offered additional clarifications on the employee recognition category and the many ways in which those funds are used, noting that those funds were generally used more globally than by a specific department. Mr. Harding suggested the Council should discuss general categories and allow the City Administration to decide how to use funds generally. Council Chair David Sewell thanked the Carryover Committee for their work on this topic. Presentation only.

5. A presentation regarding transfers from all the different utility funds to the General Fund for FY 2022. (21-015) (2:22:49)

David Mortensen, Budget Officer, presented. Mr. Mortensen shared background on the required disclosure from the City of fund transfers from enterprise funds to other funds. Mr. Mortensen read the text of a legal notice which was distributed to all utility customers in the City detailing the nature and amounts of the various transfers, as well as details of the upcoming public hearings on the transfers. Presentation only.

6. A presentation on the FY 2022 Supplemental Budget Request submitted by various city departments. (21-015) (2:28:43)

Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director, and David Mortensen, Budget Officer, presented. Mr. Strachan noted that Councilors previously received a document via email with a list of supplemental requests from departments. Mr. Strachan noted that many requests were unfunded this year, but unfunded needs have been prioritized according to the priority level. He has also color-coded this list to highlight items that the Council has identified as priorities. Mr. Mortensen highlighted several items of note and additions to the list. In response to a question from Councilor Shannon Ellsworth, Mr. Mortensen explained that the priority levels were identified by the department who submitted the request.

Councilor David Sewell asked for more details on the code enforcement items the Council had included in their original intent statement. Mr. Strachan reviewed this information. Councilor George Handley shared details on funding for the long-range sustainability plan. Councilor David Harding noted that if the tentative budget did not include the requisite funds, the Council may need to decide what tradeoffs they wanted to make. Mr. Strachan also shared details on how departments may have chosen to prioritize requests within their own budgets. Mr. Strachan noted that the carryovers process may be a good way to address one-time requests. Mr. Strachan also invited Councilors to contact him with any items they would like to address. Mr. Sewell noted that he would like to see the code compliance items (code compliance continuing education and equipment) in the final budget as this was part of the Council’s original intent statement. Mayor Michelle Kaufusi indicated that the Administration would review the budget and report back at the Council’s meetings on June 1, 2021, with their recommendation. Presentation only.

7. A discussion regarding next steps in adopting the FY 2022 Provo City Budget. (21- 015) (2:46:34)

Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director, presented. Mr. Strachan noted that there was an outstanding question about additional police officers; the Administration was conducting a

6 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Pending minutes – awaiting approval separate assessment of public safety needs at the Provo Airport. Regarding the other police staffing, the Council could consider the possibility of a property tax increase; if the Council would like information, staff can prepare preliminary estimates. Mr. Strachan briefly highlighted the process and how the truth in taxation process would impact the budget timeline. He addressed a question from Councilor Shannon Ellsworth about the annual tax impact for hiring one officer. Councilor David Harding shared comments on past property tax policy discussions and the previous Council’s desire to make regular inflation adjustments. He noted that some constituents may argue that due to increased utility rates, a property tax increase was unnecessary; that was a possible argument the public may raise against an increase. Mr. Strachan added insight into the earlier decisions to raise utility rates rather than property tax; he clarified that this was because only about 50% of the land mass in Provo’s boundaries was eligible to pay property tax. Mr. Strachan indicated the discussion might be better deferred until staff could prepare preliminary figures for the Council to consider.

Councilor George Handley shared a comment on the transfer from the Energy fund; he wondered what it would look like to reduce that dependency, as he suspected there may be an opportunity cost to doing that, as well as impacts on sustainability initiatives in the City. He noted the inherent challenges with property tax levels becoming depressed over time. Councilor David Sewell wondered if ARP funds could be used to fund police officers. Mr. Strachan reiterated a previous concern raised by Finance regarding the structural soundness of the City’s budget. John Borget, Administrative Services Director, noted that this would be challenging unless the City could demonstrate that the funded position was one that had been cut due to the pandemic. Ms. Ellsworth asked if staff could highlight each part of the budget where the items in the Council’s budget intent statement were being fulfilled. Mr. Strachan indicated he had sent a memo to that effect on May 11, but that Council staff could update it with the latest figures. Presentation only.

Adjournment Adjourned by unanimous consent.

7 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: NLA Department: Development Services Requested Meeting Date: 06-01-2021

SUBJECT: An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately .25 acres of real property, generally located at 790 West. 500 South, from Residential (R1.6) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210128)

RECOMMENDATION: This item was heard at the May 26, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting and was recommended for approval 6 : 0. and will be heard at the June 1, 2021 Work & Council Meeting. Please see supporting documents.

BACKGROUND: Mark Boud is requesting a zone map amendment from the R1.6A zone to the VLDR zone for a two-lot subdivision of land in the Franklin Neighborhood. The current zone, R1.6A, is just short of allowing a lot split since each lot in that zone is required to have a minimum lot area of six-thousand square feet and the total lot area of the existing lot is just over eleven-thousand square feet. With the VLDR zone each lot would only need an area of five-thousand square feet. The concept Mr. Boud is proposing shows a new single-family home on each new lot, with one facing 500 South and the other facing 800 West. The proposed lot lines shown would meet lot standards for the VLDR zone and allow the existing garage on the property to remain.

FISCAL IMPACT:

PRESENTER’S NAME: Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 [email protected]

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 10 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: PLRZ20210128

1 Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report Hearing Date: May 26, 2021

*ITEM #2 Mark Boud requests a Zone Map Amendment from R1.6A to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) zone, located at 790 West 500 South to create two single family building lots. Franklin Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 [email protected] PLRZ20210128

Applicant: Mark Boud Current Legal Use: The property is currently recognized as a legal one-family dwelling in the Staff Coordinator: Aaron Ardmore R1.6A zone.

Property Owner: Mark Boud Relevant History: Since the adoption of the

Franklin Neighborhood Plan in 2015 there have Parcel ID#: 04:014:0003 been four separate zone changes to the LDR or

VLDR zones to produce detached, single family Acreage: 0.26 infill sites in different locations.

Number of Properties: 1 Neighborhood Issues: There was no official meeting held but the proposal was posted on Related Applications: PLCP20210117 the neighborhood Facebook page and Open (Item #1) City Hall. There were no concerns posted on either site. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Continue to a future date to obtain Summary of Key Issues: additional information or to further • The concept plan removes the existing consider information presented. The home from the property and splits the lot next available meeting date is June 9th, in half to create two new single-family at 6:00 P.M. building lots. • If the zone change is approved, the 2. Recommend Denial the requested applicant would need to return to the City Zone Map Amendment. This action with a Final Subdivision application prior would not be consistent with the to Building Permits. recommendations of the Staff Report. • The use of the land would not change and The Planning Commission should is supported by the Franklin state new findings. Neighborhood Plan.

Staff Recommendation: Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the zone map amendment to the City Council.

Planning Commission Staff Report *Item #2 May 26, 2021 Page 2

BACKGROUND

Mark Boud is requesting a zone map amendment from the R1.6A zone to the VLDR zone for a two-lot subdivision of land in the Franklin Neighborhood. The current zone, R1.6A, is just short of allowing a lot split since each lot in that zone is required to have a minimum lot area of six-thousand square feet and the total lot area of the existing lot is just over eleven-thousand square feet. With the VLDR zone each lot would only need an area of five-thousand square feet.

The concept Mr. Boud is proposing shows a new single-family home on each new lot, with one facing 500 South and the other facing 800 West. The proposed lot lines shown would meet lot standards for the VLDR zone and allow the existing garage on the property to remain.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The General Plan for the property is designated as Residential. 2. The Franklin Neighborhood Plan designates the property as Single-Family Residential. 3. The Current Zone for the property is R1.6A. 4. The Proposed Zone for the Property is VLDR. 5. Provo City Code Section 14.02.020(2) sets forth the following guidelines for consideration of zoning map amendments: Before recommending an amendment to this Title, the Planning Commission shall determine whether such amendment is in the interest of the public, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Provo City General Plan. The following guidelines shall be used to determine consistency with the General Plan: (responses in bold)

(a) Public purpose for the amendment in question. The public purpose for the map amendment is to provide for additional housing in an established neighborhood. (b) Confirmation that the public purpose is best served by the amendment in question. The proposed amendment allows a new single-family lot to be created without disrupting the character of neighborhood. (c) Compatibility of the proposed amendment with General Plan policies, goals, and objectives. Section 1.2.9 of the General Plan states the goal of establishing the one-family dwelling as the principal residential use in this area of the City. This is further supported by the infill and affordability goals found in Section 3.4 of the General Plan. The Franklin Future Land Use Section also supports the continued use of single-family residential in this area of the neighborhood. (d) Consistency of the proposed amendment with the General Plan’s “timing and sequencing” provisions on changes of use, insofar as they are articulated. The Planning Commission Staff Report *Item #2 May 26, 2021 Page 3

General Plan does not have any timing and sequencing issues related to this request. (e) Potential of the proposed amendment to hinder or obstruct attainment of the General Plan’s articulated policies. The proposed amendment should not hinder the policies of the General Plan since the concept plan shows a pattern of development consistent with that shown in other areas of the neighborhood. (f) Adverse impacts on adjacent land owners. Adjacent land owners have the potential of an additional neighbor on the block. Adverse impacts of minimal increased traffic do exist. (g) Verification of correctness in the original zoning or General Plan for the area in question. Staff has verified that the R1.6A zone and Residential General Plan designation are correct. (h) In cases where a conflict arises between the General Plan Map and General Plan Policies, precedence shall be given to the Plan Policies. No conflict exists.

STAFF ANALYSIS

Staff finds that this type of opportunity is a great way for reinvestment into this historic neighborhood of Provo; adding value to an aging area while also providing additional single-family housing stock which can help housing affordability in the City.

The character of neighborhood stays intact, and the General Plan policies and goals are upheld, staff is in favor of this proposal.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Area Map 2. Current Zone Map 3. Proposed Site Plan

Planning Commission Staff Report *Item #2 May 26, 2021 Page 4

ATTACHMENT 1 – AREA MAP

Planning Commission Staff Report *Item #2 May 26, 2021 Page 5

ATTACHMENT 2 – CURRENT ZONE MAP

Planning Commission Staff Report *Item #2 May 26, 2021 Page 6

ATTACHMENT 3 – PROPOSED SITE PLAN

1 ORDINANCE 2021-. 2 3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONE MAP CLASSIFICATION OF 4 APPROXIMATELY .25 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY, GENERALLY 5 LOCATED AT 790 WEST. 500 SOUTH, FROM RESIDENTIAL (R1.6) TO 6 VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VLDR) ZONE. FRANKLIN 7 NEIGHBORHOOD. (PLRZ20210128) 8 9 WHEREAS, it is proposed that the classification on the Zone Map of Provo for 10 approximately .25 acres of real property, generally located at 790 West. 500 South (an 11 approximation of which is shown or described in Exhibit A and a more precise description of 12 which will be attached hereto as Exhibit B after the Zone Map has been updated), be amended 13 from Residential (R1.6) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zone; and 14 15 WHEREAS, on May 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public 16 hearing to consider the proposal, and after such hearing the Planning Commission recommended 17 approval of the proposal to the Municipal Council by a 6:0 vote; and 18 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s recommendation was based on the project 20 design presented to the Commission; and 21 22 WHEREAS, on June 1, 2021, the Municipal Council met to ascertain the facts regarding 23 this matter and receive public comment, which facts and comments are found in the public 24 record of the Council’s consideration; and 25 26 WHEREAS, after considering the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and facts 27 and comments presented to the Municipal Council, the Council finds (i) the Zone Map of Provo, 28 Utah should be amended as described herein; and (ii) the proposed zone map classification 29 amendment for the real property described herein reasonably furthers the health, safety and 30 general welfare of the citizens of Provo City. 31 32 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Municipal Council of Provo City, Utah, as 33 follows: 34 35 PART I: 36 37 The classification on the Zone Map of Provo, Utah is hereby amended from the 38 Residential (R1.6) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zone for approximately .26 acres 39 of real property generally located at 790 West. 500 South, as described herein.

40 41 PART II: 42 43 A. If a provision of this ordinance conflicts with a provision of a previously adopted 44 ordinance, this ordinance shall prevail. 45 46 B. This ordinance and its various sections, clauses and paragraphs are hereby declared to be 47 severable. If any part, sentence, clause or phrase is adjudged to be unconstitutional or 48 invalid, the remainder of the ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 49 50 C. The Municipal Council hereby directs that the official copy of the Zone Map of Provo 51 City, Utah be updated and codified to reflect the provisions enacted by this ordinance. 52 53 D. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been posted or published in 54 accordance with Utah Code 10-3-711, presented to the Mayor in accordance with Utah 55 Code 10-3b-204, and recorded in accordance with Utah Code 10-3-713. 56 57 END OF ORDINANCE EXHIBIT A – ZONE MAP

Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action May 26, 2021

*ITEM 2 Mark Boud requests a Zone Map Amendment from R1.6A to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) zone, located at 790 West 500 South to create two, single-family building lots. Franklin Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 [email protected] PLRZ20210128

The following action was taken by the Planning Commission on the above described item at its regular meeting of May 26, 2021:

RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

On a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission recommended that the Municipal Council approve the above noted application with conditions.

Conditions of Approval: 1. That a Development Agreement is entered into by Mr. Boud to develop the property as shown in the concept plan.

Motion By: Deborah Jensen Second By: Lisa Jensen Votes in Favor of Motion: Deborah Jensen, Lisa Jensen, Dave Anderson, Robert Knudsen, Russell Phillips, Daniel Gonzales Dave Anderson was present as Chair.

• Includes facts of the case, analysis, conclusions and recommendations outlined in the Staff Report, with any changes noted; Planning Commission determination is generally consistent with the Staff analysis and determination.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PROPERTY TO BE REZONED The property to be rezoned to the VLDR Zone is described in the attached Exhibit A.

RELATED ACTIONS Item 1, PLCP20210117, was approved with conditions.

STAFF PRESENTATION The Staff Report to the Planning Commission provides details of the facts of the case and the Staff's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations.

CITY DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES • The Coordinator Review Committee (CRC) has reviewed the application and given their approval.

NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DATE • The Neighborhood Chair determined that a neighborhood meeting would not be required.

Page 1 of 3

NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUBLIC COMMENT • The Neighborhood Chair was not present or did not address the Planning Commission during the hearing.

CONCERNS RAISED BY PUBLIC Any comments received prior to completion of the Staff Report are addressed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Key issues raised in written comments received subsequent to the Staff Report or public comment during the public hearing included the following: None.

APPLICANT RESPONSE Key points addressed in the applicant's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: • Mr. Boud represented his plans for the property, showing the existing conditions and architectural inspirations for what he hopes to build. He also answered questions from the Planning Commission and stated that he would address concerns of other uses on the property with a development agreement to show his concept plan, if needed.

PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Key points discussed by the Planning Commission included the following: • Lisa Jensen asked if the existing home was historic or worth preserving. She also inquired of staff if small zone changes are a cause for concern and if the VLDR zone change on this property could produce other uses. • Russell Phillips asked for clarification on driveway access and lot sizes. • Deborah Jensen thought the proposal is an appropriate infill and good reinvestment for the neighborhood. She mentioned that development agreement tools have been used to ensure certain development occurs as shown with zone changes. • Dave Anderson stated he liked the concept and did not think a subdivision is a strong enough tool to ensure that what is proposed in the concept plan is built. Would like more discussion on other tools that could be used.

Planning Commission Chair

Director of Development Services

See Key Land Use Policies of the Provo City General Plan, applicable Titles of the Provo City Code, and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for further detailed information. The Staff Report is a part of the record of the decision of this item. Where findings of the Planning Commission differ from findings of Staff, those will be noted in this Report of Action.

Legislative items are noted with an asterisk (*) and require legislative action by the Municipal Council following a public hearing; the Planning Commission provides an advisory recommendation to the Municipal Council following a public hearing.

Administrative decisions of the Planning Commission (items not marked with an asterisk) may be appealed by submitting an application/notice of appeal, with the required application and noticing fees to the Community and Neighborhood Services Department, 330 West 100 South, Provo, Utah, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the Planning Commission's decision (Provo City office hours are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.).

BUILDING PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS

Page 2 of 3

EXHIBIT A

COM SW COR LOT 2, BLK 15, PLAT A, PROVO CITY; E 78 FT; N 145 FT; W 78 FT; S 145 FT TO BEG. AREA .26 ACRES.

Page 3 of 3

ITEM 2*

Mark Boud requests a Zone Map Amendment from R1.6A to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) zone, located at 790 West 500 South to create two single family building lots.

Franklin Neighborhood

PLCP20210117 Current Conditions • Single-Family Dwelling

• 0.26 acres (11,325 sq. ft) Planning Data • Current Zone is R1.6A

• General Plan is Residential

• Franklin Plan Future Land Use Map plans single-family residential Proposal • Proposed Zone is LDR.

• Concept Plan shows a lot split for two new single-family lots.

• Existing home would be demolished, existing garage would remain.

• Each lot would be at least 5,000 square feet and allow for new single-family homes to be built in the neighborhood. PLRZ20210128 - Franklin Neighborhood May 27, 2021, 3:29 PM

Contents i. Summary of statements 2 ii. Individual statements 3

1 | www.opentownhall.com/10675 Created with OpenGov | May 27, 2021, 3:29 PM PLRZ20210128 - Franklin Neighborhood Franklin Neighborhood - What do you think of the proposed change from R1.6A to very low residential zone in order to create two single-family building lots?

Summary Of Statements

As of May 27, 2021, 3:29 PM, this forum had: Topic Start Topic End Attendees: 23 April 22, 2021, 5:07 PM May 27, 2021, 3:28 PM Statements: 4 Minutes of Public Comment: 8

2 | www.opentownhall.com/10675 Created with OpenGov | May 27, 2021, 3:29 PM PLRZ20210128 - Franklin Neighborhood Franklin Neighborhood - What do you think of the proposed change from R1.6A to very low residential zone in order to create two single-family building lots?

Individual Statements

Name not available April 23, 2021, 7:27 PM

I live on the opposite corner of the block. I think this could be a positive addition to our neighborhood.

Name not available April 23, 2021, 7:48 PM

I agree, single family are always in needs of good and more locations for living . The city is continuing growing so is a good project for the early future.

Name not available April 23, 2021, 8:57 PM

I am in favor! Infill and more efficient use of the downtown area is the future

Chris West 1 to 2 miles April 26, 2021, 11:05 PM

I think it's a good idea. I don't think there's any reason that developers should be restricted to the stronger restrictions of R1.6A in this area instead of the restrictions of a Very Low Density Residential Zone. I think that creating as much of a free market as reasonable is desirable in order to allow buildings that best fit the needs of the area to be built.

3 | www.opentownhall.com/10675 Created with OpenGov | May 27, 2021, 3:29 PM PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: JMAGNESS Department: Council Requested Meeting Date: 06-01-2021

SUBJECT: A presentation regarding the Fire Master Plan. (21-069)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation only.

BACKGROUND: Provo City Fire and Rescue have been working on a Fire Master Plan, the work is completed Chief Miguel and Bill Boyd, from Emergency Services Consulting International, will be presenting the 2021 Fire Department Master Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT: none

PRESENTER’S NAME: Chief Miguel, Provo City Fire Department

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 45 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 21-069

1

Provo Fire & Rescue Provo, Utah May 2021

-

Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover

Emergency Services Consulting International

Providing Expertise & Guidance that Enhances CommunityXXX Safety2020 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Acknowledgments

Jim Miguel Michelle Kaufusi Fire Chief Mayor

Jeremy Headman Wayne Parker Deputy Chief Chief Administrative Officer

Lynn Schofield Nancy Bean Fire Marshal Fleet Manager

John Borget Administrative Services Director Chris Blinzinger Emergency Manager Daniel Follett Finance Director

Bill Peperone Greg Eckles Development Services Director Jason Putman Ben Schofield Dustin Wright IAFF Local 593 Development Services Planner

Gary Winterton Daniel Softley Provo City Council (Retired) Human Resources Director

And the rest of the men and women of the Provo Fire Department and City of Provo, who professionally serve with pride,

commitment, and compassion.

Page i Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ...... i Table of Contents ...... ii Introduction ...... 1 Section I: Community & Fire Department Overview ...... 2 Description of Community Served ...... 3 Community Description ...... 3 Study Area ...... 3 Climate ...... 5 Governance & Lines of Authority ...... 5 Provo’s Economy ...... 5 General Population Characteristics ...... 6 Fire Department Overview ...... 8 Fire Suppression ...... 8 Airport Firefighting ...... 9 Wildland Firefighting ...... 9 EMS ...... 10 Hazardous Materials Response ...... 10 Technical Rescue ...... 10 Mutual Aid ...... 10 Support Programs ...... 13 Emergency Communications ...... 13 Emergency Management ...... 14 Fire Prevention & Life Safety Education ...... 14 Training ...... 20 Financial Analysis ...... 22 Historical Revenue and Expense ...... 22 Revenue Analysis ...... 25 Expense Analysis ...... 27 Budget Overview Discussion ...... 32 Capital Assets and Capital Replacement Programs...... 33 Fire Stations & Other Facilities ...... 33 Capital Apparatus & Vehicles ...... 42

Page ii Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Staffing Information ...... 47 Administrative Staffing ...... 47 Emergency Operations Staffing ...... 48 Current Service Delivery Objectives...... 51 Stakeholder Input ...... 52 Section II: Community Risk Assessment ...... 54 Community Risk Assessment ...... 55 Characterizing Risk ...... 55 Hazard Classification ...... 61 Natural Hazards ...... 62 Technological (Human-Caused) Hazards ...... 63 Target Hazards/Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) ...... 67 Geographical Restrictions ...... 75 Structural Risks ...... 78 Comparison of Fire Risk in Other Communities ...... 87 Section III: Standards of Cover ...... 88 Historical System Response Workload ...... 89 Incident Type Analysis ...... 89 Temporal Analysis ...... 91 Spatial Analysis...... 94 Population and Incident Workload Projection ...... 106 Service Delivery Projection ...... 109 Critical Tasking Assessment ...... 110 Risk Assessment Methodology ...... 111 Summary Findings of the Community Risk Analysis ...... 117 Historical System Performance ...... 118 Provo Fire & Rescue Data Issues ...... 120 Concentration and Effective Response Force Capability Analysis ...... 121 Incident Concurrency...... 123 Performance Objectives & Measures ...... 124 Dynamics of Fire in Buildings ...... 124 Emergency Medical Event Sequence ...... 127 People, Tools, and Time ...... 128 Performance Benchmarks ...... 128

Page iii Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Overview of Compliance Methodology ...... 129 Accountability & Responsibility ...... 129 Quality Assurance & Improvement Compliance Model ...... 129 Future Fire Station Location Considerations ...... 132 Section III: Recommendations ...... 138 Overall Evaluation, Conclusions, & Recommendations ...... 139 Short-Term Recommendations ...... 140 Mid-Term Recommendations ...... 143 Long-Term Recommendations ...... 147 Section IV: Appendices ...... 149 Table of Figures ...... 150

Page iv Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Introduction

The City of Provo retained ESCI to conduct a Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover study. The motivation behind this effort resulted from the significant recent growth in population, demographic changes, the evolution of the built environment in the City’s downtown core, and significant expansion of the Provo Airport. This study is consistent with the Center for Fire Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) 6th Edition Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover model that develops written procedures to determine the distribution and concentration of a fire and emergency service agency’s fixed and mobile resources, and should assist the Provo Fire & Rescue Department in ensuring a safe and effective response force for fire suppression, emergency medical services, and specialty response situations.

Creating a Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover document requires that many areas be researched, studied, and evaluated. This report will begin with an overview of both the community and the Provo Fire & Rescue Department (PFRD). Following this overview, the plan will discuss areas such as community risk assessment, critical task analysis, Department service-level objectives, incident distribution and concentration analysis, response time performance, and population and service delivery growth projections. The report will conclude with policy and operational recommendations.

ESCI extends its appreciation to the elected officials, City administrators and department heads, citizens, and PFRD members who contributed to this plan.

Page 1 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Section I: Community & Fire

Department Overview

Page 2 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Description of Community Served

Part of a Community Risk Assessment includes an analysis of the community’s demographics, economic conditions, and environmental influences. The following section summarizes Provo’s key demographics and community influences.

Community Description Utah County is 2,014 square miles in size, with a 2019 estimated population of 636,235 residents.1 Located along what is known as the “Wasatch Front,” the City of Provo is approximately 43 miles south of Salt Lake City. The City is located at an elevation of 4,549 feet, in a climate that transitions between humid subtropical and humid continental climate.

The City encompasses approximately 43 square miles, 42 of which is land. The 2019 estimated population of Provo was 116,618 persons.1 The City also serves as the Utah County seat, and is home to Brigham Young University, which has over 30,000 students. Several transportation corridors bisect the City, including the Union Pacific Railway, Interstate 15, State Highway 89, and State Highway 189. According to the multi-county hazard mitigation plan, these corridors, along with the natural geography, limit the ability for rapid evacuation of several areas in the City.

Study Area The following figure displays the general study area of the PFRD.

1 U.S. Census Quickfacts.

Page 3 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 1: PFRD Study Area

Page 4 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Climate The weather classification for the PFRD service area is transitional humid subtropical to humid continental climate. The annual high temperature is 66 °F, with August being the hottest month (92 °F), and the annual lowest temperature is 41 °F, with January being the coldest month (22 °F).

The area receives about 19.75 inches of precipitation annually, which is approximately 20 inches below the national average of 39 inches.2 May is the wettest month (2.08 inches), followed by April (2.01 inches). The driest months are July (.75 inches) and August (.99 inches).

Governance & Lines of Authority The City of Provo is governed under a Mayor/Council form of government. A seven- member City Council is the policy-making body for the City. Five Council positions represent individual districts, and two are at large positions.

The Mayor serves as the City’s Executive, and is responsible for executing policies as established by the City Council, and overseeing the City’s financial affairs and the operation of the fifteen City departments. A Chief Administrative Officer handles the day to day operational oversight of City operations, and reports directly to the Mayor.

Provo’s Economy Provo and the surrounding area are home to several large employers, employing over 60,000 people. The largest employer is Brigham Young University (4,100 employees).3 The largest job sectors in Provo are:

• Educational Services (14,618) • Retail Trade (7,060) • Health Care & Assistance (6,073)

In 2018, the median household income in Provo was $46,532, which was 43% less than the median income of all Utah County residents.4 Between 2016 and 2017, employment grew at a rate of 6.2% (30,100 employees to 31,900 employees).

2 USClimatedata.com 3 Brigham Young University Human Resources Division. 4 Ibid.

Page 5 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The following figure illustrates the employment in Provo by occupation type.

Figure 2: Employment by Occupation Type

13.2% 19%

7.5%

5% 4.90% 3.60% 4% 5.7% 4%

6.5% 15.6% 10.8%

Education Management Computer & Math Sports & media Business & Finance Office Administration Sales Food Service Healthcare Construction/Extraction Maintenance Other

The highest paid jobs held by Provo residents, by median earnings, are Legal Occupations ($73,864), Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioners/Other Technical Occupations ($45,786), and Management Occupations ($43,542).

General Population Characteristics A 2019 Daily Herald newspaper article noted that the Provo-Orem metropolitan area was 10th in the nation for growth between 2017 and 2018 with a 2.6% increase. The population of Provo has increased approximately 3.3% since 2010, adding just over 3,600 new residents. Much of this growth was the result of an increase of new technology companies locating in the Provo-Orem area, also known as the “Silicon Slope.”

Population distribution within the City is another important factor to consider in emergency services planning and service delivery. The following figure shows the variances in population distribution in Provo.

Page 6 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 3: Provo Population Density

Page 7 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Fire Department Overview

The PFRD is a full-time career fire department, providing fire, emergency medical care, and rescue services from five strategically placed fire stations. The Department was founded in 1890 as a volunteer fire department. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department serves a population of nearly 117,000 residents over 42 square miles of land in the city. The PFRD maintains and staffs five fire stations in the City and a station at the Provo Municipal Airport during commercial airline operations. Almost all operations personnel are Firefighter/EMT-Paramedics.

Firefighters respond to a wide variety of 911 calls, including structure and wildland fires, motor vehicle accidents, vehicle extrication, swift and open water rescue, hazardous materials, technical rescue incidents, and aircraft incidents.

The Mission of the PFRD is:

"To Provide Professional Quality Service with Dedication and Pride."

The PFRD maintains and staffs five fire stations organized into three shifts, each of which works 48 hours on-duty, followed by 96 hours off-duty. The Department provides the following services:

• Fire Suppression • Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting (ARFF) • EMS Basic Life Support and Advanced Life Support care and transport • Regional Technical Rescue (Confined Space, Rope, Trench/Collapse, Machinery, Surface Water) • Wildland Fire Mitigation & Suppression • Emergency Management • Fire Prevention & Code Enforcement • Public Life Safety Education

Fire Suppression The minimum daily staffing is 19 personnel deployed across five fire stations. Each station is staffed with four personnel who staff either an engine, quint, or hazmat/rescue unit. PFRD also cross-staffs an ALS equipped ambulance in each station.

Page 8 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Airport Firefighting The Department provides aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) response out of a three- bay fire station located directly north of the main airport terminal. Two of the bays store ARFF apparatus, and the remaining space is used to store airport vehicles and equipment.

The airport ARFF capability and requirements are categorized as Index B as identified under FAA Part 139 Airport Certification requirements. The Index categories are primarily based on the frequency of takeoffs and landings and the overall average length of the largest aircraft using the airport.

The ARFF fire station is unstaffed until 30 minutes before and after the scheduled arrival and departure of commercial passenger aircraft. During these times, either two employees are hired back on overtime or two ARFF trained personnel from Station 24 or Station 21 are detailed to the airport to stand by during these scheduled flights. According to the Department, personnel hired on overtime are used approximately 50% of the time for ARFF coverage. The station does not have living quarters, and is not equipped or configured for continual use. This will likely become problematic as the airport expansion and resulting increased number of commercial flights in and out of the airport will require increased presence by ARFF firefighters on any given day.

Lastly, depending on the eventual number of commercial flights and size of aircraft, the airport may eventually be classified as an Index C ARFF category, which may require larger ARFF apparatus and a larger fire station.

Wildland Firefighting The geography, climate, and natural fuels present in and around Provo make it susceptible to wildfires, especially in the wildland urban interface areas in the eastern foothills. The Department routinely responds to wildfires, especially in the summer and fall. PFRD operations personnel are National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) Red Card trained and qualified to fight wildfires, and are required to take periodic refresher training. The Department has four Type 6 brush units, and two all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) to access remote areas in the foothills.

Page 9 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

EMS Each station is minimally staffed with at least one EMT-Paramedic and one EMT-Basic who cross-staff an ALS-equipped ambulance to respond to medical incidents in their first-due territory and transport for definitive care as appropriate. All operations personnel are minimally trained and certified at the EMT-Basic level. At the time of this study, 72 operations personnel were certified as EMT-Paramedics, and the Department has a goal of having all operations personnel trained and certified as EMT-Paramedics.

Hazardous Materials Response The Department provides hazardous materials response as part of a countywide response program with 40 team members. The Department’s hazmat specialized equipment responds out of Station 22. All operations assigned personnel are trained to at least the HazMat Operations level, and 10 are trained to the HazMat Technician Level. These personnel are trained and equipped to conduct surveillance, containment, and control of uncontrolled chemical releases in Level A protective ensembles. The team trains at least twice a year to maintain proficiency.

Technical Rescue The Department provides a wide range of technical rescue response as part of a countywide technical rescue team program, which includes swift-water rescue, confined space, structural/trench collapse, trench rescue, and high angle rope rescue. The overall team has 17 members, and the technical rescue equipment is located on the hazmat/rescue unit operating out of Station 25.

Mutual Aid PFRD has mutual aid agreements for emergency response with these neighboring fire departments:

• North Fork Fire Department (NFFD) • Orem Fire Department (OFD) • Springville Fire & Rescue (SFR)

Of the three fire departments, the OFD is the only one that staffs all of its stations with full-time firefighters. The NFFD—which is part of the North Fork Special Services District—is located at the Sundance Ski Resort on the front range, east of Provo, and responds into the east Provo Canyon area upon request from PFRD. SFR is a combination full-time and volunteer fire department.

Page 10 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

PFRD does not have automatic aid agreements with these fire departments. ESCI understands that informal discussions have taken place between the PFRD and OFD leadership to explore establishing automatic aid agreements that would allow for automatic dispatching of each agencies respective units to incidents to increase the effective response force (ERF) of each department, and improve response times into portions of the northern areas in Provo and the southern areas in Orem.

The Insurance Services Office (ISO) recognizes and gives credit in rating a jurisdiction's fire protection capabilities for automatic aid agreements and response procedures where assistance is dispatched automatically by contractual agreement between two communities to all first alarm structural fires. To receive credit, the automatic aid agreement must include the following:5

• The assistance must be prearranged for first-alarm response according to a definite plan. It is preferable to have a written agreement, but ISO may recognize demonstrated performance. • The aid must be dispatched to reported structure fires on the initial alarm. • The aid must be provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. • The assistance may be fire department companies—including apparatus and firefighters—or only firefighters. • For fireground communications, the communities should have common dispatch and tactical radio frequency capability and standard operating procedures.

Ideally, automatic aid agreements are most seamless when combined with the implementation of automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems that are connected to a Dispatch Center’s CAD system, which allows for seamless dispatching of the closest unit to an incident, regardless of which jurisdiction the incident occurs in. ESCI understands that PFRD units have mobile data computers (MDCs) that, if equipped with the necessary software interfaces and antennas, could be used to transmit AVL information to the Dispatch Center. The presence of two separate dispatch centers is another key consideration and potentially complicating factor in implementing automatic aid agreements and AVL technology. However, ESCI understands that the Orem 911 Communications Center CAD is connected to the PFRD Dispatch Center CAD, which may enhance the integration of an AVL system and the implementation of automatic aid between the two fire departments.

5 ISO Mitigation, retrieved online https://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/technical/automatic-aid/

Page 11 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Lastly, PFRD should engage SFR in similar automatic aid discussions if their station closest to Provo transitions to full-time staffing, as SFR Station 41 is only 1.3 miles from the far southern border of Provo off of Highway 89.

Page 12 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Support Programs

Emergency Communications The PFRD oversees the delivery of fire and EMS dispatching services through the Provo 911 dispatch center, which serves as the Primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for all law enforcement and fire department 911 calls originating in the City of Provo. The Center is staffed with a Dispatch Center Manager and 24 Call Taker/Dispatchers. The Center uses a limited computerized version of the Medical Priority Dispatch® (MPD) Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) caller interrogation card system. However, the program is not tied into the CAD system, nor does it provide triage recommendations featured in the full ProQA™ computerized EMD protocols to conduct caller interrogation and relay pre-arrival instructions. Currently, the system is not used to triage, prioritize, or assign response modes for responding units.

Public Safety communication centers across the United States that receive 911 calls and dispatch units to EMS incidents are now using formal caller interrogation protocol systems designed to identify life-threatening medical and trauma situations, dispatch the appropriate resources—in the appropriate response mode (emergency vs. non- emergency)—and provide appropriate pre-arrival instructions to the caller to help the patient before EMS units arrive quickly and accurately. These protocol systems are commercially available and have been medically reviewed and approved. Examples of these programs include, but are not limited to, Priority Dispatch® EMD, King County Washington’s criteria-based EMD, and Powerphone® EMD.

Ensuring these protocols are properly and consistently followed to ensure dispatchers are accurate and appropriate in their caller interrogation and determination of the type of medical and trauma situation is equally as important. Centers that implement EMD protocols should have a quality assurance process in place that routinely reviews the use of the protocols to ensure they are being used appropriately and consistently. The review process should involve physicians or personnel with advanced EMS certifications.

Page 13 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Emergency Management The PFRD is responsible for planning, managing, and coordinating community disaster resiliency programs for the City. An Emergency Management Manager oversees the program and reports directly to the Fire Chief. The Manager oversees and coordinates disaster planning activities throughout all City departments. The position also secures state and federal grants, maintains the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), and coordinate specific training activities, Continuity of Operations (COP) planning, and public education messaging.

Fire Prevention & Life Safety Education In today’s fire service, the many competing interests for limited funding can make establishing priorities extremely challenging. During times of increasing costs and decreasing resources, fire prevention and public education activities are often sacrificed to ensure adequate emergency response capabilities are maintained. Assessing the overall risks in a community and creating a focused Community Risk Reduction Plan based on this assessment can help focus the allocation of limited fire prevention resources on the highest risks found in the community. The following section evaluates PFRD’s fire prevention and life safety education activities.

Fire Prevention It is far more effective to prevent fires and other emergencies than it is to respond to them. The financial impact of a fire or injury goes far beyond the cost of extinguishment or treatment. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 40% of businesses do not reopen following a disaster. Additionally, another 25% fail within one year. The United States Small Business Administration found that more than 90% of companies fail within two years of being struck by a disaster.6

The fiscal impacts of injuries, while not as immediately evident, can be equally devastating. Individuals experiencing an injury may lose the ability to earn an income during the recovery time, and businesses lose the productivity of that individual until they return to work. Beyond the fiscal impacts associated with lost work time, injured persons and families often experience significant emotional trauma.

6 https://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1166&context=etd.

Page 14 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

A strong fire prevention and life safety program, based on effective application of relevant codes and ordinances, reduces the loss of property, life, and the personal disruption that accompanies a catastrophic fire and accidents.6

The fundamental components of an effective fire prevention program are listed in the following figure, accompanied by the elements needed to address each component.

Figure 4: Fire Prevention Program Components Elements Needed to Address Program Fire Prevention Program Components Components Proposed construction and plans review New construction inspections Existing structure/occupancy inspections Fire Code Enforcement Internal protection systems design review Storage and handling of hazardous materials Public education Specialized education Public Fire and Life Safety Education Juvenile firesetter intervention Prevention information dissemination Fire cause and origin determination Fire Cause Investigation Fire death investigation Arson investigation and prosecution

Plan Reviews and Inspection Activities The review of planned construction is a critical component in effective fire prevention programs. Working in conjunction with the local, county, and/or regional building officials ensures that planned construction will be built to applicable fire codes and standards to ensure a safe environment. In concert with evaluating planned and newly built structures, regularly performing inspections of existing occupancies helps ensure these occupancies remain safe to occupy, and also provides an opportunity for fire personnel to become familiar with the building characteristics, layout, and any special hazards within. The recommended frequency for business/occupancy inspection may vary based on the type of use and degree of hazard. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommended standard for fire safety inspections by hazard class is noted in the following figure.

Page 15 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 5: Recommended Fire Inspection Frequencies per NFPA 1730 Recommended Hazard Classification Example Facilities Inspection Frequency Apartment common areas, small stores, and Low offices, medical offices, storage of other Annual than flammable or hazardous materials. Gas stations, large (> 12,000 square feet) stores and offices, restaurants, schools, hospitals, manufacturing (moderate Moderate hazardous materials use), industrial Semi-Annual (moderate hazardous materials use), auto repair shops, storage of large quantities of combustible or flammable material. Nursing homes, large quantity users of hazardous materials, industrial facilities with high process hazards, bulk flammable liquid High Quarterly storage facilities, facilities classified as an “extremely hazardous substance” facility by federal regulations (SARA Title III).

The Department’s Fire Prevention Division is responsible for enforcing the fire code throughout the City. The Division is managed by a Fire Marshal, who oversees the activities of two Deputy Fire Marshals. The City has adopted the 2018 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC), along with amendments adopted by the State of Utah. The City does not have a residential sprinkler ordinance. The Fire Marshal is a certified Plans Examiner, as well as a certified Fire Investigator, and the two Deputy Fire Marshals are also certified Fire Investigators.

New Construction Inspection and Involvement The Fire Prevention Division reviews all new commercial construction and residential development plans for compliance with the IFC. The Department is consulted on planned new commercial occupancies, changes to existing occupancy uses and residential developments, and participates in the City’s Coordinator’s Review Committee, which reviews proposed construction projects. Fire protection systems reviews are outsourced to a third-party contractor.

The Department enjoys an excellent working relationship with the City’s Building Department, and there are close collaboration and coordination between the two departments, including weekly joint staff meetings to discuss projects and code issues.

Page 16 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Existing Occupancy Inspections Inspection of existing commercial occupancies is shared between the Fire Marshal and Deputy Fire Marshals. However, only the following select general occupancy categories are regularly inspected:

• Public Assembly • Tier II Hazardous Materials sites • Institutional occupancies • High life risk occupancies • Businesses with new business licenses

There is no inspection of existing fire protection systems in buildings other than those listed above.

ESCI noted that the Department does not have a formal fire preplan program or target hazard identification program for occupancies within the city limits, including Brigham Young University, which has a significant number of special hazard occupancies, including large public assembly buildings, hazardous materials storage and use facilities (laboratories), and other special hazard occupancies.

The frequency of inspections should be consistent with the value and risk of the structure and business operation. NFPA 1730: Standard on Organization and Deployment of Fire Prevention Inspection and Code Enforcement, Plan Review, Investigation, and Public Education Operations, suggests an inspection frequency matrix, as shown in the following figure.

Figure 6: NFPA 1730 Minimum Inspection Frequency Occupancy Risk Frequency Classification High Annually Moderate Biennially Low Triennially Critical Infrastructure Per AHJ

Fire and Life Safety Public Education Program Delivering fire and life safety messages to the community through direct and indirect engagement is an important mission in contemporary fire departments. A well- educated and trained public can become a “force multiplier” in maintaining a safe and resilient community.

Page 17 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

PFRD does not have a dedicated Public Information Officer position. Instead, external department public messaging and social media posts are shared between an operations Firefighter Paramedic and the administratively assigned EMS Captain. The Department does not have a comprehensive, dedicated Fire and Life Safety Public Education Program for the residents of Provo, nor does it have a formal presence in the schools to provide fire and life safety education. However, the Department does provide some elements of life safety education upon request, including Fire Extinguisher Training, First Aid courses, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Training, Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) training, and a Juvenile Firesetter Program.

Specific to the wildfire hazard present in the eastern city areas, the Department is planning to implement the FireWise® education and fuels mitigation program in Spring 2021.

Fire Origin and Cause Determination Accurately determining the cause of a fire is an essential element of a fire department’s fire prevention efforts. When fires are set intentionally, identification and/or prosecution of the responsible offender is critical in preventing additional fires and potential loss of life.

PFRD performs fire investigations to determine fire origin and cause, often in partnership with the Provo Police Department or the Utah County Fire Arson Task Force. In addition to the investigation capabilities and certifications of the Fire Marshal and Deputy Fire Marshals, seven operations assigned personnel are trained and certified fire investigators.

Fire Prevention Discussion ESCI noted the positive working relationships and coordination with the City’s Building Department. This relationship is extremely important given the significant current and planned new construction projects in the City.

However, given the size and complexity of the Provo community, including the presence of a large university, PFRD should be concerned about the lack of inspection of legacy and newly constructed buildings once they are occupied. It is commonly accepted that stringent and diligent fire code enforcement programs improve community resiliency, and can result in lower fire insurance rates for residents and businesses.

Page 18 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Clearly, PFRD does not have the resources or programs in place to ensure commercial occupancies, including large multi-family occupancies, are regularly inspected to identify significant hazards. The three personnel assigned to the Division cannot be expected to perform fire inspections as defined in Figure 5: Recommended Fire Inspection Frequencies per NFPA 1730. Alternative inspection methods should be explored to ensure legacy commercial occupancies are periodically inspected.

Many of the fire departments studied by ESCI utilize operations crews to conduct inspections in certain types of occupancies such as apartment buildings, hotels, public assemblies, and certain types of target hazard occupancies. The benefits of this approach are essentially two-fold: 1. Timely identification of significant hazards or fire code violations that must be corrected, and 2. Provides an opportunity for crews to become familiar with the layout and hazards in the occupancies.

Some communities have implemented “self-inspection” programs. Business owners receive a form from the fire department that includes a checklist of fire code items to look for to ensure they comply. Using this checklist, the business proprietors conduct their own inspection, correct any deficiencies, and return the completed checklist to the fire department. Typically, this approach is used in low-hazard businesses only.

Page 19 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Training A comprehensive training program is one of the most critical factors in ensuring the safe and effective performance in emergencies. Failure to provide necessary and effective training on a continual basis endangers firefighters and the citizens they serve, while concurrently exposing the fire department to liabilities with potentially severe consequences.

To deliver a comprehensive training regime, fire departments must have access to qualified instructors and training resources that are typically found within the organization, externally with regional partners, or a combination of both. It is essential to ensure training programs are applicable, consistent, and of high quality, and not just delivered to fulfill mandatory training hours. Fire administrators and instructors must ensure firefighters, EMS personnel, and officers are not only competent, but also self- confident in the variety of skills necessary to perform effectively in high-stress situations.

Training Administration An administrative Battalion Chief is responsible for the Department’s non-EMS training. He coordinates the training schedule with the EMS Captain, who oversees the Department’s EMS continuing education.

The Training Chief also oversees the activities of the Training Committee, which is comprised of a cross-section of operations personnel who have a strong interest in providing quality training. This group assists in establishing the annual training calendar.

The types of training applicable to PFRD includes:

• Basic and advanced firefighter training • Basic and advanced medical training • Driver/operators training courses • Hazardous materials training • Firefighter safety and survival • Technical rescue training (confined space, rope rescue, mountain rescue, swiftwater rescue) • Wildland firefighting and refresher course work (NWCG RT-130) • Aircraft firefighting and rescue • Incident command • Officer development training

Page 20 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

An annual training calendar is created at the end of the preceding year. The calendar identifies monthly training topics for multi-company and single company training and drills. Along with regular monthly fire and EMS training topics, the Department also conducts monthly ARFF training, along with annual aircraft live fire drills using an airplane fire prop and instructors from 139Fire®, an aircraft firefighting training company. Additionally, the Department conducts a monthly “Extrication Day,” where two crews perform various extrication scenarios using junk cars.

The Department uses the web-based Target Solutions® program to deliver and document training. Other training is recorded on paper and manually entered into the Department’s RMS. A review of 2019 training records revealed that department personnel completed, on average, approximately 21 hours of EMS training and 90 hours of fire training. However, during the study’s data gathering process, it was discovered that the Department is unable to access the National Registry of EMT database to query additional hours of training separately documented in this database.

Training Facilities The Department’s training facility is located behind Station Three. A modular building houses the Training Chief and EMS Captain, along with a 20-person classroom, EMS training equipment, and audio-visual equipment.

A five-story drill tower is located on the site, along with a pitched roof ventilation prop and forcible entry prop. The tower is equipped with a standpipe, interior and exterior stairwells, and windows of various sizes and shapes.

ESCI noted that the overall size of the drill ground is small, with a considerable amount of space occupied by equipment trailers, vehicles, and the training building

The Department has an excellent working relationship with Utah Valley University’s Fire and Rescue Academy. Several PFRD personnel, including the Training Chief, teach at the Academy. The University has a 10-acre drill ground located adjacent to the Provo Airport. The facility has various props and burn rooms to conduct live fire training. PFRD uses this facility monthly to conduct live fire training for on shift crews.

Page 21 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Financial Analysis

The financial health of the PFRD is critical to ensure that the Department can continue to provide fire services at an acceptable level to the Provo community. To assist Provo Fire Department in determining how its financial policies have impacted its financial stability, ESCI developed a data-driven model to represent these policies fairly and consistently.

In this section, background information provided by the City and Department is used to describe the historical and current financial condition of the PFRD. This includes a multi- year historical review of revenues and expenses, employee counts, and other financial indicators. This analysis relies solely on the financial documentation provided by the Provo Fire Department, the City of Provo, and obtained from Provo.org.

Historical Revenue and Expense The PFRD is funded primarily through the General Fund of the City. This fund is used to account for all financial resources not accounted for in other funds. The departments/divisions included in the General Fund are the Municipal Council, Mayor’s Office & Media, Administrative Services (Human Resources, Information Systems, Finance, Recorder), Community Development, Economic Development, General Services, Fire, Police, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, and Streets. General Fund revenues include sales tax, property tax, other taxes, and fees. Sales Tax makes up 29% of the revenue.

From 2015 through 2020, the General Fund has grown at an average annualized rate of 3.7%. The General Fund has ranged from $56,428,632 in 2015 to $67,585,563 in 2020. This growth is shown in the following figures.

Page 22 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 7: City of Provo General Fund (FY 2015–2020)

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Provo GF $56,428,632 $60,635,426 $63,801,003 $65,519,631 $66,295,303 $67,585,563 % of Growth 7.19% -0.23% 2.27% 1.40% 3.95% 2.64%

The PFRD makes up, on average, 13.4% of the General Fund for the City, which is the expense of the department to the General Fund after revenues have been recognized, as shown in the following figure.

Figure 8: Provo Fire Department Percentage of General Fund (FY 2015–2020) 14.5%

14.0%

13.5%

13.0%

12.5%

12.0% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

At the time of this study, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the social and economic health of the community. To help mitigate the financial impacts, the City ordered a 1.5% cut for all General Fund departments to reduce expenses, except for the Fire and Police departments. It is important to recognize that any increases in funding needs will come at the expense of other departments also funded by the General Fund.

Provo Fire Department’s budget has experienced growth from 2013 through 2021, having grown at an annualized average rate of 3.7%, increasing from $6,945,480 in 2013 to $9,030,066 in 2021. The following figures show the historical growth of the Fire Department budget from FY 2013 through FY 2021.

Page 23 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 9: Provo Fire Department Budget and Growth (FY 2013–2021) Percentage of Year PFRD Budget Growth 2013 $6,945,480 — 2014 $7,473,282 7.6% 2015 $7,741,875 3.6% 2016 $7,917,453 2.3% 2017 $8,556,448 8.1% 2018 $8,524,651 -0.4% 2019 $8,617,990 1.1% 2020 $9,659,339 12.1% 2021 $9,030,066 -6.5%

The PFRD budget is broken down into two sections: revenues and expenses. The two areas have performed differently during the period of 2013 through 2021. Both have an impact to the General Fund needs of the department.

From 2013 through 2021, Provo Fire Department generated revenues from Fees, Grants, and Miscellaneous income. Revenues have ranged from $1,629,367 in 2013 to $1,920,000 in 2021. The revenue grew at an annual average rate of 8.3%. Fees are the largest area of revenue for the Provo Fire Department. The following two figures illustrate the revenues and percentage growth.

Figure 10: Provo Fire Department Revenue (FY 2013–2021) Percentage of Year PFRD Revenue Growth 2013 $1,629,367 — 2014 $1,326,333 -18.6% 2015 $1,371,382 3.4% 2016 $1,640,193 19.6% 2017 $1,617,100 -1.4% 2018 $1,902,554 17.7% 2019 $2,451,832 28.9% 2020 $2,140,237 -12.7% 2021 $1,920,000 32.4%

Page 24 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 11: Provo Fire Department Revenue (FY 2013–2021) $2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$-

Fee's Grants Misc. Total Revenue

Revenue Analysis The revenues shown in the preceding three figures were obtained from published budget books available at Provo.org.7 When comparing revenues for the period of 2017 through 2019, revenues consistently outperformed the Adjusted Budget. This performance is shown in the following figures.

Figure 12: Provo Fire Department Revenue-Adjusted versus Actual (FY 2017–2019) Year 2017 2018 2019

Adjusted Budget $1,603,686 $1,830,265 $2,025,100 Actual Revenue $1,617,100 $1,902,554 $2,451,832 Exceeds Budget $13,414 $72,289 $426,732

7 https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget.

Page 25 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 13: Provo Fire Department Revenue Budget vs. Actual (FY 2017) $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,392,686 $148,462 $79,151 $79,151 $75,952 $75,952 $24,535 $24,535

FEES GRANTS MISC.

Adj Budget 2017 Actual 2017

Figure 14: Provo Fire Department Revenue Budget vs. Actual (FY 2018) $1,426,279 $1,426,279 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $379,825 $379,825 $345,265 $345,265 $96,450 $96,450 $85,000 $85,000

FEES GRANTS MISC.

Adj Budget 2018 Actual 2018

Page 26 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 15: Provo Fire Department Revenue Budget vs. Actual (FY 2019) $1,950,000 $1,950,000 $1,689,056 $1,689,056 $648,453 $648,453 $114,323 $114,323 $75,000 $75,000 $100

FEES GRANTS MISC.

Adj Budget 2019 Actual 2019

As shown in the preceding figures, collected fee performance was relatively close to budget while grants and miscellaneous revenues tended to outperform their budgeted amounts. While these numbers show a positive overall performance, ESCI would recommend increased budgeting for Grants and Miscellaneous to keep those amounts to smaller variances when compared to the actual budget.

Revenue growth for 2018 and 2019 can be explained by a change to billing allowances for ambulance service. The fee to be charged to the Federal Government for ambulance transportation services increased markedly, leading to the rise in fee revenues.

Expense Analysis Between 2013 and 2021, Provo Fire Department had expenses in the categories of Fire Department Administration, Emergency Fire Response, Fire Prevention, Training, Emergency Management, Emergency Medical Response, Airport, Fire Reimbursable OT, Fire Grants, and Wildfire Response. Expenses ranged from $8,574,847 in 2013 to $10,950,066 in 2021. The total expense has grown at an annual average rate of 4.4%. Emergency Fire Response is the largest area of expense. The following figure summarizes the overall PFRD expenses and annual percentage change.

Page 27 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 16: Provo Fire Department Expense (FY 2013–2021) Percentage of Year PFRD Expense Growth 2013 $8,574,847 — 2014 $8,799,615 2.6% 2015 $9,113,257 3.6% 2016 $9,557,646 4.9% 2017 $10,173,548 6.4% 2018 $10,427,205 2.5% 2019 $11,069,822 6.2% 2020 $11,109,339 0.4% 2021 $10,950,066 -6.5%

The 2021 PFRD expense budget dropped significantly in 2021 due to current and anticipated future General Fund revenue impacts resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Looking at the period of 2017 through 2019, ESCI used the actual expenses information available on the City’s website, and compared the expense budget performance to the Adjusted Budget for the corresponding year. The numbers in 2017 use different accounts than those utilized in 2018 and 2019. This corresponds with the implementation of a new accounting software system. This change is reflected in the following figures.

In 2017, Provo Fire Department had actual expenses of $11,866,600 versus a budget of $11,640,844, exceeding its budget by $225,756 or 1.9%. The following figure shows the breakdown of expenses in 2017.

Page 28 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 17: Provo Fire Department Expense by Category (FY 2017) $8,449,279 $8,449,279 $8,068,878 $8,068,878 $1,679,732 $1,679,732 $1,496,820 $1,496,820 $107,460 $107,460 $99,435 $99,435 $79,151 $79,151 $77,402 $77,402 $64,509 $64,509 $63,505 $63,505

FIRE DEPT. EMERGENCY FIRE E M E R G E N C Y F I R E FIRE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE M E D I C A L REIMBURSABLE OT RESPONSE

Adj Budget 2017 Actual 2017

The data shows that the expenses exceeded budget in some expense categories and were under budget in other categories. In 2017, Provo Fire Department exceeded budgeted expense in Emergency Fire Response and Emergency Medical Response. Fire Administration, Fire Reimbursable OT, and Fire Grants categories reported were under budget.

In 2018, Provo Fire Department had actual expenses of $10,427,205 versus an Adjusted Budget of $10,298,722. The Department exceeded budgeted expenses by $128,483 or 1.2%. The following figure shows the breakdown of expenses in 2018.

Page 29 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 18: Provo Fire Department Expense by Category (FY 2018) $8,729,580 $7,764,785 $1,552,711 $1,504,652 $391,792 $292,219 $130,240 $127,708 $114,669 $54,838 $18,959 $18,006 $17,334 $8,434

Adj Budget 2018 Actual 2018

The preceding figure shows that expenses exceeded budget in some expense categories and were below in others. In 2018, PFRD exceeded budgeted expenses in Emergency Fire Response and Emergency Medical Response. Emergency Fire Response is the single largest expense, accounting for 75.4% of the 2018 Adjusted Budget, and exceeded the budget by 12.4%. Fire Administration, Fire Prevention, Training, Emergency Management, and Airport operated under budget.

In 2019, Provo Fire Department had actual expenses of $11,069,822 versus an Adjusted Budget of $10,777,672, exceeding budgeted expense by $292,150 or 2.7%. This was the result of a mid-year budget amendment related to the authorized purchase of all new portable radios in the Department. The following figure illustrates the breakdown of expenses in 2019.

Page 30 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 19: Provo Fire Department Expense by Category (FY 2019) $8,942,165 $7,666,394 $1,591,364 $1,425,619 $519,115 $422,796 $380,574 $301,524 $134,194 $129,669 $115,039 $61,911 $54,838 $42,092 $20,684 $19,961 $19,555

Adj Budget 2018 Actual 2019

The data again shows that expenses exceeded budget in some expense categories and were under budget in others. In 2019, Provo Fire Department exceeded budgeted expenses in Emergency Fire Response, Emergency Medical Response, Airport, Fire Reimbursable OT, and Wildfire Response. Emergency Fire Response is the single largest PFRD expense, accounting for 71.1% of the 2019 Adjusted Budget. Emergency Fire Response exceeded its budget by 16.6% in 2019 or $1,275,771. This overrun caused Emergency Fire Response to account for 80.7% of the total department expenses. Fire Administration, Fire Prevention, Training, Emergency Management, and Emergency Medical Response operated under budget.

Page 31 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Budget Overview Discussion In reviewing the overall PFRD budget history for the study period, it appears the Department balances the expense overages in the Fire and EMS Operations Divisions by reducing expenses in other internal divisions, especially Fire Prevention and Training. Fire Prevention and Training annually underspent their budgets by large amounts. Fire Prevention underspent its budget by $374,458 in 2018 and $281,969 in 2019. Training underspent its budget by $283,785 in 2018 and $281,969 in 2019. ESCI understands that the City recorded almost all uniformed administrative assigned salary and benefits expenses in the Emergency Fire Response and Emergency Medical Response categories, even though these costs are budgeted in their respective administrative division budgets (Training and Fire Prevention). This practice will soon cease with the implementation of a new payroll/finance software system.

This is a common practice found in other fire departments studied by ESCI. However, adequate funding of non-operations centered support activities is extremely important, especially in the Training Division, as reduced training can lead to incremental skill degradation that can have severe consequences for response personnel and the public during emergencies.

While it is impossible to predict all situations that can result in unanticipated significant expenditures in managing fire and EMS operations in any given year, consideration should be given to adjusting the projected expense budgets in these divisions in the budget planning process, while ensuring adequate funding is maintained in the other internal cost centers.

Page 32 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Capital Assets and Capital Replacement Programs

To effectively and safely carry out its various missions, three basic resources are required: Trained personnel, reliable firefighting equipment, and strategically placed fire stations. The most essential capital assets for use in emergency operations are facilities and apparatus (response vehicles). This section of the report assesses PFRD’s capital facilities, apparatus, vehicles, and specialty equipment.

Fire Stations & Other Facilities A strategically located fire station helps ensure rapid response to the greatest number of citizens and community assets, and also provides timely back up response to other areas when resources are already committed on other incidents. Fire stations also need to be designed to adequately house equipment and apparatus, as well as meet the needs of the organization and its personnel—as well as administrative support staff where applicable. It is important to research needs based on service demand, response times, types of emergencies, and projected growth before making a station placement commitment.

Consideration should be given to a fire station’s ability to support the fire department’s mission well into the future. During the design process, the programmatic needs, potential future staffing, and response roles must be realistically addressed to ensure the structure is adequate in both size and function. Examples of these functions include the following:

• The housing and cleaning of apparatus and equipment; including decontamination and disposal of biohazards • Residential living space and sleeping quarters for on-duty personnel (all genders) • Kitchen facilities, appliances, and storage • Bathrooms and showers (all genders) • Administrative and management offices; computer stations and office facilities for personnel • Training, classroom, and library areas • Firefighter fitness area • Public meeting space

In addition, contemporary fire stations are now designed to limit the spread of hazardous contaminants into the station’s living spaces.

Page 33 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The PFRD operates out of five fire stations that are strategically located throughout the City. Another station is located at the Provo Municipal Airport, and is staffed by Provo firefighters. ESCI evaluated the information provided by the Department and briefly toured each facility. ESCI asked PFRD staff to rate the condition of each of its fire stations using the criteria in the following figure.

Figure 20: Criteria Used to Determine Fire Station Condition Like new condition. No visible structural defects. The facility is clean and well maintained. Interior layout is conducive to function with no Excellent unnecessary impediments to the apparatus bays or offices. No significant defect history. Design and construction match the building’s purposes. Age is typically less than 10 years.

The exterior has a good appearance with minor or no defects. Clean lines, good workflow design, and only minor wear of the building interior. Roof and apparatus apron are in good working order, absent Good any significant full-thickness cracks or crumbling of apron surface or visible roof patches or leaks. Design and construction match the building’s purposes. Age is typically less than 20 years.

The building appears structurally sound with weathered appearance and minor to moderate non-structural defects. The interior condition shows normal wear and tear but flows effectively to the apparatus Fair bay or offices. Mechanical systems are in working order. Building design and construction may not match the building’s purposes well. Showing increasing age-related maintenance, but with no critical defects. Age is typically 30 years or more.

The building appears to be cosmetically weathered and worn, potentially with structural defects, although not imminently dangerous or unsafe. Large, multiple full-thickness cracks and crumbling of concrete on apron may exist. The roof has evidence of Poor leaking and/or multiple repairs. The interior is poorly maintained or showing signs of advanced deterioration, with moderate to significant non-structural defects. Problematic age-related maintenance and/or major defects are evident. May not be well suited to its intended purpose. Age is typically greater than 40 years.

Page 34 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

ESCI toured the PFRD stations, and combined with the Department’s observations, produced the following overview for each facility.

Fire Station 21 Physical Address: 80 South 300 West General Description: Houses the Department’s administrative offices, the City’s Development Services Department, and a two bay fire station. Houses a medic unit, a heavy rescue unit, a brush truck, and a Battalion Chief. Located on civic campus adjacent to Police Station, City administrative offices, and Arts Center.

Survey Component Observations Structure Construction Type Wood frame/masonry Date of Construction 1972 Seismic Protection/Energy Audits Yes Auxiliary Power Yes Condition Fair Special Considerations (ADA, gender, etc.) Yes Square Footage 18,150 Facilities Available Exercise/Workout Yes Kitchen/Dormitory Yes Lockers/Showers Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer Yes Safety Systems & Assignments Sprinkler System Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decontamination/bio-hazard disposal No Security Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes, but in poor condition

Page 35 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Fire Station 22 Physical Address: 2737 North Canyon Road General Description: Three bay station under construction. Includes a community meeting room.

Survey Component Observations Structure Construction Type Commercial Metal Frame Date of Construction 2020 Seismic Protection/Energy Audits Yes Auxiliary Power Yes Condition Excellent Special Considerations (ADA, gender, etc.) Yes Square Footage 14,000 Facilities Available Exercise/Workout Yes Kitchen/Dormitory Yes Lockers/Showers Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer Yes Safety Systems & Assignments Sprinkler System Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decontamination/bio-hazard disposal Yes Security Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes

Page 36 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Fire Station 23 Physical Address: 601 West Columbia Lane General Description: Two bay station that houses a 109’quint company and a cross-staffed medic unit. The Department’s five-story training tower, roof prop, and modular training building is located at the rear of the property. Several special response equipment storage trailers are also stored in the rear parking lot.

Survey Component Observations Structure Construction Type Masonry Date of Construction 1977 Seismic Protection/Energy Audits Unknown Auxiliary Power Yes Condition Fair Special Considerations (ADA, gender, etc.) Unknown Square Footage 7,500 Facilities Available Exercise/Workout Yes Kitchen/Dormitory Yes Lockers/Showers Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer Yes Safety Systems & Assignments Sprinkler System Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decontamination/bio-hazard disposal No Security Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes

Page 37 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Fire Station 24 Physical Address: 95 South, 2050 West General Description: Three bay station, houses an engine company that cross- staffs an engine, medic unit, and brush truck.

Survey Component Observations Structure Construction Type Masonry/Wood frame Date of Construction 1994 (remodel 1997) Seismic Protection/Energy Audits Yes Auxiliary Power Yes Condition Fair Special Considerations (ADA, gender, etc.) Unknown Square Footage 5,832 Facilities Available Exercise/Workout Yes Kitchen/Dormitory Yes Lockers/Showers Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer Yes Safety Systems & Assignments Sprinkler System Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decontamination/bio-hazard disposal No Security Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes

Page 38 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Fire Station 25 Physical Address: 275 South, 700 East General Description: Three bay station that houses a 105’ quint company, medic unit, and heavy rescue unit.

Survey Component Observations Structure Construction Type Wood frame Date of Construction 2002 Seismic Protection/Energy Audits Yes Auxiliary Power Yes Condition Good Special Considerations (ADA, gender, etc.) Unknown Square Footage 11,282 Facilities Available Exercise/Workout Yes Kitchen/Dormitory Yes Lockers/Showers Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer Yes Safety Systems & Assignments Sprinkler System Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decontamination/bio-hazard disposal No Security Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes

Page 39 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Fire Station 26 Physical Address: Provo Municipal Airport General Description: Airport ARFF Station. Houses one ARFF apparatus. Station only staffed during commercial aircraft takeoffs and landings. No living/sleeping facilities.

Survey Component Observations Structure Construction Type Metal frame/cladding Date of Construction Unknown Seismic Protection/Energy Audits Unknown Auxiliary Power Yes Condition Fair Special Considerations (ADA, gender, etc.) No Square Footage 5,000 (estimated) Facilities Available Exercise/Workout No Kitchen/Dormitory No Lockers/Showers No Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer No Safety Systems & Assignments Sprinkler System No Smoke Detection Yes Decontamination/bio-hazard disposal No Security Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes

Page 40 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Capital Facilities Discussion At the time of this study, significant fire department capital improvements were either planned or underway. A new Station 22 opened in October 2020 on the site of the old station. The new station includes a community meeting room for public use. The crew was relocated to temporary housing approximately 1.5 miles north of the station site during construction.

The current Station 21 and PFRD headquarters building is located on a civic campus housing the City’s administrative facility, Police Department headquarters, and the Civic Arts facility. A recently passed capital construction bond included funding for constructing a new public safety building and a new fire station on this campus. During the site visit, ESCI noted construction was underway on a portion of the campus. However, this study will be used to determine if the proposed location of Station 21 is appropriate given the anticipated growth in population and development in the southwest, northwest, and central business district areas.

ESCI also noted the fluidity of capital planning within the City, particularly related to the ongoing expansion of the Provo Municipal Airport, and development in the northwest and southwest city areas.

Page 41 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Capital Apparatus & Vehicles Fire suppression apparatus and medic units (ambulances) are unique and expensive pieces of equipment customized to operate within a specific community, specific hazards, and defined mission. The next two figures summarize the Department’s fire, EMS, and specialized apparatus inventory.

Figure 21: Provo Fire & EMS Apparatus Apparatus Type Make Year Condition Status Pumpers Engine 22 Pumper (4x4) Pierce 2019 Excellent Frontline Engine 23 Quint (55’) Pierce 2006 Fair Reserve Engine 24 Pumper Rosenbauer 2018 Excellent Frontline Engine 25 Quint (55’) Pierce 2006 Fair Reserve Ladder 23 Quint (109’) Rosenbauer 2019 Excellent Frontline Ladder 23 (old) Quint (55’) Pierce 2006 Fair Reserve Ladder 25 Quint (105’) Pierce 2018 Excellent Frontline Ambulances MA 21 Type I Wheeled Coach 2016 Good Frontline MA 22 Type I Wheeled Coach 2016 Good Frontline MA 23 Type I Wheeled Coach 2017 Good Frontline MA 24 Type I Wheeled Coach 2017 Good Frontline MA 25 Type I Wheeled Coach 2016 Good Frontline MA 26 Type I Wheeled Coach 1999 Fair Reserve MA 27 Type I Ford 2003 Fair Reserve MA 28 Type I Freightliner 2006 Fair Reserve

The Department also has specialized response apparatus, as summarized in the following figure.

Page 42 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 22: Provo Specialized Response Apparatus Apparatus Type Make Year Condition Status Specialized HazMat 22 HazMat Pierce 2002 Good Frontline Brush 21 Type 6 Engine Dodge 2018 Excellent Frontline Brush 22 Type 6 Engine Ford 2005 Good Frontline Brush 24 Type 6 Engine Ford 2005 Good Frontline Brush 25 Type 6 Engine Ford 2005 Good Frontline Heavy Rescue 21 Rescue Rosenbauer 2020 New Frontline Mule 4x4 ATV ARFF Apparatus Red 1 ARFF Oshkosh 2014 Excellent Frontline

The Department also has specialized 4x4 all-terrain vehicles that are used for mountain rescue situations in the canyon and mountain areas immediately north and east of the city.

The Department also has a fleet of Command and Staff vehicles, as summarized in the following figure.

Figure 23: Provo Command & Staff Vehicles Vehicle Type Make Year Condition Status Command BC 21 Command Chevrolet 2500 2015 Good Frontline BC 22 Command Chevrolet 2500 2017 Good Frontline BC 23 Command Chevrolet 2500 2015 Good Frontline BC 24/FM 21 Fire Marshal Chevrolet 2500 2015 Good Frontline BC 25 Training Chevrolet 2500 2015 Good Frontline DC 22 Deputy Chief Chevrolet Tahoe 2014 Good Frontline Capt. 29 EMS Captain Chevrolet Tahoe 2013 Good Frontline DFM 22 Deputy FM Chevrolet 1500 2011 Good Frontline DFM 23 Deputy FM Chevrolet 1500 2011 Good Frontline Emergency EM 21 Chevrolet 1500 2010 Good Frontline Manager

Page 43 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Future Apparatus Serviceability The future cost associated with the replacement of apparatus is a major consideration. Apparatus service lives can be readily predicted based on factors including vehicle type, call volume, age, and maintenance considerations such as down-time and cost of repairs. Maintenance and replacement planning of PFRD apparatus is the responsibility of the City’s Fleet Maintenance Division.

NFPA 1901: Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus recommends that fire apparatus 15 years of age or older be placed into reserve status, and apparatus 25 years or older should be replaced.8 This is a general guideline, and the standard recommends using the following objective criteria in evaluating fire apparatus lifespan:

• Vehicle road mileage. • Engine operating hours. • The quality of the preventative maintenance program. • The quality of the driver-training program. • Whether the fire apparatus was used within its design parameters. • Whether the fire apparatus was manufactured on a custom or commercial chassis. • The quality of the craft by the original manufacturer. • The quality of the components used in the manufacturing process. • The availability of replacement parts.

Age is not the only factor for evaluating serviceability and replacement. Vehicle mileage, engine hours, and pump hours on engines must also be considered. A two- year-old engine with 250,000 miles may need replacement sooner than a 10-year-old one with 2,500 miles. The following figure represents a relatively simple example that the Department can use for determining the condition of fire apparatus and vehicles.

8 NFPA 1901: Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus; Section D.3.

Page 44 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 24: Example Criteria & Method for Determining Apparatus Replacement Evaluation Components Points Assignment Criteria One point for every year of chronological age, based on Age: in-service date. Miles/Hours: One point for each 10,000 miles or 1,000 hours 1, 3, or 5 points are assigned based on service-type Service: received (e.g., a pumper would be given a 5 since it is classified as severe duty service). This category takes into consideration body condition, rust interior condition, accident history, anticipated Condition: repairs, etc. The better the condition, the lower the assignment of points. Points are assigned as 1, 3, or 5, depending on the frequency a vehicle is in for repair (e.g., a 5 would be assigned to a vehicle in the shop two or more times per Reliability: month on average; while a 1 would be assigned to a vehicle in the shop an average of once every three months or less. Point Ranges Condition Rating Condition Description Under 18 points Condition I Excellent 18–22 points Condition II Good 23–27 points Condition III Consider Replacement 28 points or higher Condition IV Immediate Replacement

ESCI noted that PFRD’s frontline fire apparatus fleet is less than five years old on average, and the delivery of the new Heavy Rescue 21 unit will reduce the average to only two years. Rescue 21 is the oldest piece of fire apparatus at 18 years of age, and MA 26 is the oldest medic ambulance at 21 years of age. The overall frontline ambulance fleet is older, with an average of 3.5 years. Ambulance mileage and usage are typically much higher than fire apparatus, and the average age (14 years) of the reserve ambulance fleet is a concern.

The Fleet Department annually assesses the age, condition, mileage, and repair history of each fire vehicle and apparatus, and assigns a point value using a similar methodology as noted above. They also perform a three-year “look-back” vehicle maintenance and operations expenses, including fuel costs, in developing the annual vehicle maintenance and operations costs for each city department’s budget.

Page 45 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

ESCI noted that fleet managers attempt to replace vehicles in a timely manner to maximize resale or auction value. The money from these transactions is then placed into a designated revenue budget line item for each city department called the “Fleet Vehicle Emergency Fund,” which is used to pay for unanticipated expensive vehicle repairs.

Fire apparatus repairs were previously made by a certified Emergency Vehicle Technician (EVT). However, this person recently retired, and efforts are underway to train and certify a replacement as an EVT and National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certification.

Capital Fleet Discussion According to the City’s Fleet Manager, the City has a capital vehicle replacement plan but does not have a corresponding capital vehicle replacement fund. Vehicle and apparatus purchases are budgeted as part of the annual budget process, and General Fund money is used to purchase vehicles. The Department’s apparatus replacement plan attempts to replace an engine or quint every eight years and move the replaced apparatus into reserve status for up to 20 years. Ambulances are planned for replacement every seven years.

Overall, the condition and maintenance of PFRD apparatus and vehicles appear to be excellent. Given the age of the reserve ambulances, the City should consider replacing at least one of the front-line ambulances within the next 1–2 years, and move the old front-line units into reserve status to ensure reliability.

Page 46 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Staffing Information

In this section of the report, ESCI evaluated the administrative and operations staffing levels, job duties, and work rules, with the intent of identifying best business practices and areas where improvements may be necessary.

Administrative Staffing No progressive fire department can operate without strong and expert administrative support. Efficient management and administration require personnel with specific administrative and technical skills to effectively support the organization’s core mission. However, fire agencies must strike a balance between having enough administrative resources to efficiently support all of the Department’s programs, while also ensuring the assigned staff maintain a healthy workload.

The following figure summarizes PFRD’s administrative uniformed positions.

Figure 25: Administrative Uniformed Positions Administrative Uniformed Positions Number of Positions Fire Chief 1 Deputy Chief 1 Administrative Battalion Chief 1 Administrative Captain 1 Fire Marshal 1 Fire Inspector/Investigator 2 Total 7 Ratio of Uniformed Staff to Operations Staff 9.8%

In addition, several non-uniformed administrative positions are necessary to manage the Department effectively. The following figure summarizes these positions.

Page 47 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 26: Administrative Non-Unformed Positions Administrative Non-Uniformed Positions Number of Positions Emergency Manager 1 Executive Assistant 1 Administrative Assistant 2 Communications Center Manager 1 Communications Operations Supervisor 1 Communications Center Shift Supervisor 6 Call Taker/Dispatcher 18 Total 30

Emergency Operations Staffing ESCI evaluated the overall number of personnel and staffed stations against Western Region comparable fire departments as identified by the NFPA. The following figures summarize these comparisons.

Figure 27: Comparison of PFRD Firefighters per 1,000 Population

1.6 1.34 1.4

1.2 0.99 1

0.8 0.62 0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Regional Median National Median Provo Fire & Rescue

As shown in the preceding figure, PFRD operations staffing is significantly under the national and regional (Western states) median for comparable communities and fire departments as surveyed by NFPA.

Page 48 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

ESCI also evaluated the type and number of PFRD career operations staff positions, which are summarized in the following figure.

Figure 28: Emergency Operations Staff Positions Operations Positions Number of Positions Battalion Chief 3 Captain 12 Engineers 12 Firefighter/EMT/Paramedic 44 Total Operations Positions 71

ESCI then calculated the theoretical total number of full-time employees required to meet the various average leave hours used by employees and compared the results to the current number of operations employees assigned to 24-hour staffed units.

The analysis compared the average available scheduled weekly work hours per employee, subtracted the average various leave types—based on 2017–2019 historical leave-use data—and calculated sick and vacation relief factors. ESCI then multiplied the number of personnel needed to cover a single position at 24-hours daily, with the relief factor, to determine the total number of employees theoretically required to meet daily minimum staffing. Personnel working a 40-hour work schedule were not included in this calculation.

ESCI consolidated unscheduled leave usage, including sick, FMLA, Funeral, Military, and workers compensation leaves in calculating the sick leave relief factor. To estimate vacation leave usage, ESCI averaged the vacation hours used between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, and divided by the number of operations employees. The following figure summarizes the results of these calculations.

ESCI understands that operations assigned employees receive seven “Kelly Days” per year to reduce their average workweek hours from 56 hours to 53 hours. To account for this, ESCI simply used the 53-hour average weekly hours total as part of the staffing relief factor calculation.

Page 49 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 29: Theoretical Relief Factor Calculation (2019) Leave Type Relief Factor

Sick Leave 1.11

Vacation Leave 1.22

Total Relief Factor 1.23

The Total Relief Factor was multiplied by the minimum number of operations personnel needed to cover one 24-hour position seven days a week, and then multiplied by the minimum number of positions required on a 24-hour basis. The following figure compares the theoretical number of employees needed with the current number of employees assigned to the PFRD operations work schedule.

Figure 30: PFRD Calculated Operational Staff Shortage/Overage Total No. of No. Positions Theoretical authorized Shortage/Overage Required 24/7 No. FTE Required Operations FTE 19 72 69 3

Note, this is a theoretical assessment. Leave factors are typically dynamic from year to year depending on attrition, long-term injury or illness, and changes to the overall number of operations employees.

Emergency Operations Staffing Discussion Reconciling the results of this staffing resource analysis with current PFRD staffing levels and resource allocation strategies should be approached carefully. In ESCI’s experience, the theoretical analysis does not necessarily account for any inherent scheduling or staffing flexibility by a department, which potentially can be leveraged to reduce workload and personnel costs.

Nor does it consider the ongoing costs of providing the various benefits to full-time employees, which can be as high as approximately 55% of the total cost of salaries, or the one-time cost of selecting, hiring, and outfitting new employees. These inherent expenses must be considered when analyzing the cost of adding full-time employees versus using overtime or part-time employees who do not receive benefits.

Page 50 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

However, ESCI understands that PFRD is experiencing increasing situations where they are unable to find personnel willing to work overtime to fill unscheduled vacancies due to sickness and injury, resulting in employees being “mandated” to work the vacant shifts. Department leadership is rightfully concerned about the impact on morale and overall health of the operations staff if this dynamic continues.

Fatigue is another factor that must be taken into consideration when examining the work schedule of operations firefighters. While the 48 hours on, 96 hours off rotating work schedule results in significant blocks of time off, it also introduces the potential for significant fatigue during the second half of the shift, especially if a high workload and lack of sleep were experienced during the first 24-hour shift.

The 24-hour shift followed by at least 24 hours off duty on a rotating schedule remains the predominant schedule for fire departments in the Western United States. Typical examples of the various rotating shift schedules include:

• 24-hours on, 48-hours off. • 24-hours on, 24-hours off, 24-hours on, 24-hours off, 24-hours on, 96-hours off

However, some departments, like PFRD, transitioned to a 48-hours on, 96-hours off shift schedule, citing research suggesting longer periods of off duty time allows for full restoration of healthy sleep patterns.

During the site visit, ESCI learned that operations personnel are allowed to swap shifts or work overtime shifts that result in the employee working up to 96 consecutive hours (4 24-hour shifts). This practice should be reexamined, with consideration given to reducing the maximum consecutive work hours threshold to 72 hours.

Current Service Delivery Objectives PFRD has not formally adopted any of the response performance goals and objectives described in NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments.

In subsequent sections of this report, response time objectives will be further discussed and analyzed in the context of the Department’s actual response time performance elements, where available, with the goal of assisting the Department in formally adopting realistic response time goals, and periodically measure its response performance against these goals.

Page 51 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Stakeholder Input

The goal of any emergency service delivery system is to provide sufficient resources (personnel, apparatus, and equipment) to the scene of an emergency in time to take safe, efficient, and effective actions to resolve the situation. Obtaining and understanding the desires and expectations of the fire department by various internal and external stakeholders is an important aspect of this study, as it helps provide context and areas of emphasis for study.

Although no structured community input was sought specifically for the purpose of this study, key community leaders, elected officials, and department heads were interviewed.

For this report, ESCI relied on information provided in interviews of key City department managers, internal fire department employees and officers, the Mayor, and an ex-long standing City Council member. The purpose of these interviews was to understand better the internal and external issues facing PFRD, especially as it relates to growth in the community, and identify potential challenges and opportunities in addressing these issues.

In general terms, the questions asked in each interview were tailored to gather specific detailed information about the interviewee’s role in the organization or community, and learn more about:

• Perceived strengths of the current service delivery system, especially within their sphere of influence, • Current challenges and gaps within their program area(s), • Opportunities and ideas for enhancement and improvement, and • Challenges that need to be addressed to move the Department forward in improving overall service delivery, especially within their sphere of influence.

ESCI compiled and analyzed the interview notes and noted the following general themes beyond specific operational, programmatic issues and constraints discussed in detail throughout this report:

• The Fire Department enjoys strong community support and is held in high regard. • The Fire Department senior leadership is held in high regard by internal and external stakeholders.

Page 52 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

• The recent significant growth—and characteristics of this growth (gentrification)— presents challenges in planning to maintain or enhance the delivery of emergency services throughout the community, especially as it relates to current and future station coverage needs. • Significant development and growth are anticipated to continue, especially in the City’s westside. • Commercial growth and development are taxing the Department’s ability to pro- actively engage businesses and property owners in fire prevention and code enforcement efforts. • The community has an inherent culture of resiliency and self-reliance that results in lower demand for emergency services than other comparable communities. • Financial prudence, even in an environment of an increasing tax revenue base, is a priority for the Fire Department and City Administrators.

Page 53 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Section II: Community Risk Assessment

Page 54 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Community Risk Assessment

This section provides an “all-risks; all-hazards” perspective of PFRD’s service area. It is intended to assist in: (1) Identifying hazards and risks within the community; (2) prioritizing risks in order to develop effective risk reduction strategies; and (3) determining the appropriate resources necessary to reduce risk and attain desired outcomes. This assessment relies on the use of both quantitative and qualitative data to describe the fire/EMS protection needs of the community. Where available, physical, economic, and demographic data were utilized to assess the fire/EMS-related hazards and risks.

Characterizing Risk Simply stated, community risk assessment (CRA) is “the Figure 31: CRA and the Core Capabilities of Emergency identification of potential and likely risks within a Management particular community, and the process of prioritizing those risks.” This concept is consistent with the FEMA concept of “whole community” and shared responsibility for emergency preparedness.9 Thus, CRA is a critical component of the core capabilities, or phases, of emergency management—prevent, prepare, respond, recover, and mitigate, as shown here.

• Prevention focuses on preventing human hazards, primarily from potential natural disasters

or terrorist (both physical and biological) attacks. • Preparation is a continuous cycle of planning, organizing, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking corrective action. • Response is the coordination and management of resources in an all-hazards approach with measures taken for life/property/environmental safety. • Recovery is the group of activities to restore critical community functions and begin to manage stabilization efforts. • Mitigation is the effort to reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters and emergencies.

9 National Planning Frameworks, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, 2018.

Page 55 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

ESCI performed a Community Risk Assessment to determine community characteristics, vulnerabilities, special hazards, and community risks. ESCI gathered the information utilized in performing this assessment through interviews with key City and PFRD staff, the 2017 Mountainland Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan (MPDHMP), the City’s General Plan, and other sources.

Contemporary risk management efforts include assessing the chance of a significant emergency event occurring, the impact of the event on the organization and community, developing strategies to mitigate the risk and impact of occurrence, and continually assessing these risks and mitigation strategies as changes occur in the community.

Risk management also should consider a community’s fiscal and political environment, as policymakers must ultimately determine service priorities and funding levels to support these services.

At-Risk Populations The Journal of General Internal Medicine defines “populations at-risk” broadly and includes the poor, frail, disabled, economically disadvantaged, homeless, racial and ethnic minorities, and persons with low literacy.10 The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Urban Fire Safety Report further reinforces the “at-risk” groups as:11

• Males • Children under 5 years of age • Adults over the age of 65 years • Persons with disabilities • Persons with language barriers • Persons in low-income communities

The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) identified benchmark data for the at-risk population groups in Provo and the Provo-Orem metropolitan area. Unless otherwise mentioned, the figures in this section are adapted from the U.S. Census Bureau. The findings are illustrated in the following sections.

10 Populations at Risk. A Critical Need for Research, Funding, &75 Action. Journal of Internal Medicine (2005). 11 Community Risk Reduction: Doing More with More. NFPA Urban Fire Life Safety Task Force (2016).

Page 56 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Benchmark Risk The following figure provides a comparative analysis of the risk groups between Provo and the State of Utah. One can quickly see that Provo has a larger percentage of the population that lives below the poverty line and poses a unique challenge to overcome the inherent risks associated with it. We will discuss this finding in further detail in a subsequent section.

Figure 32: Comparative "At Risk" Groups as Percentage of Population

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Utah Provo

Males Males make up just under one-half of Provo’s population. Males, especially those under 25-years of age, are more prone to engage in risky activities and may require higher levels of emergency response. Additionally, males are 1.7 times more likely to die in fires than females. There is no significant difference between the percentage of males in Provo compared to the State’s population.

Persons by Age Risk As shown in the preceding figure, the difference in Provo’s under-five age population with the State of Utah is not statistically significant. The very young represent a vulnerable population, as they may have limited mobility and ability to escape a structure fire as well as their susceptibility to serious medical ailments such as asthma, traumatic events, choking, or injury from vehicular accidents.

Page 57 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Provo has a younger overall population compared to the State, with 5% fewer residents who are 65 years or older. In addition, the median age of Provo’s residents is 23.7, compared to the statewide median of 31 years of age. There is an increase in demand for service as a community ages and a corresponding increase in community risk, especially in the use of EMS services. Quality of life issues and increased reliance on assisted living could affect service delivery and the number of resources required due to an increase in service demand for emergency medical services.

Persons with Disabilities People living with a disability under 65 years of age may have difficulty or be incapable of self-preservation during an emergency. Likewise, people under 65 with no health insurance are more prone to chronic illness or exhibit poor physical condition simply because they do not seek treatment promptly. Thus, they may require a higher level of fire-rescue and EMS responses. Six and one half of Provo’s population has some sort of disability, as compared to 6.8% of the overall State population.

Persons without Health Insurance Although access to health insurance is not included in the NFPA at-risk categories, it is well documented and known that persons without health insurance are more susceptible to developing chronic health conditions and/or dependence on emergency services. The percentage of Provo residents without health insurance is slightly higher than the State (13% vs. 11%).

Persons Living in Poverty Individuals living in poverty experience an increased risk from fire or medical condition due to age or condition of housing level, inability to pay for routine medical care, lack of medical insurance, and general health conditions. Sometimes, the lack of access to transportation leads to increased use of care and transport. Those living below the poverty line are the most at-risk. The low-income category is often combined with other factors such as education, disability, and work status. In rural communities, low-income residents may live far from treatment centers and require extended response times.

Page 58 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The level of poverty measured in Provo (26%) is significantly greater than the State average (9%). A 2014 Provo Daily Herald article reviewed a Brookings Institute brief, titled; The Growth and Spread of Concentrated Poverty, 2000 to 2008–2012. The article discussed the overall status and growth of poverty in the U.S., which identified Provo as having one of the largest poverty percentages in the country. The Daily Herald article also discussed the potential influence of the Brigham Young student population on the poverty rate. However, no definitive research or objective conclusions were identified.

The root cause of the high percentage of poverty in Provo is likely multi-faceted, and is certainly worthy of additional study. Regardless, this aspect of population risk vulnerability is likely a significant factor in the use of PFRD’s emergency services.

Persons with a Language Barrier Nearly 25% of the population in Provo uses a foreign language as their primary language to communicate in the home. Singularly, speaking a language other than English at home may not directly contribute to difficulties in communicating with others. However, if a person has difficulty speaking English, it may contribute to negative outcomes during an emergency.

Education Level Although education level is not included in the NFPA at-risk categories, several studies link educational attainment to financial security and poverty levels. Provo’s high school/GED graduation rate of 8% is consistent with Utah’s overall graduation rate of 9%. However, Provo’s higher education graduation rate is 43%, which is 10% higher than Utah’s overall Bachelor graduation rate. This is likely due to the presence of Brigham Young University.

Housing Although housing type is not included in the NFPA at-risk categories, certain housing types, such as older multi-family units and/or mobile homes, pose a higher risk due to potential loss of life or lack of fire protection features. When compared to the State of Utah, the Provo-Orem area has a lower percentage of homeownership. This may be influenced by the Brigham Young student population. Over 50% of the Provo-Orem population rent their homes. Conversely, 29.5% of the State of Utah’s overall population rent their homes.

Page 59 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 33: Home Ownership Type, 2018 80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% Provo-Orem Utah

Owned Rented

The Provo-Orem area has a much lower percentage of single-family detached homes, and slightly higher percentages of multi-family residential structures than the rest of the State of Utah. Fires in multi-family structures have a much higher fire risk than single- family structures, especially if the structures lack built-in fire alarm or sprinkler systems.

Figure 34: Provo-Orem Occupancies Per Structure, 2018

80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Provo-Orem Utah

Newer construction is typically considered to have a lower fire risk due to newer construction standards and fire protection safety features. When compared to the State of Utah, the Provo-Orem area has a larger percentage of housing that has been constructed in the 1960s and earlier.

Page 60 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 35: Age of Residential Housing in Provo-Orem Area 25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

Provo-Orem Utah

Hazard Classification The Department is susceptible to a variety of hazards, which can be grouped into one of two categories:

• Natural hazards: Result from acts of nature. • Technological/Human-caused hazards: Result from accidents or failures of systems and structures; or from the actions of people, both accidental and intentional. The demographics of the population can affect the amount of service demand and the nature of risk within a community. A detailed discussion of the City’s demographics is included in the “Description of Community Served” section of this report.

Page 61 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Natural Hazards Natural hazards include the following.12

Figure 36: Examples of Natural Hazards

• Avalanche • Landslide/Sinkhole • Animal Disease • Thunderstorm/Hail/Lightning • Dam/Levee Failure • Tornado • Drought Earthquake • Tsunami • Extreme Temperature • Volcanic Eruption • Flood • Wildfire • Hurricane/Tropical Storm • Winter Storm

ESCI reviewed the 2017 Mountainland Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan (MPDHM) as part of this study. The document provides a detailed analysis of the natural hazards and associated risks specific to Utah County. The following figure summarizes the most likely hazards in the County as identified in the Plan.

Figure 37: Utah County Hazard Matrix Fire, Winter Weather, Highly Likely Hail Wind, Avalanche Flood, Lightning, Likely Drought, Tornado

Landslide

Possible Probability Earthquake, Unlikely Dam Failure

Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic

Severity

12 SCPG 201: Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Guide—2nd Edition, U.S. Office of Homeland Security, FEMA, August 2013.

Page 62 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assists states, counties, and localities that experience significant hardship during and after a natural disaster. Accordingly, FEMA maintains a database that documents federally supported and declared disasters. The following list summarizes the number and type of declared disasters in Utah County since 1983 as reported by FEMA’s Data Visualization tool.

• 1983 Severe storms, landslides, and flooding • 1984 Severe storms, mudslides, landslides, and flooding • 2004 Mollie Fire (wildfire) • 2005 Hurricane Katrina Evacuation • 2011 Flooding • 2012 Dump Fire (wildfire) • 2018 Bald Mountain Fire (wildfire) • 2020 Covid-19 Pandemic (2 declarations)

As can be seen in the preceding list, Utah County had 9 previous federal disasters since 1983, two of which are related to the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic. It is not ESCI’s intent to regurgitate the natural hazard details as identified in the MPDHM. Rather, attention is placed on assessing the technological and human hazards found in Provo that are not addressed in the MPDHM.

Technological (Human-Caused) Hazards Technological or human-caused hazards result from accidents or failures of systems and structures; or the actions of people, either accidental or intentional. Intentional actions are always deliberate; however, the intent may differ (e.g., a deliberate action may be planned, careless, reckless, or with the intent to cause harm). In careless or reckless acts, or those that are poorly planned and or executed, the outcome may have unintended consequences.

Transportation Transportation corridors provide necessary access and egress for the public, commercial enterprise, and emergency service providers. For this study, ESCI used geographic information systems (GIS) data supplied by the City, and other national databases to evaluate and display the City’s transportation network.

Page 63 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The configuration of transportation systems can significantly adversely affect a fire department’s ability to respond to an incident quickly. Limited access freeways and rail lines can interrupt street connectivity, forcing apparatus to negotiate a circuitous route to reach an emergency scene. More recently, traffic calming devices, including speed humps and lane restrictions, have become much more prevalent, resulting in slower response speeds and increased wear and tear on emergency apparatus.

Pipeline, trucking, and rail routes also pose unique hazards, most often associated with hazardous materials releases or fire.

Freeways U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) bisects the City from north to south. This major thoroughfare presents a major east-west travel barrier in the City. Significant amounts of hazardous materials cargo are transported via I-15. Additionally, the freeway speed limit is 70 miles per hour, which frequently results in high-speed vehicle collisions. Due to the limited access, the City of Orem Fire Department responds to vehicle incidents on the southbound portion of the freeway past the Provo city limits, and PFRD responds to vehicle incidents northbound into the Orem city limits.

Additional state highways, including State Highways 89 and 189, also bisect the City. These routes present significant response barriers as well, resulting from the installation of jersey barriers in the medians, which limits the routing ability of responders.

Railroad Transportation by rail is generally considered one of the safest transit modes. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) maintains responsibility for investigating railroad-related accidents and the subsequent investigation report(s). According to the NTSB Railroad Accident Reports portal, the state experienced 214 railway accidents between 2010 and 2019. The portal does not list any major incidents in Provo during this timeframe.

Page 64 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 38: Railway Accidents in Utah (2010–2019) 40

35 34 30

25 27 26 26

20 22 20 15 18 15 10 13 13

5

0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Aircraft The Provo Municipal Airport (PVU) is in the southwest section of the City. According to the City’s Airport Master Plan, the airport has two active runways, which are 8,600 feet and 6,600 feet long. The City manages the airport, which is also overseen by a seven- member ad hoc advisory board. The City recently launched a $40 million terminal expansion project, and projects it will attract up to 20 commercial airline passenger flights a day, which would be an increase from the four current flights per day performed by Allegiant Airlines.

A review of the National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB) crash records reveals 22 incidents between 1984 and 2015, with the most recent incident involving a non-injury landing gear mishap of a light airplane in August 2019.13,14

13 www.planecrashmap.com. 14 Fox 13 News, Salt Lake City, August 16, 2019.

Page 65 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Land Use & Zoning Current and future land use plans have a direct impact on determining the probability and risk of occurrence. For example, open space zoning and low-density residential development are considered low-risk. Moderate-risk zoning would include medium- density residential development, low-intensity retail, and professional office or business. High-risk zoning includes mixed-use areas, high-density residential, industrial, warehousing, and large retail and mercantile centers. The following figure illustrates the current zoning and land use plan for the City of Provo.

Figure 39: Provo General Plan Land Use Map

Page 66 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Target Hazards/Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR)

The following section of the report highlights the location of infrastructure that may pose a unique response hazard and intensive resource requirements to safely and effectively mitigate an incident. The infrastructure is categorized by use/occupancy type as follows:

Figure 40: Listing of Community Target Hazards Occupancy/Hazard Area Description

Large Buildings Sprinklered vs Non-Sprinklered MF, HR, > 50,000 square feet

Public Assembly Churches, Restaurants, Bars, Libraries, Sports Stadiums

Educational Public/Private K–12, University, Day Care

Medical/Congregate Care Hospitals, Urgent Care, Dependent Care Facilities

Government Detention Centers, Jails, Court, Local/State/Federal Offices

Energy Systems Pipeline, Major Power Grids

Communication Cell Towers, Radio Towers, Broadcast Facilities

Tier II Facilities Facilities (Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act)

Major Employers Major Employment Centers

Largest Tax Generators Facilities with High Sales/Property Tax Contributions

Distribution Centers Large Distribution and Fulfillment Centers

Dam & Flood Prone Areas Dam or Levee Sites with Flood-Prone Areas

Wildfire Risk Wildland-Urban Interface Locations

The following pages and figures illustrate some of the target-hazard locations in the preceding figure. Note that data and information were unavailable to develop a wildland-urban interface map at the time of this study.

Page 67 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Commercial and Public Assembly Occupancies There are numerous buildings within the city where large numbers of people gather for education, entertainment, or worship. A variety of nightclubs, theaters, and other entertainment venues exist, along with recreational, religious, and cultural sites, and sporting and other event venues. These occupancies present additional risk due to the large number of people and the economic and social impacts on the community from a loss due to fire or some other event. These sites may also pose greater risks to first responders due to size and/or configuration. Fire, criminal mischief, and potentially terrorism could cause a major medical emergency requiring significant emergency service resources.15

The largest public assembly buildings in Provo reside mostly on the BYU campus. BYU is a unique hazard in this regard, as it has dozens of large public assembly and educational buildings of various occupancy loads, including Lavell Edwards Stadium, with a seating capacity of 63,470. The largest educational building on campus is Lee Library, with over 715,000 square feet of space, and another 13 educational buildings are all over 100,000 square feet in size. Several other athletic facility buildings are also over 100,000 square feet, including the Richards Building, Smith Fieldhouse, and Marriott Center.

However, several other large public assembly occupancies, including places of worship, are located throughout the service area. Covey Center, Provo Town Center, and the Utah County Conventions Center are examples of large footprint public assembly buildings located outside of the BYU campus.

Schools As noted previously in this report, Brigham Young University is located in the heart of Provo. This large four-year university campus is located on 560 acres, with over 300 buildings. The University, created in 1875, has buildings that vary in age from the early 1900s to brand new construction. Each has unique life safety hazards as a result of varying building code requirements at the time of construction, construction techniques, built-in fire protection systems, and usage types. A significant additional risk is introduced periodically with the influx of large numbers of spectators at large sporting events, concerts, and other cultural events on campus.

15 There are many other businesses with the characteristics as an assembly occupancy but have an approved occupancy load of less than 50 people. These are not included in this category.

Page 68 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The Provo School District is the local kindergarten through high school public education provider. The District, formed in 1898, operates two high schools, an alternative high school, two middle schools, and thirteen elementary schools, serving over 16,000 students annually.16

Other private schools and daycares are located throughout the City. The following figure shows the location of the schools, colleges, and pre-schools.

16 Provo City School District website.

Page 69 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 41: Educational Facilities

Page 70 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Hospitals and Congregate Care Facilities Utah Valley Hospital is the main regional medical facility serving the City. The facility, operated by Intermountain Healthcare®, is a Level II Trauma Center with a 395-bed capacity and a 24/7 emergency department. The hospital is surrounded by various laboratories, physician offices, and ancillary medical care facilities.

Several nursing homes and other congregate care facilities are located throughout the City. The following figure illustrates the location of the hospital and congregate care facilities.

Figure 42: Medical & Congregate Care Facilities

Page 71 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Government Buildings Government-owned structures and properties are located throughout the City. Some are open for public use, including business activities, recreation, and cultural enrichment. Others are key facilities providing non-public service to the community. This includes, public safety buildings, communication hubs, public works facilities, correctional institutions, and military installations. Most of these are considered critical public assets, as unanticipated disruption or damage to a governmental facility may have a far reaching impact on delivering essential services. The following figure shows the location of key government buildings in Provo.

Figure 43: Key Government Buildings

Page 72 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Communication Infrastructure Emergency communication centers and related transmission equipment are critical emergency response infrastructure. The City’s 911 Center is operated by the Provo Fire Department, providing call receipt and dispatch service for fire, police, and EMS.

There are other communication facilities and equipment located throughout the City that are equally important to community and government operations. These include telephone company central switching stations, voice and data transmission lines of local telephone and internet service providers, including CenturyLink®, Veracity Networks®, US Dish®, and Google Fiber®

Lastly, local and regional microwave and radio station transmission equipment is located on remote West Mountain, located approximately 15 miles southwest of Provo. This site is vulnerable to wildfire, vandalism, and sabotage. The following figure shows the location of various communications facilities in Provo.

Page 73 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 44: Communications Infrastructure

Page 74 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Energy Every community depends on the delivery of reliable energy; electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel. The transmission and delivery of this energy are dependent on various transmission routes, including above and below ground electrical grids, underground pipelines, and above and below ground storage systems. All of these systems have inherent risks and potential for failure that can lead to community disruption.

Electrical power for the City is provided by Provo City Power (PCP), a locally-owned, controlled, and operated not-for-profit municipal utility that has been operating since 1940.17 It is the largest municipal electric utility in the State of Utah, operating over 380 miles of distribution lines, 48 miles of high voltage distribution lines, and 18 substation transformers that deliver power to over 35,000 electric meters.

Questar Gas® is Provo’s local natural gas provider, which maintains a network of underground gas distribution lines.

Geographical Restrictions The National Fire Protection Association Standard for the Organization and Deployment 1710 Standard was updated in 2020 and included a new reference—geographical restriction zone.18 These zones are defined as a “condition, measure, or infrastructure design such as a railroad crossing, drawbridge, [or] narrow street that is inaccessible by fire apparatus, traffic demand pattern, long supply line lay, or other similar circumstance that impedes an apparatus’ travel to an incident.”

Lastly, bridge locations may be the site of flood-related incidents due to high water— road closures, washouts, or risk of people being swept into rising or swift water. The area occasionally experiences flash flooding due to strong thunderstorms or rapid snowmelt as well. The following figure identifies the vulnerable bridge locations in the study area.

17 Provo City Power website 18 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. National Fire Protection Association (2019).

Page 75 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 45: Geographic Restrictions—Rivers & Bridges

Page 76 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Rail transportation corridors and configurations also can directly impact emergency service provider response capabilities. Trains blocking major response routes will force emergency vehicles to utilize alternative, and sometimes lengthier, routes to an emergency scene. The following figure illustrates the main rail transportation corridors in Provo.

Figure 46: Geographic Restrictions—Rail Lines & Railroad Crossings

Page 77 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Water Distribution & Wastewater Potable water and wastewater treatment systems are owned, operated, and maintained by the City’s Public Works Department. The water system is comprised of 12 storage tanks and distribution reservoirs that gather water from various springs, wells, and rivers, 384 miles of water mains, and over 18,000 water connections. Approximately 15 million gallons of wastewater is treated daily at the City’s wastewater treatment plant located in South Provo. This plant is fed by 16 lift stations throughout the City.

Structural Risks

Hazardous Materials High-hazard occupancies include facilities that involve the manufacturing, processing, generation, or storage of hazardous materials in sufficient quantity or type as to create significant risk to the public or first responders. Examples include Tier II and other Class H occupancies.

In these facilities, a significant uncontrolled release would require specialized personnel trained and equipped to isolate, identify, control, and clean up. These facilities are highly regulated and monitored through the City’s fire prevention and hazardous materials programs. These facilities are required to regularly report the types and quantities of the hazardous materials, be familiar with these hazards, and have appropriate emergency procedures in place. Over 30 Tier II sites are located in and around Provo, as identified in the following figure.

Page 78 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 47: Hazardous Materials Tier II Sites

Page 79 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Dams & Levees Dams and levees systems are typically constructed of earth, concrete, or steel, and are designed to control, contain, or divert water. The following map shows the location of upstream dams that could impact the community in the event of failure or emergency release of high volumes of water.

Figure 48: Regional Dams

Page 80 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Although the likelihood of dam or levee failure is remote in the PFRD service area, there is a specific flood risk upstream of the Provo River in the Rock Canyon area along the City’s eastern border. This vulnerable flood area has been the focus of federal flood mitigation efforts since the late 1930s. Even then, the area experienced significant flooding in 1983, and additional flood mitigation efforts were undertaken.19 There are other drainage areas located in the eastern areas of the City as well. Additionally, the Provo River flows through the middle of the City before terminating in Utah Lake, as shown in the following flood plain map provided by the City of Provo. The following figure shows the location of dams that can impact the study area, and the FEMA designated flood zones in the City.

19 www.rockcanyonutah.com.

Page 81 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 49: Provo Flood-Prone Areas

Note, in the preceding flood plain figure, the highlighted yellow “AE” FEMA category identifies the base floodplain areas within the City.

Page 82 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Buildings Three or More Stories in Height In November 2016, the NFPA authored a report entitled High-Rise Building Fires. Within this report, the author evaluated more than 14,500 structure fires that occurred in high- rise buildings between 2009 and 2013.20 For this community report, a high-rise is defined as a building that is taller than 7 stories in height. The following national data helps determine Provo’s large structure fire risk, and the effectiveness of built-in fire protection/suppression features in these structure types. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of high-rise fires occur within one of five occupancy types: apartments, hotels, dormitories, office, and infirmary facilities. The following figure further illustrates that within the previous five categories, apartments carry the largest probability (85%) of fire occurrence.

Figure 50: High-Rise Fire Occupancy Types (2009–2013)

90%

80% 85%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 5% 5% 3% 2% 0% Apartments Hotels Dormitories Offices Infirmaries

Multi-story buildings were further compared to evaluate fire spread beyond the room of origin and beyond the floor of origin. Three key factors influence a fire’s ability to spread in these structure types: Building construction materials, functional fire detection and alarm systems, and functional built-in fire suppression (sprinkler) systems. Older buildings located in Provo most likely lack these three factors, which means that a fire in these structure types will likely require much higher fire flow and significant fire department resources to contain and extinguish. The following figure compares the fire spread experience between low-rise and high-rise commercial occupancies.

20 High-Rise Building Fires. National Fire Protection Association (2016).

Page 83 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 51: Percent of Fires with Fire Spread Beyond Room of Origin (2009–2013) 25% 21% 20%

15% 11% 10% 10% 9%

5% 4% 4% 4% 2% 1% 1% 0% Apartments Hotels Dormitories Offices Infirmaries

Short-Mid Rise High-Rise

ESCI identified the locations of buildings taller than three stories, as shown in the following figure.

Page 84 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 52: Provo Buildings Three Stories & Higher

Page 85 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Residential Structures In December 2018, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) authored a research report, Home Structure Fires, which summarized the causation, confinement, and occupancy related data for residential structure fires that occurred from 2012 to 2016.21 The following figures are adapted from this report and illustrate the correlation between cooking fires and fire containment in single and multi-family occupancies. Note that there was a 39% containment rate for residential cooking fires and this closely aligns with the fire causation/origin of cooking fires at 38%. Multifamily has a similar correlation with a 70% confinement rate and 72% causation to cooking related items.

Figure 53: Residential Structure Fire Cause (2012–2016) 80% 72% 70% 60% 50% 38% 40% 30% 18% 20% 13% 9% 5% 6% 10% 7% 4% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0%

Single Family Multi-Family

Figure 54: Single-family versus Multi-family Fire Containment (2012–2016) 80% 70% 60% 70% 61% 50% 40% 30% 39% 20% 30% 10% 0% Single Family Multi-Family

Confined Not confined

21 Home Structure Fires: Supporting Tables. National Fire Protection Association (2018).

Page 86 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Comparison of Fire Risk in Other Communities The most recent available (2018) NFIRS incident summary data was retrieved from the State of Utah Fire Marshal’s Office. ESCI compared this data with the Provo specific NFIRS data from the same source. The following figure summarizes the comparison as it relates to the fire experience in Provo and the State of Utah.

Figure 55: 2018 State of Utah & Provo Incident Comparison 70% 63.69% 59.79% 60%

50%

40%

30% 16.12%

20% 5.91% 13.01% 9.22% 3.90% 2.48% 8.79% 7.44% 10% 1.31% 0.75% 3.91% 0.08% 0.04% 1.59% 0%

Provo Utah

As shown in the preceding figure, the City experienced a lower percentage in each incident category when compared to the overall number of incidents in the State, except for EMS and Hazardous Condition responses, where PFRD had approximately 4% and 5% more incidents than the rest of the State respectively.

Page 87 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Section III: Standards of Cover

Page 88 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Historical System Response Workload

With an understanding of the community, the department, and the potential risks, the next consideration is to look at actual response and workload over a given period of time. This enables department leadership to review the current response and standards of cover and extrapolate for future service demand and the ability to provide that service in a timely and efficient manner.

Incident Type Analysis In a simplistic fashion, a department may choose to simply look at the total number of incidents within a specific timeframe to determine the service demand. However, through the use of a categorization system, the department is provided with a more detailed view of the actual incidents and thus will be more able to plan the resources needed to respond to those incidents. The National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) has developed a system that categorizes incidents and is utilized by departments across the country. Each classification code is a three-digit number that is grouped into series by the first digit, as illustrated below.

Figure 56: NFIRS Incident Types Incident Series Incident Heading

100-Series Fires

200-Series Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat (No Fire)

300-Series Rescue and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Incidents

400-Series Hazardous Condition (No Fire)

500-Series Service Call

600-Series Canceled, Good Intent

700-Series False Alarm, False Call

800-Series Severe Weather, Natural Disaster

900-Series Special Incident Type

Page 89 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

PFRD collects data for incident response using ImageTrend®, an NFIRS compliant software. The following figure illustrates the PFRD service demand as categorized within the NFIRS series. From 2017 to 2019, there was an increase of 0.62% in overall demand for service. The greatest increases by specific incident type were motor vehicle collisions (31.19%), alarms (31.89%), and hazardous conditions (20.07%). In contrast, the greatest decreases by specific incident type were other (42.86%) and service calls (38.2%).

Figure 57: Service Demand by Incident Type (2017–2019) 5,000 8,000 6,774 6,816 4,500 6,509 7,000 4,000 6,000

3,500 4,359 4,141 3,000 4,054 5,000 2,500 4,000 2,000 3,000 1,500 2,000 865 811 793 664

1,000 641 561 553 486 472

267 1,000 244 186 185 177 174 165

500 143 109 21 16 12 0 0 2017 2018 2019

Fire (100) Hazardous Condition (200, 400) EMS (300 except 322-324) MVC (322-324) Service Call (500) Canceled, Good Intent (600) Alarm (700) Other (800,900) Total

Service demand is illustrated in the preceding figure by specific counts of each NFIRS incident series. It is also valuable for leadership to evaluate the same service demand data to illustrate how each NFIRS incident series compares as part of the whole, as is illustrated in the following figure. For PFRD, the greatest demand for service was for emergency medical service incidents at 62.5%—which is consistent with the percentages found in most all-hazard fire departments studied by ESCI.

Page 90 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 58: Service Demand by Incident Type (2017–2019)

Canceled, Good Alarm (700) Other (800,900) Fire (100) Intent (600) 8.0% 0.2% 2.7% 12.3% Hazardous Service Call (500) Condition (200, 400) 3.4% 8.8%

MVC (322-324) 2.1%

EMS (300 except 322-324) 62.5%

Temporal Analysis The next component when evaluating historical service demand and delivery is the temporal analysis of the historical data. Through analysis of each temporal component, leadership is provided the ability to plan for future service demand and which resources may be required to provide that service. Also, a thorough understanding of the temporal nature of service demand enables leadership to consider the scheduling of non-response activities during periods when service demand is at lower levels. Examples of non-response activities include training, apparatus maintenance, hydrant testing, pre-planning target hazards, and hose testing.

The following figure illustrates the service demand by month for PFRD. The greatest demand for service occurs May through September. The lowest demand for service occurs October through December and February.

Page 91 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 59: Service Demand by Month (2017–2019) 12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

The following figure illustrates the service demand by day for PFRD. Demand for service is at its lowest on Sunday and then gradually increases until reaching the greatest demand on Friday.

Figure 60: Service Demand by Day (2017–2019) 18.0%

15.0%

12.0%

9.0%

6.0%

3.0%

0.0%

Page 92 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The following figure illustrates the PFRD service demand by time-of-day. Demand for service begins to increase at 5 a.m. and follows an increasing slope for the next two hours. This timeframe coincides with the population awakening and preparing for their daily activities. There is a sharper increase in service demand throughout the morning, reaching a peak at 2 p.m. This continual increase coincides with the population's movement from their homes to various destinations throughout the community. Throughout the afternoon, demand for service remains level until beginning to decrease at 6 p.m. This decrease continues throughout the afternoon and evening and coincides with the movement of the population to their evening activities and eventually to their homes. After midnight, the demand for service continues to decrease, until reaching its lowest level at 4 a.m.

Figure 61: Service Demand by Time-of-Day (2017–2019) 7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Midnight

While service demand is lowest during those early morning hours, it should be noted that most fatal residential fires occur most frequently late at night or early in the morning. Based on findings from a national study, from 2014 to 2016, fatal residential fires were highest between 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., and 4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. The 8-hour peak period (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) accounted for 48% of fatal residential fires.22

22 Fatal Fires in Residential Buildings (2014–2016), Topical Fire Report Series Volume 19, Issue 1/June 18, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center.

Page 93 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Spatial Analysis The next component when evaluating historical service demand and delivery analyzes the geographical location of incidents. With knowledge of where incidents occur, leadership is more capable of ensuring the best placement of resources to provide services. For purposes of this evaluation, ESCI utilized geographic information system (GIS) software to plot the location of incidents and then calculated the mathematical density of incidents (incidents per square mile).

As illustrated in the following figure, when viewing all incidents, the highest demand for service occurs in the central portion of the service area—with an epicenter near Station 21. The density of service demand then radiates out from that epicenter, with the lowest demand for service occurring near Station 24 and Station 22.

Page 94 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 62: PFRD Incidents per Square Mile (2018–2019)

While the figure above illustrates the incident density of all incidents, the following figures illustrate the same incident data by emergency medical incidents and fire incidents. As illustrated, the incident density for emergency medical incidents follows a pattern similar to that illustrated in the preceding figure and the incident density for fire incident epicenter is slight west of Station 21.

Page 95 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 63: PFRD EMS Incidents per Square Mile (2018–2019)

Page 96 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 64: PFRD Fire Incidents per Square Mile (2018–2019)

The spatial analysis for the Department includes not only the incident density but also the distribution of resources within the community. This distribution of resource analysis is compared to various industry standards.

Page 97 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

ISO Distribution The first standard related to the geographic distribution of resources is published by the Insurance Services Office (ISO). ISO is a national insurance industry organization that evaluates fire protection for communities across the country. ISO assesses all areas of fire protection as broken down into four major categories, including emergency communications, fire department, water supply, and community risk reduction. Following an on-site evaluation, an ISO rating, or specifically, a Public Protection Classification (PPC®) number is assigned to the community ranging from 1 (best protection) to 10 (no protection). The PPC® score is developed using the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS), which outlines sub-categories of each of the major four categories, detailing the specific requirements for each area of evaluation.

A community’s ISO rating is an important factor when considering fire station and apparatus concentration, distribution, and deployment due to its effect on the cost of fire insurance for the residents and businesses. To receive maximum credit for station and apparatus distribution, ISO evaluates the percentage of the community (contiguously built upon area) that is within specific distances of fire stations, central water supply access (fire hydrants), engine/pumper companies, and aerial/ladder apparatus.

Travel Distance from a Fire Station ISO evaluates three different travel distance measures for each community. The first measure analyzed is the percentage of the service area that falls within a 1.5-mile travel distance of a fire station. The greater the percentage of service area within this distance, the greater the likelihood that fire department resources will arrive on the scene of an incident within a timely manner. As illustrated in the following figure, 60.7% of the PFRD service area falls within 1.5 miles of a fire station.

Page 98 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 65: PFRD 1.5-Mile Travel Distance per ISO Criteria

Page 99 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The second travel measure analyzed is the percentage of the service area that falls within a 2.5-mile travel distance of a station equipped with an aerial apparatus. PFRD has assigned aerial apparatus at Station 23 and Station 25. Response from these two locations provides aerial apparatus coverage within 2.5-miles to 63.2% of the service area, as illustrated in Figure 66.

Figure 66: 2.5-Mile Travel Distance per ISO Criteria

Page 100 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The final travel measure analyzed is the percentage of the service area that falls within a 5-mile travel distance of a station. As illustrated in Figure 67, PFRD has excellent coverage within this measure, with 97.1% of the service area falling within the 5-mile travel distance.

Figure 67: 5-Mile Travel Distance per ISO Criteria

Page 101 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Water Supply Distribution Another major component analyzed by ISO in developing the PPC rating for the community is the availability of a sufficient water supply, which is critical for the extinguishment of fires. Included in this evaluation are the geographic location and distribution of fire hydrants. Structures outside a 1,000-foot radius of a fire hydrant are subject to a lower Public Protection Classification® rating than areas with adequate hydrant coverage, thus signifying limited fire protection. Exceptions are made when a fire department can show that either a dry hydrant or a suitable water tanker operation is possible to provide the needed volume of water for fire suppression activities for a specific period. This is another measure where PFRD excels, with 93% of the service area falling within 5 miles of a hydrant, as illustrated in Figure 68.

Page 102 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 68: Hydrant Coverage per ISO Criteria

Page 103 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

NFPA Distribution National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) accreditation of fire departments both evaluate response time criteria to analyze resource distribution. For low/medium hazard incidents, the first unit should arrive within 4 minutes, and the full assignment should arrive within 8 minutes. Travel time is calculated using the posted speed limit and adjusted for negotiating turns, intersections, and one-way streets. As with the ISO distribution in the previous section, the distribution of resources to meet these standards increases the ability of the fire department to arrive on the scene in a timely manner and thus creates the opportunity to reduce injury/death of victims and damage to property. As illustrated in the figure below, PFRD meets the 4-minute and 8-minute criteria 72.7% and 96%, respectively.

Page 104 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 69: 4-Minute/8-Minute Travel Time per NFPA Criteria

Page 105 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Population and Incident Workload Projection To assist in projecting future emergency service demand, ESCI evaluated several factors that directly influence emergency workload activity. The most important factor is population growth, as EMS service demand is directly tied to the number of people living and working in a fire department’s service area.

Future residential, business, and industrial developments are also important factors to consider in projecting future service demand, as additional build-out and in-fill, along with planned annexation expansion of the jurisdiction, can increase community risk and require additional resources and staff or redeployment of existing staff.

As noted previously in this report, Provo and the Provo-Orem metropolitan region has undergone significant population growth over the past several years, with Utah County identified as one of the top ten growing population areas in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. At the time of this study, the 2020 Census was underway, and officials are concerned about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the census count, as many of the college students who would normally be counted in Utah County have gone home to their primary residences outside of the region.23

The following figure illustrates Provo’s projected population through 2030. The population is forecast to grow to 120,609 by 2030, with an Upper Confidence Bound of 124,514 persons and a Lower Confidence Bound of 116,703 persons. The forecast adds approximately 3,300 new residents by 2030, which is an overall increase of 3.4%. Note, these projections are based on population estimates that started in 2011. The new 2020 Census may bring additional clarity and accuracy to the potential population changes over the next decade. These estimates do not account for any future annexations or large residential developments that may occur in the future.

23 Report: 3 Utah areas top nation in population growth, Associated Press, March 26, 2020.

Page 106 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 70: Provo Population Forecast (2020–2030) 126,000

124,000

122,000

120,000

118,000

116,000

114,000

112,000

110,000

108,000

106,000

Values Forecast Lower Confidence Bound Upper Confidence Bound

Residential, commercial, and industrial growth must also be considered in service delivery impact projections. It is no secret that Provo is one of the fastest-growing technology business communities in the United States, with almost 11% of the total workforce working in local technology industries.24 Continued growth in these industries, along with job growth in education and health care occupations, results in more residents living in Provo and brings in a significant number of workers who commute from outside the city limits, increasing the transient population during the workweek. This dynamic also impacts demand for emergency services, especially during daylight hours during the workweek.

Interviews with the City’s Development Services Department revealed that future planned growth and development will occur well into the foreseeable future. The significant growth is initially anticipated to occur mostly in three main areas:

1. West City Area 2. Downtown Core Redevelopment 3. Airport Expansion

24 Provo, Utah Boasts Nation’s Fastest Growing Tech Employment, U.S. News and World Report, October 2, 2018.

Page 107 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

In particular, residential development in the west side of the city is likely to occur within the next 2–3 years, upon lifting a development/building moratorium tied to completion of a significant upgrade to the City’s wastewater treatment system. Many development and building permits on the City’s west side have already been submitted to the City or approved.

West Provo Development The City of Provo’s Southwest Area Future Land Use map reveals that a significant amount of land is slated for future development in the area immediately east of the Provo Municipal Airport to the western edge of I-15. Of the total available acreage, approximately 1,000 acres are slated for development, with a potential of almost 4,000 housing units. The 2017 U.S. Census ACS five-year survey estimated that each Provo housing unit averages 3.2 residents per household, which would equate to approximately 12,800 residents moving into this area after full build-out. Additionally, approximately 430 additional acres are slated for airport/industrial support business development immediately surrounding the north and east side of the airport property, and another 78 acres of commercial development throughout the area.

Downtown Development Over the past several years, significant redevelopment has been occurring in the downtown core, resulting in various levels of “gentrification” in the five downtown core neighborhoods. Much of this development resulted in the demolition of old occupancies or conversion into dense mixed-use commercial/residential properties, including apartments, condominiums, and small businesses. For example, a new mixed- use high-rise commercial and residential complex, called The Millrace at Provo Station, has been approved by the Provo Planning Commission. The complex will have a 13- story condominium tower and a 14-story office tower, along with adjacent commercial businesses. The complex is slated to have 436 residential units. According to the Development Services Department, developers are planning additional property conversions throughout the downtown area in the next several years, which will result in continued infill and higher population densities.

Airport Development As previously noted, the Provo Municipal Airport is undergoing a significant expansion to accommodate additional commercial airline traffic. Four new passenger gates and related support facilities will be built over the next 2 to 3 years. City administrators project that the airport expansion will lead to additional industrial and hospitality business development immediately near the airport.

Page 108 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Service Delivery Projection Given the population and growth projections previously discussed, ESCI estimates that the overall population could be upwards of 135,000 residents by the end of this decade. This estimate includes population increases resulting from the development of the west Provo area, the infill of new residents into the downtown core, and the estimated linear 3.4% overall population growth projection previously noted. In the following figure, ESCI estimated the potential incident rate increase based on the projected change in population.

Figure 71: Service Delivery Projection 2019 Population 2030 Population Estimated 2030 Percentage 2019 Incidents Estimate Projection Incidents Change 116,618 7,028 134,804 8,088 15%

Page 109 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Critical Tasking Assessment

Analysis of the critical tasking serves as the foundation of the deployment section of this report to encourage a stronger correlation between risk and resources. To determine this, ESCI reviewed the critical tasking to establish the personnel required to mitigate the incident. This is formally known as the effective response force (ERF). Additionally, the reserve capacity (RC) of the organization is determined by quantifying the remaining personnel available to respond to a concurrent incident(s). The following figure illustrates an example of critical tasking and personnel requirements for each fire risk category as recommended by NFPA 1710.

Figure 72: Critical Tasking & ERF for Fire Risk Categories Low-Risk Moderate- High-Risk Extreme Risk Task (Dumpster Risk (Apartment) (High-Rise) Fire) (House) Command 1 1 2 2 Apparatus Operator 1 1 2 1 Handlines (2 members on each) 2 4 6 4 Support Members 2 2 3 Victim Search & Rescue Team 2 4 4 Ground Ladders/Ventilation 2 4 Aerial Operator (if ladder used) (1) (1) Initial Rapid Intervention Team 4 4 Initial Medical Care Component 2 Building Fire Pump Monitor (1) (if equipped) Hoseline–Floor Above Fire 2 Rapid Intervention Team 4 Accountability Officers 4 (fire floor & floor above) Evacuation Management Teams 4 Elevator Operations Manager 1 Incident Safety Officer 1 Interior Staging Manager 1 Member Rehabilitation 2 Vertical Ventilation Crew 4 Lobby Control 1 Transport Equipment 2 External Base Operations 1 EMS Crews with Transport 4 Total Required: 6 16 (17) 27 (28) 42 (43)

Page 110 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Risk Assessment Methodology In August 2020, ESCI analyzed information provided by the PFRD Fire Prevention Division, which was asked to identify and quantify fire response hazard risks in the City.

The Three-Axis Heron’s Formula was used to calculate risk. This model was selected because it provided a more accurate means of communicating the organizational impact of the emergent responses. The formula considers the probability of occurrence, the severity of consequence, and the impact to fire department resources.25

Use of the Three-Axis Heron’s Formula includes the following formula:

(PC)2 + (CI)2 + (IP)2 Risk =

2 The risk is graphically illustrated through a three-axis model as follows:

• P = Probability (Y-Axis) • C = Consequences (X-Axis) • I = Impact (Z-Axis)

The probability of risk was determined through a discussion of PFRD’s incident experience, including a review of incident records. The consequences to the community were determined through an evaluation of the incidents’ impact on lives and property. The organizational impact was determined through a critical tasking and analysis of the PFRD personnel needed to mitigate the risk. The following figure illustrates the assessment model.

Figure 73: Risk Assessment Scoring Methodology Score Probability Consequence Impact 2 Rarely (annual or longer) No life or property loss < 4 personnel 4 Quarterly Life or property impaired 4–7 personnel 6 Monthly Life or property loss 8–11 personnel 8 Weekly Loss > 1 life or property loss 12–17 personnel 10 Daily Loss of > 3 lives or major building > 17 personnel

25 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover, 6th Edition. Center for Public Safety Excellence (2016).

Page 111 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The PFRD is responsible for providing four major services that include (1) Fire Response, (2) Medical Response, (3) Rescue Response, and (4) Hazardous Materials Response. This risk assessment was applied to each of the aforementioned areas to calculate a risk category of (1) Low, (2) Moderate, (3) High, and (4) Extreme. The ranking scale was set to establish two (2) as the lowest score and ten (10) as the highest score to illustrate the risk score.

Fire Response The PFRD mitigates a wide range of fire-related incidents, ranging from low-risk dumpster fires to the extreme risk associated with a high-rise fire. As was referenced previously, a standardized risk assessment scoring process was applied to a sample incident in each of the risk categories. The current daily Department operations staffing level is maintained to handle low and moderate fire risks. High and extreme risk fires will require additional resources and staff or aid from neighboring jurisdictions. The following figure illustrates the risks and illustrates the organizational and community impact during fire responses.

Page 112 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 74: Fire Incident Risk Assessment Description Low Moderate High Extreme Risk Score Range 0 to 24.99 25 to 49.99 50 to 69.99 70 to 100 Incident Type: Dumpster Fire House Fire Apartment Fire High-Rise Fire P C I P C I P C I P C I Risk Score 6 2 4 6 6 10 4 4 10 2 4 10 Score Assigned 19.79 65.17 41.56 32.14 Max/Min Staffing 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 ERF Assigned: 3 15 15 15 ERF Remaining: 16 4 4 4

Risk Classification

Page 113 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Medical Response The PFRD is an EMS response and transport department. Almost all operations assigned personnel are trained to the EMT-Paramedic level. Positive outcomes of Myocardial Infarction (heart attack), stroke, cardiac arrest, and major trauma patients are heavily influenced by early detection, rapid response, fast application of definitive treatments, and rapid transport. The following figure illustrates the impact of various medical incident responses.

Figure 75: Medical Incident Risk Assessment Description Low Moderate High Extreme Risk Score Range 0 to 24.99 25 to 49.99 50 to 69.99 70 to 100 MVC w/ 3 Incident Type: Sick Person Cardiac Arrest MCI Patients P C I P C I P C I P C I Risk Score 10 4 2 8 6 4 8 10 10 2 10 10 Score Assigned 32.12 44.18 106.77 73.48 Max/Min Staffing 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 ERF Assigned: 3 5 9 15 ERF Remaining: 16 14 10 4

Risk Classification

Page 114 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Rescue Response The PFRD provides a wide range of technical rescue services, and is trained and equipped to manage low- to high-risk incidents that range from the routine elevator rescue to the more technical and resource-intensive confined space, swift water, and mountain rescues. The following figure highlights the rescue appraisal for each risk category.

Figure 76: Rescue Incident Risk Assessment

Description Low Moderate High Extreme Risk Score Range 0 to 24.99 25 to 49.99 50 to 69.99 70 to 100 Building Incident Type: Elevator MVC Extrication Swift Water Collapse P C I P C I P C I P C I Risk Score 8 2 4 6 4 6 2 10 10 2 7 5 Score Assigned 25.92 34.98 73.48 27.57 Max/Min Staffing 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 ERF Assigned: 3 9 15 15 ERF Remaining: 16 10 4 4

Risk Classification

Page 115 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Hazardous Materials Response As is common in the primary service area, hazardous materials responses range from the routine and low-risk fluid spill to the more extreme risk associated with a rail car incident involving unknown or dangerous commodities. In the early stages of a hazardous materials incident, it may be necessary to send additional PFRD resources to address life safety issues and coordinate mitigation efforts through specialized regional teams or private contractors as requested through the Utah County Sheriff’s Emergency Services Division. The PFRD is trained and equipped to handle low to high-risk incidents. The following figure illustrates the risk matrix.

Figure 77: Hazardous Materials Incident Risk Assessment

Description Low Moderate High Extreme Risk Score Range 0 to 24.99 25 to 49.99 50 to 69.99 70 to 100 Rail Car Incident Type: Fuel Spill NG Gas Leak 18-Wheeler Incident P C I P C I P C I P C I Risk Score 8 2 4 8 2 8 1 8 6 2 10 10 Score Assigned 25.92 48 34.66 73.48 Max/Min Staffing 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 ERF Assigned: 3 4 15 15 ERF Remaining: 16 15 4 4

Risk Classification

Page 116 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Summary Findings of the Community Risk Analysis As noted in each of the various risk analysis, PFRD is configured and deployed to handle low to mid risk incident types. Anything larger or more complex requires the deployment of additional resources through mutual aid or automatic aid agreements. Further, this statement does not consider the impact of concurrent incidents, which can significantly diminish the Department’s overall response capability and capacity at any given time.

ESCI understands the importance of balancing the ability to maintain an adequate emergency response capability for the most common incident types and the frequency in which they occur, within the constraints of available revenue streams and other City priorities. This Community Risk Assessment is ESCI’s best attempt to objectively quantify these risks in a way that assists Department and City leadership in future planning to ensure adequate emergency response capacity and capability as the City continues to grow.

Page 117 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Historical System Performance

For most of the public, the measure of a fire department’s performance is most often based on how fast and how many resources arrive on the scene. For the citizen calling for assistance, the time from the activation of 911 until the arrival of units is critical in mitigating the various risks analyzed in the preceding section. To accurately analyze and monitor response time performance, the various timestamps associated with the measures must be accurately recorded.

In analyzing response performance, ESCI generates percentile measurements of response time performance. The use of percentile measurements using the components of response time follows the recommendations of industry best practices, such as those noted in the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) Standards of Cover document and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments.

The “average” percentile measure is a commonly used descriptive statistic, also called the mean of a data set. The most important reason for not using the average for performance standards is that it may not accurately reflect the performance for the entire data set and may be skewed by outliers, especially in small data sets. One extremely good or bad value can skew the average for the entire data set.

The “median” measure is another acceptable method of analyzing performance. This method identifies the value at the middle of a data set and thus tends not to be as strongly influenced by data outliers.

Fractile percentile measurements are a better measure of performance because they show that most of the data set has achieved a particular performance level. The 90th percentile means that 10% of the values are greater than the value stated, and all other data are at or below this level. This can be compared to the desired performance objective to determine the degree of success in achieving the goal.

It is important to keep in mind that each component of response performance is not cumulative. Each is analyzed as an individual component, and the point at which the fractile percentile is calculated exists in a set of data unto itself.

The response time continuum—the time between when the caller dials 911 and when assistance arrives—is comprised of several components:

Page 118 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

• Call Processing Time: The time between a dispatcher receiving the call and the resources being dispatched. • Turnout Time: The time between unit notification of the incident and when they are responding. • Travel Time: The time the responding unit spends on the road to the incident. • Response Time: A combination of turnout time and travel time, the most commonly used measure of fire department response performance. • Total Response Time: The time from when the 911 call is answered until the dispatched unit arrives on the scene.

Figure 78: Response Time Components

Total response time is the amount of time a resident or business waits for resources to arrive at the scene of an emergency, beginning when they first placed a 911 call. This process begins for the fire department once the appropriate unit is dispatched by the communications center. The NFPA standard for alarm handling and call processing is derived from NFPA 1221: Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems and provides for communication centers to have alarm handling time of not more than 15 seconds, 90% of the time and not more than 20 seconds, 95% of the time. Additionally, NFPA 1221 requires the processing of the call to occur within 64 seconds, 90% of the time for high-priority incidents. Similarly, NFPA 1710 requires the call processing time to be 60 seconds or less, 90% of the time, as does ISO.

Page 119 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 79: NFPA 1710 Standards for Fire/EMS Responses Response Interval NFPA/CFAI Recommendations 60 seconds or less at 90% Call Processing 90 seconds or less at 90% (EMS) 60 seconds or less at 90% Turnout Time 80 seconds or less at 90% (Fire and Special Operations) Travel Time 240 seconds

Tracking the individual components of response time enables jurisdictions to identify deficiencies and areas for improvement. In addition, knowledge of current performance for the components previously described is an essential element of developing response goals and standards that are relevant and achievable. Fire service best practice documents recommend that fire jurisdictions monitor and report the components of total response time.26

Provo Fire & Rescue Data Issues The two primary sources of incident data provided by PFRD to ESCI were exported from the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system and ImageTrend®. The following issues were identified and impacted ESCI’s ability to accurately and completely assess the various response time components and effective response force performance.

• CAD records are purged regularly and did not contain all the timestamps needed for an accurate analysis. • The documentation of timestamps in ImageTrend did not appear to occur consistently. • The documentation of unit ID in ImageTrend did not appear to occur consistently. • The incident numbers in the fire portion of ImageTrend did not match the incident numbers in the EMS portion of ImageTrend. • Responses were not consistently coded as emergency/non-emergency. Response time performance analysis generally includes only emergency responses. As a result, ESCI included all incidents in this analysis.

26 NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, Center for Public Safety Excellence Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover, 6th Edition.

Page 120 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

These issues prevented ESCI from performing even a basic analysis of the Department’s response time performance. If the above issues are corrected in the future, the Department should implement data quality improvement measures to monitor and ensure accurate and detailed data entry into the RMS.

Concentration and Effective Response Force Capability Analysis The ability to safely take action at a scene is impacted by the number of personnel that can arrive on the scene within a reasonable amount of time—referred to as “effective response force.” The following figure illustrates examples of the number of personnel needed to handle structural fires in various sizes of buildings.

Figure 80: Recommended Initial First Alarm Assignment27 3-Story Single-Family Open Air Strip Garden Functions/Tasks Residence Shopping Center Apartment (2,000 SF) (13,000–196,000 SF) (1,200 SF) Command 1 2 2 Apparatus Operator 1 2 2 Handlines (2 members each) 4 6 6 Support Members 2 3 3 Victim Search and Rescue team 2 4 4 Ground Ladders/Ventilation 2 4 4 Aerial Device Operator (if ladder used) (1) (1) (1) Initial Rapid Intervention Team 4 4 4 Initial Medical Care Component N/A 2 2 Total 16 (17) 27 (28) 27 (28)

The ability to assemble an effective response force is impacted by the geographical location of resources in relation to the incident. The following figure illustrates the theoretical effective response force analysis for PFRD and is based on units being at the station when the incident is dispatched.

27 NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments; and the Commission on Fire Accreditation (CFAI) Standards of Cover, 6th Edition.

Page 121 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 81: Effective Response Force Coverage (8-Minute)

Not surprisingly, PFRD’s stations and resources are deployed to provide the greatest ERF coverage to the area of the city with the densest population and built environment.

Page 122 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Incident Concurrency The ability to effectively provide service to the community is also impacted by the number of incidents occurring simultaneously. This is referred to as “concurrency,” and while there is no specific standard related to it, from a logical standpoint, the greater number of incidents occurring at the same time requires a greater number of resources to respond to those incidents. As the volume of concurrent incidents increases, the primary agency relies more on automatic aid and mutual aid resources and may see diminished total response time performance. As illustrated in the next figure, concurrency for PFRD is relatively low, with 98.69% falling within three incidents or less.

Figure 82: PFRD Incident Concurrency, 2017–2019 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% More than Single Two Three Four Five Five Incident Incidents Incidents Incidents Incidents Incidents 2017 62.93% 28.67% 6.84% 1.43% 0.14% 0.00% 2018 64.69% 28.31% 6.08% 0.81% 0.09% 0.02% 2019 59.82% 31.59% 7.14% 1.36% 0.07% 0.01% Average 62.48% 29.52% 6.69% 1.20% 0.10% 0.01%

Page 123 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Performance Objectives & Measures

Dynamics of Fire in Buildings Most fires within buildings develop predictably unless influenced by highly flammable material. Ignition, or the beginning of a fire, starts the sequence of events. It may take several minutes or even hours from the time of ignition until a flame is visible. This smoldering stage is very dangerous, especially during times when people are sleeping, because large amounts of highly toxic smoke may be generated during this phase.

Once flames do appear, the sequence continues rapidly. Combustible material adjacent to the flame heat and ignite, which, in turn, heats and ignites other adjacent materials if sufficient oxygen is present. As the objects burn, heated gases accumulate at the ceiling of the room. Some of the gases are flammable and highly toxic.

The spread of the fire from this point continues quickly. Soon, the flammable gases at the ceiling, as well as other combustible material in the room of origin, reach ignition temperature. At that point, an event termed “flashover” occurs; the gases and other material ignite, which, in turn, ignites everything in the room. Once flashover occurs, damage caused by the fire is significant, and the environment within the room can no longer support human life. Flashover usually occurs about five to eight minutes from the appearance of a flame in typically furnished and ventilated buildings. Because flashover has such a dramatic influence on the outcome of a fire event, the goal of any fire agency is to apply water to a fire before flashover occurs.

Although modern codes tend to make fires in newer structures more infrequent, today’s energy-efficient construction (designed to hold heat during the winter) also tends to confine the heat of a hostile fire. In addition, research has shown that modern furnishings generally ignite more quickly and burn hotter (due to synthetics). In the 1970s, scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that after a fire broke out, building occupants had about 17 minutes to escape before being overcome by heat and smoke. Today, that estimate is as short as three minutes. The necessity of effective early warning (smoke alarms), early suppression (fire sprinklers), and firefighters arriving on the scene of a fire in the shortest span of time is more critical now than ever.

Page 124 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The prompt arrival of at least four personnel is critical for structure fires. Federal regulations (CFR 1910.120) require that personnel entering a building involved in fire must be in groups of two. Further, before personnel can enter a building to extinguish a fire, at least two personnel must be on scene and assigned to conduct search and rescue in case the fire attack crew becomes trapped. This is referred to as the two-in, two-out rule.

However, if it is known that victims are trapped inside the building, a rescue attempt can be performed without additional personnel ready to intervene outside the structure. Further, there is no requirement that all four arrive on the same response vehicle. Many fire departments rely on more than one unit arriving to initiate an interior fire attack.

Perhaps as important as preventing flashover is the need to control a fire before it does damage to the structural framing of a building. Materials used to construct buildings today are often less fire-resistive than the heavy structural skeletons of older frame buildings. Roof trusses and floor joists are commonly made with lighter materials that are more easily weakened by the effects of fire. “Lightweight” roof trusses fail after five to seven minutes of direct flame impingement. Plywood I-beam joists can fail after as little as three minutes of flame contact. This creates a dangerous environment for firefighters.

In addition, the contents of buildings today have a much greater potential for heat production than in the past. The widespread use of plastics in furnishings and other building contents rapidly accelerates fire spread and increases the amount of water needed to control a fire effectively. All of these factors make the need for early application of water essential to a successful fire outcome.

The following figure illustrates the sequence of events during the growth of a structure fire over time.

Page 125 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 83: Fire Growth vs. Reflex Time

As is apparent by this description of the sequence of events, the application of water in time to prevent flashover is a serious challenge for any fire department. It is critical, though, as studies of historical fire losses can demonstrate.

The National Fire Protection Association found that fires contained to the room of origin (typically extinguished prior to or immediately following flashover) had significantly lower rates of death, injury, and property loss when compared to fires that had an opportunity to spread beyond the room of origin (typically extinguished post-flashover). As evidenced in the following figure, fire losses, casualties, and deaths rise significantly as the extent of fire damage increases.

Figure 84: Fire Extension in Residential Structures—United States, 2011–2015 Rates per 1,000 Fires Average Dollar Extension Civilian Deaths Civilian Injuries Loss Per Fire Confined to room of origin or smaller 1.8 24.8 $4,200 Confined to floor of origin 15.8 81.4 $36,300 Confined to building of origin or larger 24.0 57.6 $67,600

Page 126 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Emergency Medical Event Sequence Cardiac arrest is the most significant life-threatening medical event in emergency medicine today. A victim of cardiac arrest has mere minutes in which to receive lifesaving care if there is to be any hope for resuscitation. The American Heart Association (AHA) issued a set of cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines designed to streamline emergency procedures for heart attack victims and to increase the likelihood of survival. The AHA guidelines include goals for the application of cardiac defibrillation to cardiac arrest victims. Cardiac arrest survival chances fall by 7 to 10% for every minute between collapse and defibrillation. Consequently, the AHA recommends cardiac defibrillation within five minutes of cardiac arrest.

As with fires, the sequence of events that lead to emergency cardiac care can be graphically illustrated, as in the following figure.

Figure 85: Cardiac Arrest Event Sequence

The percentage of opportunity for recovery from cardiac arrest drops quickly as time progresses. The stages of medical response are very similar to the components described for a fire response. Recent research stresses the importance of rapid cardiac defibrillation and administration of certain medications as a means of improving the opportunity for successful resuscitation and survival.

Page 127 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

People, Tools, and Time Time matters a great deal in the achievement of an effective outcome to an emergency event. Time, however, is not the only factor. Delivering sufficient numbers of properly trained, appropriately equipped personnel within the critical time period completes the equation.

For medical emergencies, this can vary based on the nature of the emergency. Many medical emergencies are not time-critical. However, for serious trauma, cardiac arrest, or conditions that may lead to cardiac arrest, a rapid response is essential.

Equally critical is delivering enough personnel to the scene to perform all of the concurrent tasks required to deliver quality emergency care. For a cardiac arrest, this can be up to six personnel; two to perform CPR, two to set up and operate advanced medical equipment, one to record the actions taken by emergency care workers, and one to direct patient care.

Thus, for a medical emergency, the real test of performance is the time it takes to provide the personnel and equipment needed to deal effectively with the patient’s condition, not necessarily the time it takes for the first person to arrive.

Fire emergencies are even more resource critical. Again, the true test of performance is the time it takes to deliver sufficient personnel to initiate the application of water to a fire. This is the only practical method to reverse the continuing internal temperature increases and ultimately prevent flashover. The arrival of one person with a portable radio does not provide fire intervention capability and should not be counted as “arrival” by the fire department.

Performance Benchmarks

As noted previously, ESCI attempted to identify the historical response time performance in the PFRD service area. However, inconsistent and missing incident data hampered the ability to accurately quantify and assess the Department’s performance in the various response time components of Call Processing Time, Turnout Time, Travel Time, Response Time, Total Response Time, and historical effective response force arrival times.

As a result, ESCI is unable to provide observations or example benchmarks on overall response times consistent with NFPA 1710.

Page 128 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Overview of Compliance Methodology

The preceding sections of this report attempted to provide a detailed analysis of the historical performance of the Provo Fire & Rescue. As noted, significant improvements in data collection and analysis is needed to accurately establish a baseline of response performance to identify and implement necessary improvements and modifications. Once done, a continued analysis should be performed on a routine basis.

PFRD should commit to a continual process of analyzing and evaluating actual performance against the adopted Standards of Cover and should improve the data collection procedures of field operations personnel. A periodic review of the Department’s records management system reports will be necessary to ensure compliance and reliability of data.

Accountability & Responsibility In accordance with the requirements set forth within the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover (CRA-SOC), 6th Edition, PFRD is responsible for the creation of a compliance team to ensure that the CRA-SOC is maintained as a “living document” that is continually referenced, reviewed, and updated.

ESCI recommends that PFRD comprise a compliance team of the Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Emergency Manager, Fire Marshal, GIS Analyst, Administrative Assistant, and at least three members from the officer and firefighter ranks to represent each shift.

Quality Assurance & Figure 86: Compliance Model Improvement Compliance Model As is evidenced within this CRA-SOC report, a formal process was used to assess organizational capabilities and deployment as it pertains to risks within the Provo community. ESCI has referenced a six-step compliance model and included it within this report to assist PFRD in meeting current and future needs within the community. The following outlines the key tenets of an effective compliance model:

Page 129 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Step 1: Establish/Review Performance Measures Once the recording of PFRD incident data is accurately and completely implemented, the Department should conduct a full review of the performance measures every five years. At a minimum, this process should:

• Identify service levels provided • Define levels of risk • Categorize levels of risk • Develop performance measures and objectives: ▪ By incident type ▪ By geographic demand zone ▪ Distribution (first on scene) ▪ Concentration (arrival of full first alarm)

Step 2: Evaluate Performance Performance measures are applied to actual services provided:

• System level • First due area level • Unit level • Full effective response force (ERF)

Step 3: Develop Compliance Strategies Determine issues and opportunities:

• Determine what needs to be done to close identified gaps between goals and actual performance • Seek alternative methods to provide service at desired levels • Determine if resources can or should be reallocated • Develop budget estimates as necessary • Seek additional funding commitment as necessary

Step 4: Communicate Expectations to Organization and Stakeholders Communicate expectations:

• Explain the method of measuring compliance to personnel who are expected to perform the services • Provide feedback mechanisms • Define the consequences of noncompliance

Page 130 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Train personnel:

• Provide appropriate levels of training/direction for all affected personnel • Communicate consequences of noncompliance • Modify (remediate) internal processes, application systems, and technical infrastructure as necessary to comply

Step 5: Validate Compliance Develop and deploy verification tools and/or techniques that can be used by divisions of the organization on an ongoing basis to verify that they are meeting the requirements:

• Monthly evaluation: ▪ Performance by unit ▪ Overall performance ▪ Review of performance by division • Quarterly evaluation: ▪ Performance by unit ▪ Performance by first due ▪ Overall performance ▪ Review of performance by executive management

Step 6: Make Adjustments/Repeat Process Review changes to ensure that service levels have been maintained or improved. Develop and implement a review program to ensure ongoing compliance:

• Annual review & evaluation ▪ Performance by unit ▪ Performance by first due ▪ Overall performance ▪ Review of performance by governing body ▪ Adjustment of performance standards by governing body as necessary • Five-year update of Standards of Cover ▪ Performance by unit ▪ Performance by first due ▪ Full effective response force ▪ Overall performance ▪ Adoption of performance measures by the governing body ▪ Establish management processes to deal with future changes in the PFRD’s service area.

Page 131 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Future Fire Station Location Considerations

As noted previously in this report, significant growth and development are anticipated soon in the south and west areas of the City, along with continued infill and gentrification in the downtown core. As previously discussed, current station locations appear to be appropriate given the current population distribution and density, to provide timely first response and ERF coverage to the areas of the city with the most incidents east of the freeway. However, the periphery of the city is currently much less dense from a population and built environment perspective. The following figure illustrates the theoretical four-minute response time coverage to historical (2019) incidents from the current station locations.

Page 132 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 87: Historical Response Time Analysis from Current Station Locations

Page 133 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The map shows that the current station locations provided 4-minute response coverage to 86.7% of the 2019 incident locations.

ESCI anticipates that the terminal expansion at the Provo Municipal Airport will result in increased commercial and industrial development and related activity in the airport vicinity. This factor, along with planned residential growth in the far southwest and northwest areas of the City, will eventually result in increased service demand west of the freeway.

The airport expansion will likely result in the moving of airport operations equipment and apparatus out of the airport fire station facility, which would free up space for other fire department programmatic needs. According to the Airport’s Master Plan Executive Summary, the current Airport Rescue Firefighting (ARFF) station “meets today’s needs and is expected to meet future needs without major overhaul.”

It is important to note that the current ARFF station is not currently configured or equipped with living quarters to house firefighters for extended periods. It is essentially an apparatus storage facility that is staffed only when commercial flights are landing or departing. In addition, while it is centrally located near active taxiways to provide timely emergency response on active taxiways and runways, it is relatively remote to areas outside of the airport. However, space for a relocated Station 24 may be available immediately adjacent to the airport perimeter. Also, ESCI understands that the Department has been contemplating moving Station 21 west of its current location by several blocks to better respond to the areas west of the freeway. Given these potential locations, ESCI modeled response time coverage to historical incident locations from these two hypothetical locations, as shown in the following figure.

Page 134 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 88: Historical Response Time Analysis from Relocated Stations 21 and 24

Page 135 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

As can be seen in the preceding figure, 4-minute response time coverage decreases 3.1% overall, and response time coverage to the south does not appear to be substantially improved. However, it must be noted that the southern areas north of Lakeview Parkway slated for development are mostly undeveloped agricultural land without road networks. Once roads are built and development occurs in these areas, incidents will occur, and the relocated Station 24 would likely have fast response times into those areas.

Relocating Station 24 south would likely decrease response times into the northwest portion of the service area. Much of this area is developed, primarily as single-family and multi-family residential use, with some light commercial uses. ESCI understands there is pending significant residential development on available land in the far northwest corner of this area as well. Given this, ESCI modeled the placement of a new fire station in the proximity of Provo High School, along with the previously noted relocations of Stations 21 and 24. The following map shows the historical response coverage from these locations.

Page 136 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 89: Historical Response Time Coverage from Relocated Stations 21 & 24, and new Station 25

Adding a new station in the northwest service area improves the overall 4-minute first arrival unit coverage by only 2.9%, and brings the overall coverage percentage up to the coverage provided by the current station locations. However, it must be noted that this coverage is based on the current population and built environment. It is anticipated that incident demand will eventually increase in the City’s northwest and southwest periphery as development occurs, and the Department needs to plan accordingly.

Page 137 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Section III: Recommendations

Page 138 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Overall Evaluation, Conclusions, & Recommendations

This Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover study culminates in a series of recommendations based on the observations and analysis previously discussed. Addressing these recommendations should be approached pragmatically. As such, ESCI grouped them into recommended time frames to address.

Facilitating the adoption and implementation of many of these recommendations will take significant commitment, time, and resources (including finances). The suggested timeframes are intended to introduce a realistic “blueprint” for implementation. However, environmental conditions and circumstances may provide challenges or opportunities to address a recommendation(s) outside of the timeframes identified here.

ESCI has grouped the recommendations into three implementation timeline categories: Short-Term (6 months–2 year), Mid-Term (2–4 years), and Long-Term (4–6 years).

Lastly, these recommendations are just that—recommendations. They are ESCI’s best effort in providing guidance to issues and deficiencies identified during the study period. City leaders and citizens hold the ultimate authority in embracing, revising, or discounting the following guidance.

Page 139 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Short-Term Recommendations

Recommendation 1-A: Reconfigure the incident records management system, establish emergency response time goals, and routinely analyze response time performance against the goals. As noted in the Historical System Performance overview, there are significant gaps in the recording of key response benchmark timestamps and response mode information. The Department should establish a consistent data link from the Provo Police Department CAD to ImageTrend®, which automatically enters and archives the following data points into each report.

• Incident latitude/longitude. • 911 call time. • Dispatched time for each responding unit. • Enroute time for each responding unit. • Arrival time for each responding unit. • Complete/In-service time for each responding unit. • Unit number for each responding unit.

Incident numbers from CAD should populate the same into both the fire and EMS RMS. Until such time that automated timestamping can be achieved, the Department should regularly review incident reports for completeness and accuracy, including reviewing the recorded response times.

Once this information is reliably and consistently entered into the RMS, the Department should review this information and use it to adopt response time goals (call processing, turnout, and 4 and 8-minute travel response time goals), and regularly measure the Department’s performance against the adopted goals.

Recommendation 1-B: Work with the NREMT to configure the training database to allow access and analysis of completed EMS training. The Department’s ability to monitor and confirm that personnel have completed required continuing education medical training is critical to ensuring compliance with State EMS regulations. Coordination and reconfiguration of the database to allow for timely monitoring and reporting of each employee’s training status should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Page 140 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Recommendation 1-C: Reduce the allowed consecutive hours worked to 72 hours. The Department should be concerned about potential significant negative impacts resulting from fatigue related to employees working up to 96 hours straight. The Department should consider requiring at least a 12-hour rest break after 72 consecutive hours worked.

Recommendation 1-D: Relocate Station 21 slightly west of the current location, and increase staffing for an engine company. The City and Fire Department should survey and purchase available and suitable land and relocate Station 21. Relocating the station west by several blocks (in the proximity of the 900 block of West Center Street, for example) should improve response coverage on the west side of Interstate 15, yet still be close enough to provide timely first-in response coverage to the areas with the highest incident density in the downtown core. This recommendation was deemed to have a short implementation timeframe due to the ongoing construction of a new Public Safety/City Hall complex immediately adjacent to the current Station 21 site, which can be repurposed during construction and remodeling.

Given the shift of the station location further west, which reduces the overlapping coverage provided by Stations 3 and 5, an additional engine should be purchased, and staffing should be increased by two personnel per shift to cross-staff an engine company and medic unit in the same deployment configuration as the other stations.

Cost Estimate Projection ESCI used PFRD's current onboarding, equipping, construction, and salary/benefits information to estimate the costs of relocating Station 21 and increasing staffing. The following table summarizes the first year one-time construction cost projections, and estimated future years’ operating costs through 2032. ESCI used the following parameters in developing these projections:

• 8,000 square foot station, constructed in 2022. ▪ Construction costs: $400 per square foot, based on the $365 per square foot cost for constructing the new Station 2, plus a 9.5% inflationary factor. • Salary costs were based on 2021average salary/benefits costs, with the salary escalated at 2% per year, and benefits escalated at 7% annually.

Page 141 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

• Station annual operating costs $85,000, increased by 4% annually for inflation. • Staffing Relief Factor per 24/7 position: 3.69 theoretical employees = 7.38 theoretical employees needed for two positions 24/7. This was rounded down to 7 positions.

Figure 90: Station 21 Construction and Staffing Cost Estimates One Time Cost Center 2022 2026 2028 2032 Station Construction Cost $3,200,000 Engine $750,000 Engine Equipment $150,000 Personnel Equipment Outfitting $45,500 Total $4,145,500 Recurring Cost Center Station Annual Operating Cost N/A $103,415 $111,854 $130,853 Captain Salary/Benefits $361,094 $421,375 $456,702 $517,511 Engineer Salary/Benefits $335,713 $391,757 $424,601 $481,135 FF/Paramedic Salary/Benefits1 $104,113 $121,785 $132,157 $150,032 Total Estimated Cost of $800,920 $934,917 $1,013,461 $1,148,679 Additional Personnel Total Recurring Costs N/A $920,684 $997,631 $1,284,766 1 One position added for overall staff relief purposes

In the preceding figure, one Firefighter/Paramedic position was added to provide overall relief coverage that would be required to meet scheduled and unscheduled leaves created by the increase in the additional on duty personnel. If the position is not filled, the increased relief coverage needs would likely result in increased overtime expense, depending on overall staffing levels at the time the leave coverage is required.

Given the significant initial cost of adding these positions, the City may be able to secure funding to initially pay for them through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant program.

Page 142 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

This program provides funding to increase firefighter staffing. If awarded a SAFER grant, the City must recruit and hire the grant-funded firefighters within 180 days. The grant performance period is 36 months, with the grant paying 75% of the new employees’ salary and benefits for the first 24 months, and 35% of their salary and benefits during the final 12 months of the grant performance period.

Recommendation 1-E: Fully deploy Priority Dispatch® ProQA™ protocols and revise response modes, and implement a Quality Assurance process for reviewing dispatcher protocol use compliance. The Department should purchase and install the ProQA Emergency Medical Dispatch protocol system, which links to the Dispatch Center’s CAD system. ProQA will allow the Department to better define the number and type of resources to send to specific EMS incident types, and also designate the initial response mode (emergency or non- emergency). Setting the appropriate response levels and modes should be reviewed and approved by the Department’s EMS Medical Director. Dispatched units should respond in a manner consistent with these protocols.

Once implemented, the Department should establish a formal quality assurance program that routinely reviews dispatcher use of the ProQA system and compliance with the protocols. This includes listening to interrogations, determining if the appropriate protocol and determinate code was selected, and the quality of any relayed pre-arrival instructions. Consideration should also be given to installing the Priority Dispatch® Aqua™ Quality Improvement software, which integrates with ProQA™ to automate part of the quality review process.

Mid-Term Recommendations

Recommendation 2-A: Establish and maintain a comprehensive commercial occupancy inventory. The Department does not have a comprehensive list of commercial, institutional, or educational buildings in the City, and the features and specific hazards in these buildings. As a result, the Department cannot quantify the risk, hazards, and mitigation steps necessary to keep businesses, employees, and citizens safe in the City’s built environment.

Page 143 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

The Department should initiate an aggressive and comprehensive commercial building inventory project to establish and maintain an accurate inventory of all commercial occupancies in the city. The inventory should include important pre-fire plan information, including building size, type of construction, occupancy use, building access locations, special hazards, fire protection features/systems, etc. Ideally, this information would be entered into the Department’s RMS system that would be readily retrievable in an easy-to-read format by field personnel during an incident.

Recommendation 2-B: Relocate Station 24 in proximity to the Provo Airport.

Station 24 Relocation The City and Fire Department should survey and purchase available and suitable land and relocate Station 24 in close proximity to the Provo Airport. Relocating this station southwest of its current location will improve response coverage into the soon-to-be- developed single-family, multi-family, and commercial areas adjacent to the airport and immediately east and north of Lakeview Parkway.

Cost Projection The cost projections for this station would likely be one-time costs related to the procurement of land and construction of the station as noted in Recommendation 1-D, as Station 4’s existing personnel, apparatus, and equipment would be relocated to the new station. There may be additional one-time or ongoing special costs related to FAA ARFF capability requirements or Department of Homeland Security requirements. The Department and City should also consider that Increased use of the airport by larger aircraft in the future may result in elevating the airport to the Index C category, which may require additional and larger ARFF equipment and personnel.

Additionally, the Department should consider building the station immediately adjacent to the Airport perimeter where it could deploy ARFF apparatus “inside the fence” that meets FAA response time requirements, and also provide structural fire and EMS response “outside the fence” in the City.

Page 144 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Recommendation 2-C: Establish automatic aid agreements with Orem Fire Department and Springville Fire & Rescue. The Department should coordinate with the Orem Fire Department in establishing an automatic aid agreement that results in dispatching each agency’s respective response units into each jurisdiction. At a minimum, the agreement should include the following emergency response considerations:

• Automatic dispatching of one or more of the respective fire or EMS response units on a 24/7 basis, as part of an initial alarm assignment or a unit’s proximity to an ongoing incident. • Identifying the incident types and alarm assignments in which units would be automatically dispatched, including, at a minimum, response to a structure fire. • Identifying an initial response territory, where applicable, for automatic aid response. • Defining a common communications protocol, including tactical frequencies. • Establishing common emergency operations policies and procedures for on-scene operations.

Recommendation 2-D: Implement an Engine Company Pre-Fire Plan/ Inspection Program. As previously noted, the Department only inspects a limited number of occupancy use types annually (Institutional facilities, Hazardous Materials Tier II sites, Public Assembly buildings, etc.).

Once a commercial occupancy inventory has been completed, as noted in Recommendation 2-A, an inspection schedule should be established consistent with the risks identified and the frequency recommended in NFPA 1731. The amount of commercial and institutional occupancies identified in the inventory will most certainly require additional resources to ensure the occupancies are inspected per the identified inspection schedule. As noted previously, gaining knowledge of the inherent and special hazards and construction features in a building is extremely important. Training and assigning operations personnel to conduct a pre-fire plan “walk-through,” along with a cursory inspection to identify basic fire code issues can be a “force multiplier” for the Fire Prevention Division, and help ensure that the pre-fire plan information gathered is germane to the Operations Division.

Page 145 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Recommendation 2-E: Create a formal Public Education/Information Officer Position with a job description. Timely dissemination of public information and community engagement is critical to maintaining public confidence in the Department and its personnel. The Department’s current approach in splitting public education and information tasks should be revisited. Ideally, a single position, either a standalone position or additional duties assigned to a current employee, should be considered. A formal job description should be created that includes desired qualifications and skills necessary to effectively communicate, motivate, and teach, and include the ability to create, manage, and communicate through various social media channels.

Recommendation 2-F: Create and implement a holistic all-hazards life safety education program. The Department’s current fire prevention/life safety education efforts (exclusive of Emergency Management education efforts) are narrowly focused, limited, and do not appear to be programmatically oriented. The Department should evaluate the types of incidents, mechanisms of injury/illness, and community risks identified in this study, and dedicate resources and time to establishing a holistic life safety education program that addresses the wide variety of risks found in the community. Examples of these programs include, but are not limited to; Elder safety/Fall prevention, bicycle safety, Smoke and carbon monoxide detector donations/installations, car seat inspections, home safety program, water safety, bike helmet donations/fittings, and Learn Not To Burn® injury prevention program.

Page 146 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Long-Term Recommendations Recommendation 3-D: Build a new fire station in the northwest area of the City in proximity to Provo High School. Significant single and multi-family development is slated to begin within the next five years in the far northwest corner of the city, north of Provo High School. Several building and development permits have been on hold until upgrades to the wastewater treatment system were completed, which has been accomplished. This, coupled with relocating Station 24 southwest to the airport, will leave a response coverage gap in the area north and west of Interstate 15. The City and Fire Department should survey and purchase available and suitable land and build a new station north and west of Interstate 15 in the general area of Provo High School.

Cost Estimate Projection ESCI used PFRD's current onboarding, equipping, construction, and salary/benefits information to estimate the costs of building Station 26. The following figure summarizes the first year one-time construction cost projections, and estimated future years' operating costs through 2032. ESCI used the following parameters in developing these projections:

• 8,000 square foot station, constructed in 2026. ▪ Construction costs: $400 per square foot, based on the $365 per square foot cost for constructing the new Station 2, plus a 9.5% inflationary factor. • Salary costs were based on 2021average salary/benefits costs, with the salary escalated at 2% per year, and benefits escalated at 7% annually. • Station annual operating costs $85,000, increased by 4% annually for inflation. • Staffing Relief Factor per 24/7 position: 3.69 theoretical employees = 14.76 theoretical employees needed for four positions 24/7. This was rounded up to 15, which divides equally across the three shifts.

The following figure summarizes the cost estimates and projects future costs for building and operating an additional Provo fire station.

Page 147 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 91: Station 26 Construction and Staffing Cost Estimates One Time Cost Center 2026 2028 2032

Station Construction Cost $3,898,289 $4,210,982 $4,926,253 Engine $912,489 $986,948 $1,155,591 Engine Equipment $182,497 $197,389 $230,918 Personnel Equipment Outfitting $118,623 $128,303 $150,096 Total $5,111,898 $5,523,622 $6,462,858 Recurring Cost Center Station Annual Operating Cost $103,415 $111,854 $130,853 Captain Salary/Benefits $421,375 $456,702 $517,511 Engineer Salary/Benefits $391,757 $424,601 $481,135 FF/Paramedic Salary/Benefits1 $852,492 $925,098 $1,050,227 Total Estimated Cost of $1,665,625 $1,806,402 $2,048,874 Additional Personnel Total Recurring Costs $1,773,177 $1,922,730 $2,184,961 1 One position added on each shift for overall staff relief purposes

In the preceding figure, three Firefighter/Paramedic positions (one on each shift) would theoretically be required to provide increased overall relief coverage that would be required to meet scheduled and unscheduled leaves created by the increase in the additional on duty personnel. If these positions are not filled, the increased relief coverage needs would likely result in increased overtime expense, depending on overall staffing levels at the time the leave coverage is required.

Page 148 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Section IV: Appendices

Page 149 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Table of Figures

Figure 1: PFRD Study Area ...... 4 Figure 2: Employment by Occupation Type ...... 6 Figure 3: Provo Population Density ...... 7 Figure 4: Fire Prevention Program Components ...... 15 Figure 5: Recommended Fire Inspection Frequencies per NFPA 1730 ...... 16 Figure 6: NFPA 1730 Minimum Inspection Frequency ...... 17 Figure 7: City of Provo General Fund (FY 2015–2020) ...... 23 Figure 8: Provo Fire Department Percentage of General Fund (FY 2015–2020) ...... 23 Figure 9: Provo Fire Department Budget and Growth (FY 2013–2021) ...... 24 Figure 10: Provo Fire Department Revenue (FY 2013–2021) ...... 24 Figure 11: Provo Fire Department Revenue (FY 2013–2021) ...... 25 Figure 12: Provo Fire Department Revenue-Adjusted versus Actual (FY 2017–2019) ...... 25 Figure 13: Provo Fire Department Revenue Budget vs. Actual (FY 2017) ...... 26 Figure 14: Provo Fire Department Revenue Budget vs. Actual (FY 2018) ...... 26 Figure 15: Provo Fire Department Revenue Budget vs. Actual (FY 2019) ...... 27 Figure 16: Provo Fire Department Expense (FY 2013–2021) ...... 28 Figure 17: Provo Fire Department Expense by Category (FY 2017) ...... 29 Figure 18: Provo Fire Department Expense by Category (FY 2018) ...... 30 Figure 19: Provo Fire Department Expense by Category (FY 2019) ...... 31 Figure 20: Criteria Used to Determine Fire Station Condition ...... 34 Figure 21: Provo Fire & EMS Apparatus ...... 42 Figure 22: Provo Specialized Response Apparatus ...... 43 Figure 23: Provo Command & Staff Vehicles ...... 43 Figure 24: Example Criteria & Method for Determining Apparatus Replacement ...... 45 Figure 25: Administrative Uniformed Positions ...... 47 Figure 26: Administrative Non-Unformed Positions ...... 48 Figure 27: Comparison of PFRD Firefighters per 1,000 Population ...... 48 Figure 28: Emergency Operations Staff Positions ...... 49 Figure 29: Theoretical Relief Factor Calculation (2019) ...... 50 Figure 30: PFRD Calculated Operational Staff Shortage/Overage ...... 50 Figure 31: CRA and the Core Capabilities of Emergency Management ...... 55 Figure 32: Comparative "At Risk" Groups as Percentage of Population ...... 57 Figure 33: Home Ownership Type, 2018 ...... 60 Figure 34: Provo-Orem Occupancies Per Structure, 2018 ...... 60 Figure 35: Age of Residential Housing in Provo-Orem Area ...... 61 Figure 36: Examples of Natural Hazards ...... 62 Figure 37: Utah County Hazard Matrix...... 62 Figure 38: Railway Accidents in Utah (2010–2019) ...... 65 Figure 39: Provo General Plan Land Use Map ...... 66

Page 150 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 40: Listing of Community Target Hazards ...... 67 Figure 41: Educational Facilities ...... 70 Figure 42: Medical & Congregate Care Facilities ...... 71 Figure 43: Key Government Buildings ...... 72 Figure 44: Communications Infrastructure ...... 74 Figure 45: Geographic Restrictions—Rivers & Bridges ...... 76 Figure 46: Geographic Restrictions—Rail Lines & Railroad Crossings ...... 77 Figure 47: Hazardous Materials Tier II Sites ...... 79 Figure 48: Regional Dams ...... 80 Figure 49: Provo Flood-Prone Areas ...... 82 Figure 50: High-Rise Fire Occupancy Types (2009–2013) ...... 83 Figure 51: Percent of Fires with Fire Spread Beyond Room of Origin (2009–2013) ...... 84 Figure 52: Provo Buildings Three Stories & Higher ...... 85 Figure 53: Residential Structure Fire Cause (2012–2016)...... 86 Figure 54: Single-family versus Multi-family Fire Containment (2012–2016) ...... 86 Figure 55: 2018 State of Utah & Provo Incident Comparison ...... 87 Figure 56: NFIRS Incident Types ...... 89 Figure 57: Service Demand by Incident Type (2017–2019) ...... 90 Figure 58: Service Demand by Incident Type (2017–2019) ...... 91 Figure 59: Service Demand by Month (2017–2019) ...... 92 Figure 60: Service Demand by Day (2017–2019) ...... 92 Figure 61: Service Demand by Time-of-Day (2017–2019)...... 93 Figure 62: PFRD Incidents per Square Mile (2018–2019) ...... 95 Figure 63: PFRD EMS Incidents per Square Mile (2018–2019) ...... 96 Figure 64: PFRD Fire Incidents per Square Mile (2018–2019) ...... 97 Figure 65: PFRD 1.5-Mile Travel Distance per ISO Criteria ...... 99 Figure 66: 2.5-Mile Travel Distance per ISO Criteria ...... 100 Figure 67: 5-Mile Travel Distance per ISO Criteria...... 101 Figure 68: Hydrant Coverage per ISO Criteria ...... 103 Figure 69: 4-Minute/8-Minute Travel Time per NFPA Criteria ...... 105 Figure 70: Provo Population Forecast (2020–2030) ...... 107 Figure 71: Service Delivery Projection ...... 109 Figure 72: Critical Tasking & ERF for Fire Risk Categories ...... 110 Figure 73: Risk Assessment Scoring Methodology ...... 111 Figure 74: Fire Incident Risk Assessment...... 113 Figure 75: Medical Incident Risk Assessment ...... 114 Figure 76: Rescue Incident Risk Assessment ...... 115 Figure 77: Hazardous Materials Incident Risk Assessment ...... 116 Figure 78: Response Time Components ...... 119 Figure 79: NFPA 1710 Standards for Fire/EMS Responses...... 120

Page 151 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Provo Fire & Rescue, Utah

Figure 80: Recommended Initial First Alarm Assignment ...... 121 Figure 81: Effective Response Force Coverage (8-Minute) ...... 122 Figure 82: PFRD Incident Concurrency, 2017–2019 ...... 123 Figure 83: Fire Growth vs. Reflex Time ...... 126 Figure 84: Fire Extension in Residential Structures—United States, 2011–2015 ...... 126 Figure 85: Cardiac Arrest Event Sequence ...... 127 Figure 86: Compliance Model...... 129 Figure 87: Historical Response Time Analysis from Current Station Locations ...... 133 Figure 88: Historical Response Time Analysis from Relocated Stations 21 and 24 ...... 135 Figure 89: Historical Response Time Coverage from Relocated Stations 21 & 24, and new Station 25 ...... 137 Figure 90: Station 21 Construction and Staffing Cost Estimates ...... 142 Figure 91: Station 26 Construction and Staffing Cost Estimates ...... 148

Page 152 PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: EVANDERWERKEN Department: Council Requested Meeting Date:

SUBJECT: A presentation regarding Provo 360. (21-065)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation only.

BACKGROUND: Since its launch in 2013, the City's project team has been working on Provo360, a software upgrade which would facilitate the integration of various City services and also help residents access those services more easily. The program is expected to enhance the customer experience, improve efficiency, increase transparency, empower stewardship, and promote innovation. The Provo360 project is intended to have a 10-year adoption plan.

This item is to provide the Council with an update on Provo360 implementation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

PRESENTER’S NAME: Wayne Parker, Provo City CAO

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 30 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 21-065

1 PROVO 360 BACKGROUND AND UPDATE REASONS FOR PROJECT

. End of Life Systems . Lack of Integration . Missing eGovernment . Customer Expectations . Data Access / Transparency GOALS

. Enhance Customer Experience . Improve Efficiency . Increase Transparency . Empower Stewardship . Promote Innovation DISPARATE SYSTEMS INTEGRATED SYSTEMS provo.org Limited Number of Specialized Systemsof Specialized Limited Number

COMMUNITY Energy Payment Transpa rency DEVELOPMENT ESRI Gateways (Fed & State) & CEMETERY GIS Milsoft Banks OMS

AMI External Reporting Reqs RecPro FINANCE & CUSTOMER

HUMAN INFORMATION 311 Tools RESOURCES SYSTEM Ben efits

MDM

Training AUTOMATED INTEGRATION

MAN UAL INTEGRATIO N Timecard SIRE WORK MANAGEMENT EXTERNAL SYSTEM / CLOUD APP SYSTEM SPREADSHEET(S)

OFF THE SHELF SYSTEM

CUSTOM / HOME GROWN SYSTEM PROJECT EXECUTIVE TEAM

EXECUTIVE TEAM

WAYNE TRAVIS JOHN DAVE JOSHUA KAREN GARY PARKER BALL BORGET DECKER IHRIG LARSEN MCGINN CAO Energy Administrative Public Works Information Customer ComDev Ser vices Systems Ser vice SELECTION PROCESS INDUSTRY EXPERTISE

AAC Utility Partners helps utilities and municipalities deliver successful technology initiatives. They provide assessment, selection, and implementation management services to organizations considering or engaged in complex IT projects.

AAC Team . Steve Wenke - Project Manager . Jim Anderson - Lead Consultant . Wayne Turnbow - ERP Consultant . Edwin Crow - Contract & Vendor Management . Rick Cutter - Implementation Support Key Business . Conducted over 45 functional meetings 15 Drivers . Involved over 25 internal staff members . Reviewed over 9,400 functional and Essential business processes 5 Requirements . All the departments were involved

. Sent out over 20 copies of the RFP Potential 3 . Hosted 7 two hour discovery sessions Requirements . Evaluated 6 responses . Spent over 25 working days reviewing 1 Non-Essential responses 100%

95%

90%

85%

80% FUNCTIONAL MATCH FUNCTIONAL

75% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 VENDORS SELECTION PROCESS

Vendors with Integration Partners

Stand Alone Vendors

Current Vendors DID NOT bid

Selection Process Supported by: Phases

. Phase I . Finance . HCM (HR) . CityView . Phase II . CIS/Billing . WMS . Phase III . EGOV Human Capital Management System The Plan

. Recognized HR was the weakest part of the Cayenta Suite . Cayenta leadership committed to working with the city’s experts to convert their very basic plan to a robust HCM system that could be sold to others . Commitment to a custom system at a mostly manpower cost The Outcome

. Cayenta management changes and their high costs led to a shift away from the vision . We determined to pull the plug on development . Took all the remaining budget and applied it to a new separate but integrated system . Rigorous selection process led to Workday at the HCM system TIMELINE (years 1-3)

TEAM TASKS 2016 2017 2018 CONTRACT FIN HR (Cayenta) CITYVIEW CIS & WMS NextSteps E-GOV put on hold until completion of Phase I & II TIMELINE (years 4-6)

TEAM TASKS 2019 2020 2021 CIS/WMS HR (Cayenta) HR (selection of new vendor) HR (Workday, projected go live) NextSteps Phase 1 Implementation IMPLEMENTATION

. Finance . Met timeline goal . Did not refine all elements; reporting, budgeting, etc. . CityView . Went live in February 2018 (June 30, 2017 target) . Portal did not go live until June 2019 . Still making refinements (Non debt bond, GL integration, etc.) Phase 2 Implementation CUSTOMER INFORMATION SYSTEM Next Steps Next Steps

. Get fully past implementation . Support and configuration requests . Focus on stabilization first . Plan to maximize utilization and potential Next Steps

. Workday . Finish configuration andtesting and implement . Ensure all interfaces between are fully functional . Training Next Steps

. Work Management System . Complete implementation . Invest in additional training . Need staff to bring it all together . Convert the masses Next Steps

. E-Government . Use E-gov budget to hire resources . Create management dashboard . Integrate the portals with single sign on Next Steps

. Relationship with Cayenta . It is our system . Enhance user group participation . Manage upgrades PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: JMAGNESS Department: Council Requested Meeting Date:

SUBJECT: A presentation regarding proposed changes to the FY 2022 budget initiated by the Council at the May 25, 2021 Work Meeting. (21-015)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation and discussion; the Council may consider additional action by majority vote.

BACKGROUND: In regard to action taken by the Council in the May 25, 2021 Work Meeting, changes are proposed for adoption in the final version of the Budget for FY 2022. The Provo City Budget for FY 2022 will receive two public hearings: the first on June 1st and the second on June 15th.

The proposed changes are: 1. One parking officer and one part-time support staff and add Parking revenue to match the expense. 2. Include $21,250 in the budget for the two CNS supplemental requests

FISCAL IMPACT: A total of $21,250 to the General Fund

PRESENTER’S NAME: John Borget, Administrative Services Director

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 30 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 21-015

1 PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: JMAGNESS Department: Council Requested Meeting Date:

SUBJECT: A presentation regarding changes to the FY 2022 Provo City Fee Schedule (21-015)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation and discussion.

BACKGROUND: As part of the FY 2022 budget the Council needs to adopt a Consolidated Fee Schedule. The Consolidated Fee Schedule is an exhibit for the ordinance adopting the FY 2022 Provo City Budget. The Fee Schedule include all the rate increases for Provo Utilities as well as any other fees that will be increasing in the coming fiscal year. This presentation is for the purposes of discussing any proposed changes.

FISCAL IMPACT: TBD

PRESENTER’S NAME: Kelsey Zarbrock, Accountant

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 20 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 21-015

1 Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule Administrative Airport Business Licensing Cemetery City Hall Rentals Development Fees Engineering Fire Department Fire Inspection Fees Inspection Fees Impact Fees Justice Court Library at Academy Square Parks and Recreation Covey Center for the Arts Golf Course Park Pavilion Reservations Parks, Parkways, Trails, and Other Park Properties Provo City Recreation Center Provo Shooting Sports Park Sports, Adult Sports, Youth Sports Fields Rental Fees Peaks Ice Arena Permit Parking Areas Police Department Utilities Utility Transportation Fund Fee Culinary Water Energy Sanitation Waste Water Wastewater

1 ADMINISTRATIVE

Blueprints

8 1/2" x 11" $0.75

12" x 18" $2.00

15" x 30" $3.00

30" x 30" $5.00

400 Scale Aerial $5.00

Notary Service $2.00

Records and GRAMA Requests

Employee time to respond The full fee allowed by to a records request statute

Computer media $20.00

Bicycle License No charge

Dispatch recordings $20.00

Fire report $15.00

Photocopy, standard $0.10 per page

Photocopy, special Cost

Photos (per CD of photos) $20.00

Photos (per printed photo) $5.00

Police Clearances $10.00

Insurance Letters $10.00

Subpoenas Costs as per statute

Traffic accident reports $10.00

Videos (cost per video) $25.00 minimum due at time of request

2 (credited against final fee)

Fire and police Police $15.00 minimum due records at time of request (credited against final fee)

Returned Check Fee $20.00

AIRPORT

Ground Lease $0.45 per square foot per year

Hangar Rental

Hangars 1A to 27A $225.00 $250.00 per month

City-owned Box Hangars $275.00 per month

All other City-owned T- $300.00 $325.00 per hangars month

Shade Hangar $150.00 per month

Tie Downs

Monthly Fee $35.00

Annual Fee $350.00

Fuel Flowage Fee $0.08 per gallon

Annual Fee for Commercial To be determined Services

White Badge Fee $25.00 per year

SIDA Badge Fee $50.00 per year

Airport Parking Fee $7.00 $8.00 per vehicle per day

3 Rental Car Parking Fee $50.00 per month per parking space

Landing Fee $0.65 per 1,000 pounds

Passenger Fee $0.65 – $1.25 per passenger (depending on aircraft capacity)

BUSINESS LICENSING

General Business License

Number of Employees Fee

0 – 5 $125

6 – 10 $175

11 – 25 $300

26 – 50 $425

51 – 75 $550

76 – 100 $675

101+ $800

Late Fee $25.00

Name Change $10.00

Location Change $25.00

Home Occupation

New Application $37.00

Renewal $17.00

4 Major Businesses Fee $100.00

Home Occupation/Day Care/Pre-School

Business License $175.00

Annual Renewal $155.00

Auction Lesser of $10.00 per day or $100.00 per month

Beer License

Class "A" $350.00

Class "B" $450.00

Class "C" $550.00

Class "D" $300.00

Class "E" $550.00

Class "F" $450.00

Nonrefundable Portion $50.00 (included in application fee)

Bond $1,000.00

Billboards $21.00 per billboard

Cell/Radio Tower $21.00 per tower

Christmas Tree Stand

Business License $209.00

Permit Fee $100.00

Clean Up Bond $300.00

Closing Out Sales $25.00 + $2.00 per $1,000.00 of inventory

Contracted Services

5 Business License $218.00

Annual Renewal $159.00

Extra Living Space $50.00 per year Registration

Fireworks Stand

Business License $134.00

Permit Fee $200.00

Inspection Fee $50.00

Franchise

One-Time Application Fee $1,500.00

Annual Fee 6% of gross revenue

Keeping Chickens $20.00

Locksmithing

Business License See Contracted Services

Individual License $25.00 per person

Newsstands $21.00 per newsstand

Nonprofit – Nonretail

Business License $218.00

Annual Renewal $159.00

Nonprofit – Retail

Business License $287.00

Annual Renewal $228.00

Nuisance Abatement $100.00 Administrative Fee

6 Parade Vending and Selling $25.00 Permit

Public Assembly

Permit Fee $100.00

Business License $100.00 per day

Rendering Facility $644.00

Rental Dwelling, Including Mobile Homes

One Rental Dwelling with $20.00 One Unit

More Than One Rental $60.00 Dwelling Unit

Residential Accessory $50.00 Dwelling Unit Fee

Salon Chair $28.00

Sexually Oriented Businesses

Business License $218.00

Annual Renewal $159.00

Employee License $50.00 each

Employee Annual Renewal $25.00 each

Solicitors $66.00 per employee

Solicitor’s Identification $10.00 per employee Badge

Solid Waste Hauler – Commercial

Business License No fee

Annual Franchise Tax 6% of all gross revenues

7 Solid Waste Hauler – Private

Business License $218.00

Annual Renewal $159.00

Special Events

Application Fee $50.00

Taxicab Business License $10.00 Sticker

Temporary Business License

Business License $218.00

Permit Fee $100.00

Clean Up Bond for Circuses $1,000.00 and Carnivals

Clean Up Bond for All $300.00 Others

Towing and Parking Enforcement

Business License See Table for all Office Staff

Annual Fee per Truck $38.00

Vending $21.00

CEMETERY

Burial Rights for Spaces

Purchase limited to 2 up or 4 flush per family

Lawn Sites

Monument Estates $2,000.00

8 Upright $1,400.00

Flush $1,200.00

Cremation $550.00

Indigent $550.00

2 Ashes 1 Stone $550.00

4 Ashes 2 Stones Full grave

Permanent Maintenance 1/2 value of burial space

Infant $350*

*There are a limited number of single infant spaces that are $400.00 for the complete burial

Mausoleum

Top/Bottom $3,500.00

Mid-Level $4,500.00

Cremation Garden

Ossuary/Cenotaph $300.00

Tablet $450.00

Post Single $450.00

Post Companion $650.00

Cored Single $600.00

Cored Companion $900.00

Cremation Estate $2,500.00

Tree Estate $2,000.00

Arbor Niche 24 Niche 48 $850.00 Urn

9 Community Column 64 $800.00 Niche

Pavilion Shutter $1,200.00

Rustic Monolith 60 Cores $600.00

Niche Boulder $1,200.00

Family Columbarium $7,500.00

Cremation Bench $2,500.00

Cremation Pedestal Bird $3,000.00 Bath

Mausoleum Niche Level 1 $800.00

Mausoleum Niche Level 2 $900.00

Mausoleum Niche Level 3 $700.00

8” Crypt Vase Mounting $25.00 Hardware

8” Crypt Plastic Vase $10.00

4” Niche Vase Mounting $20.00 Hardware

4” Niche Vase $9.00

Cylinder Urn $130.00

Opening/Closing

Adult $650.00

Infant $250 – $350

Cremation Burial $250 – $350

Niche $150.00

Mausoleum $800.00

Disinterment

10 Infants $900.00

Adults $1,500.00

Cremation $450.00

Overtime Labor (After 4:00 p.m.)

Per Half Hour (Monday – $100.00 Friday)

Saturdays and Holidays $400.00

Upright Monuments $200.00 Inspection and Maintenance

Flush Marker Inspection $100.00 and Maintenance

Recording Fee $50.00

Probe $10.00/$25.00/$50.00

Deed Transfer $200.00 per space

(new owner maintenance) nontransferable

Veteran’s Cross $25.00

CITY HALL RENTALS

General Rental Fees

Upon availability, groups may rent the Council Chambers, the City Center Foyer, the City Center West Patio, or the City Center East Patio

Cleaning Deposit $150.00

Cleaning Deposit for $300.00 Weddings

11 Set Up and Take Down Fee $15.00 per hour

Overtime Deposit $50.00

Nonprofit Organizations

Regular Work Hours No charge

After Hours, Saturday, $35.00 first two hours Holidays + $10.00 each additional hour

Late Night (after 9:00 p.m.) $50.00 per hour

Citizens, Businesses, Special Interest Groups

Regular Work Hours $50.00 first two hours + $10.00 each additional hour

After Hours, Saturday, $90.00 first two hours Holidays + $15.00 each additional hour

Late Night (after 9:00 p.m.) $50.00 per hour

Wedding Receptions

Regular Work Hours Not allowed

After Hours, Saturday, $500.00 first two Holidays hours + $100.00 each additional hour

Late Night (after 9:00 p.m.) $150.00 per hour

DEVELOPMENT FEES

Map and Text Amendments*

General Plan (Map, Text, $560.00^ and Master Plan)

12 Local Street Plan $150.00

Ordinance Text $1,100.00^ Amendments (Titles 14 and 15)

Ordinance Text $1,100.00 Amendments (Chapter 9.80 Permit Parking Area)

Rezoning $1,050.00^

Agricultural Protection Area $500.00 Proposal

Annexation (includes $1,050.00 municipal disconnection)

*A project plan is required for all rezonings and general plan applications.

Project plan fees are assessed as per type of project.

^A Neighborhood Chair may request a waiver of these fees under Section 2.29.060, Provo City Code.

Street and Alley Vacation $1,050.00

Development Review

Condominiums $260.00 + $25.00 per unit, or lot

Preliminary Subdivisions $1,100.00

Final Subdivisions $300.00

Boundary Line Adjustment $150.00

Concept Plan Approval $260.00 + $25.00 per unit, or lot

Specific Development Plans $260.00 + $25.00 per unit, or lot

Conditional Use Permits $900.00

Project Plan Review – Minor $150.00

13 Project Plan Review – Major $1,350.00

Project Plan

Project Plan Unauthorized $500.00 plus any staff Change costs above $500.00

Project Redevelopment Option (PRO) Zones

Residential $1,000.00 + $30.00 per dwelling unit

Commercial $1,000.00 + $10.00 per 100 sq. ft.

Schematic Plan (SPRO) $500.00*

*50% may be applied to PRO review fee if a positive recommendation is received

Expedited Meeting Agenda $500.00

(Subject to advertising requirements and preapproval of a board or commission having a quorum)

Street Tree Fees $255.00 per required tree

GIS Mapping Information Actual costs and Misc. Services

Temporary Use Permit $100.00

Zoning Disclosure $10.00

Zoning Verification $25.00

Board of Adjustment

Appeals $600.00

Variances $600.00

Application $50.00

14 Renewal $20.00

Public Hearing Notice Fee $60.00

All Other Requests $60.00

Other Development Fees

Bond Release Processing $100.00 Fee

Time Extension $100.00

Demolition Permit $100.00

Relocation of a Building $100.00

Unauthorized Changes to $500.00 an Approved Plan

Floodplain Permit $300 + $25 per lot or parcel

ENGINEERING

Asphalt Overlay Fee

Asphalt pavement $1.20 per square foot

Manhole to be raised with $650.00 each a concrete ring

Water valve to be raised $500.00 each with a concrete ring

Miscellaneous Fees

After hours inspection $90.00 per hour, 2 hour min.

Development inspection $250.00 minimum

15 Hourly inspection fee for $60.00 per hour permits requiring multiple inspections

Permit extension $200.00

Reinspection $95.00 per inspection

Traffic control plan review $75.00 per inspection fee (for permits requiring multiple traffic control plans)

Working without permit 4 times permit fee (stop work)

Construction Permit Fee $200.00

Permit Type

Asphalt paving under 1,000 $50.00 plus $0.10 per sq. ft. sq. ft.

Asphalt paving over 1,000 plus $0.10 per sq. ft. sq. ft.

Curb and gutter $0.50 per ln. ft.

Sidewalk $0.25 per sq. ft.

Fire hydrant $60.00 each

Grading $60.00 per inspection

Sewer lateral $60.00 per lateral

Sewer main $0.50 per ln. ft.

Water service $60.00 per service

Water main $0.50 per ln. ft.

Storm water main $0.50 per ln. ft. inspection fee

Storm drain service $60.00 per service

16 Other utilities $0.25 per ln. ft.

Directional boring $0.25 per ln. ft.

Pothole plus $25.00 per pothole

Street closure (per lane/per plus $250.00 per day block)*

Sidewalk, parking, bicycle plus $50.00 per day lane closures (per block face)*

*These permit fees would be required on projects where closures exceed 24 hours or require multiple daily closures.

Street Sign Fee $400.00 per sign

Street Cut Fee

Summer base rate (Apr. – $50.00 Oct.)

Winter base rate (Nov. – $200.00 March)

Additional Fee per Square Minimum $25.00 or Footage $1.20 per sq. ft.

Pothole $25.00 each

Reimbursement for Street Improvements

Curb and gutter $15.00 per ln. ft.

Sidewalk $24.00 per ln. ft.

Asphalt paving $2.75 per sq. ft.

Concrete paving $8.75 per sq. ft.

Administrative fee $500.00

17 FIRE DEPARTMENT

False Alarms (in a 12- month period)

The first three false alarms No fee

Fourth response $100.00

Fifth response $200.00

Sixth or more responses $300.00 each

Public school $50.00

Ambulance transport fees, mileage rates, and surcharges for ambulance service provided by Provo Fire and Rescue shall be set at the maximum rates set forth in the Utah Administrative Rule R426-8-2 as authorized by Utah Code Section 26-8a-403.

A copy of the current authorized rate schedule shall be kept on file and available for public inspection at the Provo Fire and Rescue administrative offices located at 80 South 300 West.

FIRE INSPECTION FEES

Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems

Plan Review (100 heads or $90.00 per hour fewer)

Plan Review (101 – 199 $90.00 per hour heads)

Plan Review (200 – 299 $90.00 per hour heads)

Plan Review (over 300 $90.00 per hour heads)

Acceptance Testing

18 Underground Flush $60.00

Hydrostatic Testing for First $60.00 2 Tests

Acceptance Testing for First $60.00 2 Tests

Further Hydrostatic or $60.00 each Acceptance Tests

Other Fire Protection $50.00 Systems Additional Riser

Standpipe $100.00

Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems – Remodel or Tenant Finish

Plan Review (fewer than 5 $65.00 heads)

Plan Review (5 – 50 heads) $125.00

Plan Review (over 50 $150.00 plus $0.50 per heads) head

Fire Alarm Systems

Plan Review New System $90.00 per hour

Plan Review Remodel $90.00 per hour

Plan Review Additional $90.00 per hour Floors

Acceptance Testing for First $60.00 Two Tests

Further Acceptance Tests $60.00 each

Commercial Hood Systems

Plan Review Fee (per hood) $115.00

Acceptance Testing for First $60.00 Two Tests

19 Further Acceptance Tests $60.00 each

Fire Hydrant Installation and Testing

Underground Flush $60.00

Acceptance Testing for First $60.00 2 Tests

Fire Hydrant Flow Test $60.00 for first hour

$60.00 each additional hour

LPG Storage Tanks and Gas Systems

Plan Review (under 2,000 $50.00 gallons)

Plan Review (over 2,000 $175.00 gallons)

Under 500 Gallon Tank $140.00 Inspection

501 – 1,999 Gallons Private $165.00 Use Inspection

501 – 1,999 Gallons Retail $215.00 Inspection

2,000 – 3,999 Gallons $215.00 Inspection

Over 4,000 Gallons $265.00 Inspection

Hazardous Materials Storage Annual Permit Fees

Minimal Storage $80.00

Hazardous Materials $165.00 Storage

Hazardous Materials $215.00 Dispensing

20 Hazardous Materials $265.00 Manufacturing

Hazardous Materials $265.00 Production

Hazardous Waste $300.00 Production

Multiple Use Site $315.00

Liquid Storage Tank Installation and Closure Fees

Plan Review $50.00

Tank Fee under 500 Gallons $115.00

Tank Fee 501 – 1,000 $165.00 Gallons

Tank Fee over 1,000 $265.00 Gallons

Explosives and Blasting

Per Project $90.00

Annual Fee $365.00

Compressed Gas Systems

Inspection Fee $115.00

Combustible/Flammable Liquid Systems

Plan Review $50.00

Annual Operational Permit $165.00 Fees Spray Booth

Powder Coating $165.00

Electrostatic Apparatus $165.00

Dipping Tank $165.00 per tank

Amusement Building $100.00

21 Combustible Fiber Storage $75.00

Cutting and Welding $75.00

Dry Cleaning Plant $75.00

High Piled Storage $75.00

Hot Work Operations $75.00

Industrial Ovens $75.00 per oven

LPG Dispensing $75.00

Spray Booths for Auto $75.00 Painting

Lumber Yard $75.00

Woodworking Plants $75.00

Fireworks Sales $275.00 per location

Single Use Permits

Fireworks Display – Ground $125.00

Aerial Fireworks Display $140.00 under 250 Devices

Aerial Fireworks Display $215.00 250 Devices or More

Pyrotechnics, Other $110.00

Carnivals Less Than 10 $60.00 Attractions

Carnivals 10 or More $100.00 Attractions

Tent Between 200 and $60.00 2,000 Sq. Ft.

Tent More Than 2,000 Sq. $100.00 Ft.

22 Canopy Between 400 and $60.00 2,000 Sq. Ft.

Canopy More Than 2,000 $100.00 Sq. Ft.

Air Supported Structure $100.00

Aviation Facilities $60.00

Inspection and Enforcement Fees

Exempt Child Care Facility $40.00

Daycare or Preschool $60.00

Nursing Home $100.00

Assisted Living Facility $100.00

Boarding School $100.00

Outpatient Provider $75.00

Hospital $200.00

Final Inspection for $60.00 Occupancy

Each Additional Hour $100.00

Copy of Fire Report $15.00

Plan Review for Alarm $100.00 Expedited

Plan Review for Sprinkler $200.00 System Expedited

Stop Work Removal $100.00

Installation without a Double fee plus Permit $100.00

After Hours Inspection $75.00 per hour

$150.00 minimum

23 Standby Costs

Paramedic Rescue (includes $150.00 per hour 2 Medics)

Paramedic Team (2 Medics) $125.00 per hour

Engine Type II (includes 2 $250.00 per hour FF)

Additional Firefighters $62.50 per hour

Brush Truck Type 6 $150.00 per hour (includes 2 FF)

Heavy Rescue/Haz Mat $250.00 per hour (includes 2 FF)

Disposable Supplies Market Price

Command Vehicle (includes $135.00 per hour Battalion Chief)

INSPECTION FEES

General Building Inspection

For residential structures with not more than 4 units the building permit fee includes the plumbing, electrical, and mechanical permit fees.

Building permit Based on the 1997 UBC Fee Chart

Plan review 65% of the Building Permit Fee

Nonprofit organizations 100%

Reinspection fee $100.00 per system

Electrical Inspection

Service charge $50.00

24 Inspection fee $0.01 per sq. ft., $50.00 minimum

Mechanical Inspection

Minimum fee $50.00

Vent fan with single duct $13.00

Air handler up to and $9.50 including 10,000 cfm

Includes evaporative cooler, hoods, and units not otherwise included

Furnace/burner appliances $26.00 each under 100,000 Btu

General repair $26.00

Absorption systems up to $26.00 and including 100,000 Btu

Air handler over 10,000 cfm $33.00

Furnace/burner over $33.00 100,000 Btu

Boiler/compressor up to and including 3 $26.00 HP/ton to 15 HP/ton $48.00

16 to 30 HP/ton $66.00

31 to 50 HP/ton $100.00

50 HP/ton $166.00

Heater/cooler over 100,000 up to and incl. $48.00 500,000 Btu

25 over 500,000 up to and incl. $66.00 1,000,000 Btu

over 1,000,000 up to and $100.00 incl. 1,750,000 Btu

over 1,750,000 Btu $166.00

Plumbing Inspection

Minimum fee, including $50.00 issuance of permit

First fixture $20.00

Each additional fixture $6.00

Each water heater $6.00

IMPACT FEES (Effective July 1, 2019)

Power Impact Fees

Energy 1 Phase Impact Fees See Table

Amperage 120/240 240/480 Less Than or Equal To:

10 $88.00 $175.00

20 $175.00 $350.00

30 $263.00 $525.00

40 $350.00 $700.00

50 $438.00 $875.00

60 $525.00 $1,050.00

26 70 $613.00 $1,225.00

80 $700.00 $1,400.00

90 $788.00 $1,575.00

100 $875.00 $1,750.00

125 $1,094.00 $2,188.00

150 $1,313.00 $2,626.00

175 $1,532.00 $3,063.00

200 $1,750.00 $3,501.00

300 $2,626.00 $5,251.00

400 $3,501.00 $7,002.00

500 $4,376.00 $8,752.00

600 $5,251.00 $10,503.00

700 $6,127.00 $12,253.00

800 $7,002.00 $14,004.00

900 $7,877.00 $15,754.00

1000 $8,752.00 $17,505.00

Energy 3 Phase Impact Fees See Table

Amperage 120/208 120/240 277/480 240/480 Less Than or Equal To:

10 $131.00 $152.00 $303.00 $303.00

20 $263.00 $303.00 $606.00 $606.00

30 $394.00 $455.00 $910.00 $910.00

40 $526.00 $606.00 $1,213.00 $1,213.00

27 50 $657.00 $758.00 $1,516.00 $1,516.00

60 $788.00 $910.00 $1,819.00 $1,819.00

70 $920.00 $1,061.00 $2,122.00 $2,122.00

80 $1,051.00 $1,213.00 $2,426.00 $2,426.00

90 $1,182.00 $1,364.00 $2,729.00 $2,729.00

100 $1,314.00 $1,516.00 $3,032.00 $3,032.00

125 $1,642.00 $1,895.00 $3,790.00 $3,790.00

150 $1,971.00 $2,274.00 $4,548.00 $4,548.00

175 $2,299.00 $2,653.00 $5,306.00 $5,306.00

200 $2,628.00 $3,032.00 $6,064.00 $6,064.00

300 $3,942.00 $4,548.00 $9,096.00 $9,096.00

400 $5,255.00 $6,064.00 $12,128.00 $12,128.00

500 $6,569.00 $7,580.00 $15,160.00 $15,160.00

600 $7,883.00 $9,096.00 $18,192.00 $18,192.00

700 $9,197.00 $10,612.00 $21,224.00 $21,224.00

800 $10,511.00 $12,128.00 $24,256.00 $24,256.00

900 $11,825.00 $13,644.00 $27,287.00 $27,287.00

1000 $13,138.00 $15,160.00 $30,319.00 $30,319.00

1100 $14,452.00 $16,676.00 $33,351.00 $33,351.00

1200 $15,766.00 $18,192.00 $36,383.00 $36,383.00

1300 $17,080.00 $19,708.00 $39,415.00 $39,415.00

1400 $18,394.00 $21,224.00 $42,447.00 $42,447.00

1500 $19,708.00 $22,740.00 $45,479.00 $45,479.00

1600 $21,021.00 $24,256.00 $48,511.00 $48,511.00

28 1700 $22,335.00 $25,771.00 $51,543.00 $51,543.00

1800 $23,649.00 $27,287.00 $54,575.00 $54,575.00

1900 $24,963.00 $28,803.00 $57,607.00 $57,607.00

2000 $26,277.00 $30,319.00 $60,639.00 $60,639.00

2100 $27,591.00 $31,835.00 $63,671.00 $63,671.00

2200 $28,905.00 $33,351.00 $66,703.00 $66,703.00

2300 $30,218.00 $34,867.00 $69,735.00 $69,735.00

2400 $31,532.00 $36,383.00 $72,767.00 $72,767.00

2500 $32,846.00 $37,899.00 $75,799.00 $75,799.00

2600 $34,160.00 $39,415.00 $78,830.00 $78,830.00

2700 $35,474.00 $40,931.00 $81,862.00 $81,862.00

2800 $36,788.00 $42,447.00 $84,894.00 $84,894.00

2900 $38,101.00 $43,963.00 $87,926.00 $87,926.00

3000 $39,415.00 $45,479.00 $90,958.00 $90,958.00

Park Impact Fees

One-Family Dwelling $3,105.10

Multifamily Dwelling $2,884.62 per unit

Road Impact Fees

ITE Land Use Unit Impact Fee

One-Family Dwelling Dwelling Unit $1,293.06

Multifamily Dwelling (2 Dwelling Unit $1,293.06 stories or less - typically townhomes)

Multifamily Dwelling (3- Dwelling Unit $960.96 9 stories)

29 Mobile Home Park Occupied Dwelling Unit $736.14

Industrial Park 130 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $382.25 Floor Area

General Manufacturing 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $445.77 Floor Area

Warehousing 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $197.36 Floor Area

Mini-Warehouse 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $171.27 Floor Area

Assisted Living Center Bed $294.91

Hotel Room $948.24

Movie Theater 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $8,857.46 Floor Area

Elementary School Student $214.38

Middle School/Junior Student $214.60 High School

High School Student $230.26

Private School (K-8) Student $466.18

Church* 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $3,133.97 Floor Area

Day Care Center 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $5,401.36 Floor Area

Library 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $8,172.37 Floor Area

Hospital 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $1,215.93 Floor Area

General Office Building 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $1,104.77 Floor Area

30 Medical-Dental Office 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $3,947.24 Building Floor Area

Business Park 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $1,411.02 Floor Area

Building Material and 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $2,047.34 Lumber Store Floor Area

Nursery (Garden Center) 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $7,724.33 Floor Area

Shopping Center/Strip 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $2,826.02 Mall Leasable Area

Automobile Sales (New) 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $3,157.79 Floor Area

Automobile Sales (Used) 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $3,069.32 Floor Area

Tire Store 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $2,329.14 Floor Area

Supermarket 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $7,751.46 Floor Area

Convenience Market 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $42,366.68 Floor Area

Drive-In Bank 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $7,374.92 Floor Area

Restaurant, Sit-Down 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $7,252.77 (High Turnover) Floor Area

Fast Food without Drive- 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $22,384.81 Through Window Floor Area

Restaurant with Drive- 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $26,709.06 Through Window Floor Area

Auto Care Center** 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $2,690.47 Leasable Area

31 Gasoline/Service Station Fueling Position $11,316.07

Gasoline/Service Station 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross $71,867.91 with Convenience Store Leasable Area

Self Service Car Wash Wash Stall $12,250.04

* Sunday rate was used

** Weekday daily rates were not available, so Saturday daily rates were used

Sewer Impact Fees

Sewer Impact Fees ERU Demand Fee

Sewer Impact Fee per 1.00 $2,370.64 ERU

Fixture Type Drainage Fixture Unit Impact Fee Value as Load Factors per Fixture Type

Automatic Clothes 3 $273.54 Washers, Commercial

Automatic Clothes 2 $182.36 Washers, Residential

Bathtub 2 $182.36

Bidet 1 $91.18

Combination Sink and 2 $182.36 Tray

Dental Lavatory 1 $91.18

Dental Unit or Cuspidor 1 $91.18

Dishwashing Machine, 2 $182.36 Domestic

Drinking Fountain 0.5 $45.59

Floor Drains 2 $182.36

32 Kitchen Sink, Domestic 2 $182.36

Laundry Tray 2 $182.36

Lavatory 1 $91.18

Shower 2 $182.36

Sink 2 $182.36

Urinal 4 $364.71

Urinal 1 Gal. or Less per 2 $182.36 Flush

Wash Sink, Circular or 2 $182.36 Multiple, Each Set Faucets

Water Closet, 4 $364.71 Flushometer Tank, Public or Private

Water Closet, Private 3 $273.54 (1.6 gpf)

Water Closet, Private 4 $364.71 (flushing greater than 1.6 gpf)

Water Closet, Public (1.6 4 $364.71 gpf)

Water Closet, Public 6 $547.07 (flushing greater than 1.6 gpf)

Swimming Pool 10 $911.79

Hot Tub 2 $182.36

Car Wash (per bay) 2 $182.36

Sewer Non-Standard Impact Fee Formula

33 Multiply Number of Fixture Units by Impact Fee per $91.18 Fixture Unit

Stormwater Impact Fees

Year Fee Per Acre

FY 2019-2020 $7,021.76

FY 2020-2021 $7,123.00

FY 2021-2022 $7,264.58

FY 2022-2023 $7,398.21

FY 2023-2024 $7,592.40

FY2024-2025 $7,854.71

FY2025-2026 $8,262.93

FY2026-2027 $8,542.64

FY2027-2028 $8,775.90

FY2028-2029 $9,081.93

Water Resource Impact Fees

Single-Family Equivalency Ratios Fee Residential Fee

Single-Family 1.00 $4,042.80 Residential Unit

All Other Development Types

3/4" Meter 1.50 $6,058.88

1" Meter 2.50 $10,101.69

1 1/2" Meter 5.00 $20,203.37

2" Meter 8.00 $32,326.46

3" Meter 14.99 $60,610.11

34 4" Meter 24.99 $101,016.85

6" Meter 49.97 $202,028.38

Culinary Water Non-Standard Users Impact Fee Formula

Step 1: Identify Estimated Average Day Flow Demand of Proposed Development

Step 2: Multiply Equivalent Gallons by Impact Fee per Gallon of $5.45

Fire/EMS Impact Fees

Residential Impact Fee per Unit

Single-Family Residential $207.49

Multifamily Residential $82.16

Nonresidential Impact Fee per Unit

Commercial (per 1,000 SF) $196.87

Institutional (per 1,000 SF) $112.92

Commercial Apparatus Fee (kSF Floor $69.92 Apparatus Fee per Space)* 1,000 SF

*Apparatus fee is charged to commercial land uses only

Fire/EMS Non-Standard User Impact Fee

Fire/EMS Cost/Call Non-Standard Impact Fee Development Assessed

$794.25 x # of Annual Calls Projected to Be Created = Non- Standard Impact Fee

Police Impact Fees

Residential Impact Fee per Unit

Single-Family Residential $373.18

Multifamily Residential $178.47

35 Nonresidential Impact Fee per Unit

General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) $376.61

Institutional (per 1,000 SF) $197.96

Police Non-Standard User Impact Fee

Police Non-Standard Impact Fee Assessed Cost/Call Development

$280.98 x # of Annual Calls Projected to Be Created = Non- Standard Impact Fee

JUSTICE COURT

Justice Court fees shall be set at the rates set forth in the State of Utah Uniform Fine Schedule as authorized by Utah Code Section 77-20-1.

LIBRARY AT ACADEMY SQUARE

Room Rental Fees

Large Meeting Room Rental, seats 50 – 90

9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. $35.00 per hour, three Mon. – Fri. hour minimum

9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. $35.00 per hour, three Saturday hour minimum

Small Meeting/Conference Room Rental, seats 10 – 35

9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. $25.00 per hour, three Mon. – Fri. hour minimum

9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. $25.00 per hour, three Saturday hour minimum

36 Ballroom Rental

9 hour block of time $600.00 with $200 between 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 deposit p.m., Mon. – Thurs.

14 hour block of time $1,000.00 with $300 between 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 deposit p.m., Mon. – Thurs.

14 hour block of time $1,500.00 with $300 between 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 deposit p.m., Fri. – Sat.

15 hour block of time $1,700.00 with $500 between 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 deposit a.m., Mon. – Sat.

Overdue Fines

Adult & Teen Materials $0.10 per day per (exceptions below)* item, up to $5.00

* Chromebooks and $5.00 per day per Telescopes item, up to $25.00

* Basement Creative Lab $25.00 per day per kit, Equipment up to $125.00

Children’s Materials are fine free (exception below) *

* Discovery Kits $1.00 per day per kit, up to $10.00

There is no grace period for overdue items. Fines begin accruing the day after an item is due. Full library privileges are revoked for patrons with fines greater than $10.00 or items that are more than one month overdue. If unpaid fines and fees exceed $25.00, a billing notice is mailed. Accounts unpaid after ten days from the date on the billing notice will be sent to a collection agency and an additional $10.00 debt collection fee will be charged.

37 Damaged and Lost Fees

Materials damaged beyond Full replacement cost use

Missing audiobook CD $9.00

Missing case/packaging $5.00

Missing cover/artwork $2.00

Missing Discovery Kit items Full replacement cost of item(s)

Patron Card Replacement $1.00

The full replacement cost is the retail price of the item when purchased initially by the library.

Nonresident Cards

Six-month nonresident $60.00 library card

One-year nonresident $120.00 library card

Three-month temporary $15.00 resident card

Other Fees Other Fees

Photocopies $0.10/page

Printer copies – black $0.10/page

Printer copies – color $0.50/page

Microfiche copies $0.10/page

Internet Computer Pass $1.00 for 2 hours

Test Proctoring Services $15.00/exam

38 PARKS AND RECREATION

COVEY CENTER FOR THE ARTS

Rate A – applies to commercial users

Rate B – applies to nonprofit organizations and events. A 501(c)(3) certificate or IRS letter of tax determination is required for this rate. The W9 form and letter of determination or 501(c)(3) must match.

Main Hall Rental

Full Day Rentals Monday – Saturday (7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.)

Rate A $1,550

Rate B $1,250

Full Week Rentals (up to 6 consecutive working days) Unlimited access to the hall between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.

Rate A $7,900

Rate B $6,400

Performance Receptions $150

School Performances $200

• Deposit

Deposits are due at contract signing and are nonrefundable.

Returning clients: $200 per day for each scheduled day. Nonticketed events must pay full estimated costs seven days in advance of the first day in the building.

39 New clients: 50% of total estimated costs. Deposits will be applied to the total fee.

• Insurance

All clients are required to carry liability insurance for no less than $1,000,000. A copy of the client’s standard certificate of insurance, adding Provo City as an additional insured, must be provided to the CCA Events Coordinator no later than 7 days prior to the first use of the building.

If your organization does not have insurance, a TULIP (Tenant User Liability Insurance Program) policy is available for purchase through Provo Finance.

• Staffing

$17 per hour per Covey Center staff member.

A minimum of three technicians is required for all rehearsals and performances.

Building security is required for all rehearsals and performances.

A house manager is required for all performances.

Volunteer ushers must be provided by the client for all performances (minimum of 4).

• Custodial

$75 per scheduled day.

• Stage Setup and Supplies

Clients scheduled up to four days will be charged $75 for stage setup. Clients scheduled for a week rental will be charged $125. Stage setup includes but is not limited to the normal use of gaff tape, spike tape, lightning gel, and microphone batteries. Above average use of supplies will be charged based on use.

• Additional Services

40 Marley Dance Floor (includes gaff tape) $150

Snow Machine (snow included) $200

Orchestra Pit Use $700

(includes removal and replacement)

Piano Tuning (scheduled) $150

Hazer $50/day

(fire watch is required) $17 per hour

White Drape $100

Black Lights $30/each

Front Window Banner $200

Photography/Film Session

Main Stage (includes one $200 per hour technician)

Lobbies $50 per hour

Board Room/Studio Rental

Board Room $40 per hour

Combined Studios $120 for 3 hours

Black Box Rental

The Black Box is only rented on a case-by-case basis, upon approval from the General Manager.

Ticket Office Use

• Ticket Sales 8% commission of gross sales

• Facility Fee $1 per ticket for all sales

• Ticket Exchanges $3 per ticket

41 • Comp Tickets First 20 tickets at no charge, 21 plus at $0.65 per ticket

• Merchandise Sales 15% commission on all monies collected on Covey Center property

• Covey Center $1 – $50 based on Merchandise/Concessions item

• Gallery Exhibit Sales 25% commission on all monies collected on Covey Center property

Summer Art Showcase

Entries one and two $15 each

Entries three through five $10 each

Classes

Class tuition is set by agreement with instructors and ranges between $35 and $250 depending on the length of class and number of classes offered.

Workshops taught in the Covey Center range in price from $25 to $250 based on the topic and length of the workshop.

GOLF COURSE

18 HOLE COURSE

9-Holes

Sunday – Thursday $15

Sunday – Thursday (Seniors 62 & older) $13

Friday – Saturday & Holidays (All players) $16

18-Holes

42 Sunday – Thursday $30

Sunday – Thursday (Seniors 62 & older) $26

Friday – Saturday & Holidays (All players) $32

Carts

9 Holes (per rider) $8

18 Holes (per rider) $16

Pull Cart $4

Rental Clubs

Titleist Set (9-Holes) $25

Titleist Set (18-Holes) $40

Standard Set (Per 9-Holes) $15

Par 3 Course

Adults $12

Students, Juniors, Seniors $10

Triple Play (Rec Center Members) $6

Par 3 Club Rentals (4 Clubs & Putter) $8

Complimentary Carry Bag for Players Club Free

Golf Cart (per rider) $8

Push Cart $4

T6 (walking only)

Green Fee & Clubs $9

Triple Play (Rec Center Members) – free $5 green fee plus T6 equipment

Youth on Course Members

9-Holes (Sun – Thur anytime excluding $5 holidays)

43 18-Holes (Sun – Thur anytime excluding $5 holidays)

T9 (anytime) $3

T6 (anytime & includes T6 equipment) $3

Winter Rates (Weather-Dependent)

9-Holes (All players) $12

18-Holes (All players) $24

T9 $10

T6 (Includes Green Fee & Clubs) $6

Season Membership (March 1 – November 30)

7-Day Provo Resident $850

7-Day Non-Resident $900

Corporate Pass (Mon – Fri) (Limit 10 per season)

One foursome per day; includes carts and $10,000 warmup range balls. All play must be arranged between the company’s HR Department and the golf course. Corporate passes are invalid on holidays and may not be used during tournaments or special events.

Punch Cards (Expire one year from purchase) Not valid on all major holidays

Punch Card (twenty 9-hole rounds) $250

Senior (Mon-Fri only) $220

Cart punch card (twenty 9-hole rounds) $140

Range Punch Card $145

Driving Range

Large Bucket $10

44 Medium Bucket $8

Small Bucket $4

Promotions

The Director of the golf course may, from time to time for promotional purposes, reduce the foregoing golf course fees by not more than 35% subject to approval by the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee.

PARK PAVILION RESERVATIONS

Parks may be reserved for one of two time blocks:

8:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.

3:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.

Bicentennial Rotary Park, $46.00 (power and lights) 1400 S 1600 E

Big Springs Park, Provo Canyon

Large $85.00 (power and lights)

Medium (2) $65.00 (power and lights)

Campground $100.00 per night

Canyon Glen Park, in Provo Canyon

Large $85.00 (power and lights)

Small $65.00 (power and lights)

Amphitheater $60.00

Carterville Park, 2400 N Carterville Road

Large $100.00 (power and lights)

45 Small $46.00 (power and lights)

Exchange Park, 900 N 700 W

Large $100.00 (power and lights)

Medium $70.00 (power and lights)

Small (2) $35.00

Footprinter’s Park, 1150 S 1350 W $23.00

Fort Utah Park, 200 N Geneva Road

Large $81.00

Small $23.00

Grandview Park, 1460 N 1000 W $25.00

Harbor Park, 800 N 2450 W $23.00

Joaquin Park, 400 N 400 E $23.00

Kiwanis Park, 820 N 1100 E

Brick (Large) $93.00 (power and lights)

Medium $46.00

Small $23.00

Lakeview Park, 2825 W 1390 N

Large $70.00

Small $23.00

Lions Park, 1280 N 950 W

North $133.00 (power and lights)

South $55.00

Maeser Park, 451 E 600 S $70.00 (power and lights)

Provost Park, 629 S 1000 E $23.00

46 Riverside Park, 1260 W 600 N

Large $70.00

Small $23.00

Riverview Park, 4620 N 300 W

East $116.00 (power and lights)

West $104.00 (power and lights)

The Park at Rock Canyon, 2620 N 1200 E

#1 $170.00 (power and lights)

#3 $46.00 (power and lights)

#2 and #4 $122.00 (power and lights)

Rock Canyon Trailhead $52.00 (power and lights) Park, 2300 N 1450 E

Provo Rotary Park, 1460 N 1550 W

North $55.00

West $70.00

East $23.00

Sherwood Hillside Park, 1100 E 4450 N

Pavilion #1 $23.00

Pavilion #2 $23.00

Spring Creek Park, 1400 S State St

Pavilion #1 $70

South Fork Park, Provo Canyon above Vivian

Large $85.00 (power and lights)

47 Small $65.00 (power and lights)

Wilderness Paul Ream Park, 1600 W 500 N

Large $93.00 (power and lights)

Southwest $23.00 (power and lights)

Center West $46.00 (power and lights)

Northwest $46.00 (power and lights)

PARKS, PARKWAYS, TRAILS, AND OTHER PARK PROPERTIES

Special Parks Use Fee $200.00 for events where attendees exceed reserved pavilion capacity or where multiple areas of a park are being used for an event. This fee is in addition to all necessary pavilion rental fees.

Trail Use Fee, Base Fee $200.00 for course events held on a trail

For Events with More Than 200 $1.00 per Participants/Spectators person (up to a maximum of 500)

Participant/Spectator Impact Fee $0.50 per for Events with More Than 500 person Participants/Spectators (for each person in excess of 500)

PROVO CITY RECREATION CENTER

Category Daily 3 Month 6 Month Annual Monthly

48 Res D/ Res D/ Res D/ Res D/ Base* Base* Base* Base*

Adults $5 $95/$120 $165/$205 $285/$355 $27/$33 (18 – 59)

Youth (3 – $4 $55/$65 $90/$112 $157/$195 $16/$19 17)

Adult N/A $132/$167 $229/$289 $398/$503 $36/$45 Couple

Senior $4 $55/$65 $90/$112 $157/$195 $16/$19 (60+)**

Senior N/A $95/$120 $165/$205 $285/$355 $27/$33 Couple**

Family*** N/A $167/$207 $284/$359 $493/$618 $44/$55

Note: Toddlers under the age of 3 are free.

*Res D – is the resident discount rate

*Base – is the nonresident rate

**Senior Recreation Center Membership includes Senior Center Annual Pass

***Up to six members, each additional 3-month member is $9.00, 6- month $18.00, and each additional annual pass holder is $36.00. Family consists of a maximum of 2 married adults and children 21 years old and under claimed as dependents for tax purposes.

Childwatch $3 per hour, each additional child $2 per hour

Or $25/month for first child, $15/month for each additional child

Drop-In Fitness $5 per class

Racquetball $5

Note: Annual passes require a monthly automatic withdrawal option from the holder’s bank account to encourage sales. Annual, 6-month,

49 and 3-month passes are also valid for admission at the Veterans Memorial Pool.

The benefits for 3-month, 6-month and annual passes include:

- Free drop-in basic fitness classes

Corporate Resident Business

10% discount 5 or more 6 Month/Annuals

15% discount 10 or more 6 Month/Annuals

20% discount 15 or more 6 Month/Annuals

Nonresident Business

8.5% discount 5 or more 6 Month/Annuals

11% discount 10 or more 6 Month/Annuals

15% discount 15 or more 6 Month/Annuals

20% discount 100 or more 6 Month/Annuals

Senior Center Annual Pass

$10 Resident

$100 Nonresident

$2 Nonresident Senior Daily Fee

Rentals

Standard Exercise Room $30/hr.

Large Exercise Room $50/hr.

Classroom $35/hr.

Party Room $35/2 hrs.

Multi-Purpose (per section, non-prime time, $35/hr. weekdays)

50 Multi-Purpose (all 3 sections, 4 hr. min., prime $500/4 time, weekends) hrs.

One-Court Gym $50/hr.

Pool

Outdoor Pool, after hours per 1 1/2 hours $750

Competitive Pool, exclusive use $75/hr.

Competitive Pool, nonexclusive use $15/hr. per lane

Swim Lessons

Provo Resident $40

Nonresident $50

Piranhas Summer Swim Team

Resident $120

Nonresident $130

Lifeguard Class $150

Classes 60+:

Computer Classes, 8 Classes $20

Computer Classes, 6 Classes $15

Computer Classes, 4 Classes $10

Computer Help, Walk-In $2

Porcelain, 3 Months $9 resident/$11 nonresident

Tours As approved by Director

Tuesday Night Dance $5/per person, $8/couple

Ukulele, 6 Classes $25

51 Chuck-a-Rama Cards $1

Tai Chi $2/visitor

Zumba Gold $2/visitor

Elder Quest $10 annual pass required

Community Classes: (Nonresident Fee Additional $10)

World Culture Tour Cooking Class, $20/person

Youth Bouldering, 8 Classes $45

ESL, 10 Classes $40

Skateboarding, 10 Classes $55

Cooking Class, 5 – 9 Classes $45 – $100

Language Class, 10 – 12 Classes $75

Tumbling, 8 Classes $40

Photography, 6 Classes $70

Adult Art Classes, 4 – 6 Classes $45 – $90

Youth Art Classes, 4 – 8 Classes $45 – $75

Lego League $150

Specialty Camps $60 – $150

Tri Training $100

Fly Fishing $60

ASL, 16 Classes $75

Parent/Child Cooking $30

Adult Cooking Class $20 – $30

Art in Nature, 9 Classes $100

52 Cake Decorating, 6 Classes $80

Outdoor Yoga $45

Ski Program $349

Ski Program w/Sundance Ski Pass $299

Seasonal Cooking, 6 Classes $70

Furniture Refurbishing, 6 Classes $90

Summer Adventure Kids Camp, 4 Days $85

Adaptive Adventure Day Camp, 4 Days $85

Internet Safety $5

Self-Defense $25

Pre-K Field Day $45

Grief Recovery Workshop $75

Special Events:

Facility Events Cost of daily admission to Provo Recreation Center

Countdown $10

Drive-In Movie Free

Halloween Carnival $5 adult, $4 seniors and children

Science Palooza $5 children, adults free

Rec Center After-Hours Party $7

Dive-In Movie $5

Summer Luau $15 for nonmembers

Christmas Gala $15 for nonmembers

53 Skate Park Competition Free early admission, $5 day of

PROVO SHOOTING SPORTS PARK

Admission per Individual

All $5.00 Individuals

Punch Passes for Open Public Hours

5 Punches $20.00

Group Reservations

Rifle Range – 2 Hours $30.00 + $4 per person

Hand Gun Range Exclusive – 2 Hours $30.00 + $4 per person

SPORTS, ADULT

Basketball

Men’s Summer $575.00

Adult Winter $575.00

Flag Football $475.00

Soccer $275.00

Softball

Adult Softball Tournaments (NSA) $250.00

Fall Softball $305.00

54 Fall Softball Doubleheaders $480.00

Spring Softball $365.00

Spring Softball Doubleheaders $600.00

Tennis Lessons – Private

Single player lessons $45.00/person

Group lessons (2-4 players) $30.00/person

Ultimate Frisbee $195.00

Volleyball – 6 on 6 Team $260.00

SPORTS, YOUTH

Late Registration Fee All Youth Sports $10.00

Nonresident Fee All Youth Sports $10.00

Baseball

Start Smart Baseball $40.00

T-Ball $40.00

Coach Pitch/Machine Pitch $45.00

Jr. Baseball, 3 – 4 Grade $75.00

Jr. Baseball, 5 – 6 Grade $80.00

Jr. Baseball, 7 – 11 Grade $80.00

Softball

Girls Fastpitch, 3 – 8 Grade $65.00

Basketball

Start Smart Basketball $40.00

Jr. Jazz, 1 – 2 Grade $40.00

55 Jr. Jazz, 3 – 4 Grade $48.00

Jr. Jazz, 5 – 6 Grade $53.00

Jr. Jazz, 7 – 8 Grade $58.00

High School Basketball Team $500.00

Jr. Jazz Jersey $10.00

Flag Football $50.00

Soccer

Start Smart Soccer $40.00

Youth Soccer (Spring, Fall)

Preschool/Kindergarten/1 – 2 Grade $50.00

3 – 6 Grade $55.00

7 – 9 Grade $60.00

Tennis

Lessons 2 Weeks $45.00

Lessons 4 Weeks $50.00

League $83.00

Track and Field

Team Provo Track and Field $47.00

Cross Country Team $40.00

Volleyball – Co-Ed Youth Volleyball $50.00

Wrestling, 4 – 8 Grade $40.00

Ultimate Frisbee $90 – $140.00

56 SPORTS FIELDS RENTAL FEES

Baseball/Softball Fields

Softball Field Lights $25.00 per hour per field

Additional Field Prep

Weekdays, Saturday $40.00 per diamond

Hourly Half- Daily (per Day field) (4 hours)

Footprinters Softball – $300.00 $600.00 Complex, 1150 S 1350 W

Fort Utah Baseball $35.00 $175.00 $350.00 Complex, 200 N Geneva Rd

Harmon’s Softball $30.00 $85.00 $175.00 Complex, 200 S 900 E

Sunset View Park, 525 S $30.00 $85.00 $175.00 1600 W

Soccer Fields

Field Rental, per Field (Youth) $25.00 per hour

Field Rental, per Field (Adult) $35.00 per hour

Painting Lines, per Field

Fields 49 Yards and Under $100.00 per application; $45.00 to remark

Fields 50-99 Yards $125.00 per application; $60.00 to remark

57 Fields 100+ Yards $150.00 per application; $75.00 to remark

Tennis

Single Court $10.00 per hour

2 Courts $50 per ½ day (4hr block); $100 per full day (4hrs+)

3 Courts $75 per ½ day (4hr block); $150 per full day (4hrs+)

6 Courts $150 per ½ day (4hr block); $300 per full day (4hrs+)

Rugby $25.00/hour youth; $35.00/hour adult

PEAKS ICE ARENA

Service & Rentals

Ice – 1 hour $195.00

Olympic Room – 1 hour $50.00

Mezzanine – 1 hour $75.00

Small Turf – Fall/Winter 1 hour $50.00

Small Turf – Summer 1 hour $35.00

Large Turf – Fall/Winter 1 hour $100.00

Large Turf – Summer 1 hour $60.00

Broomball – flat fee $25.00

Birthday Party – Gold $10.00/person

58 Birthday Party – Silver $6.00/person

Catering

Hot Chocolate $1/person

Hot Chocolate & Cookie $3/person

Admission

Skate Rental $3.00

Walker Rental $5.00

Adult Admission (12 – 62) $5.00

Youth Admission (4 – 11) $4.00

Senior Admission (62+) $4.00

Programs

Learn to Skate

Snowplow $70.00/session

Basic 1 – 6 $75.00/session

Hockey 1 – 4 $75.00/session

Specialty Classes $80.00/session

Youth Hockey

Start Smart Hockey $80.00/session

Mini Mites Hockey $145.00/session

Polar Bear Youth Hockey – $750.00/season Division 1

Polar Bear Youth Hockey – $400.00/season Division 2

Adult Hockey

Adult Skills Clinic $90.00/session

59 Peaks Adult Hockey League – $3,300.00 Fall/Winter Season – per team

Peaks Adult Hockey League – $2,500.00 Summer Season – per team

Private Instruction $110.00/month

PERMIT PARKING AREAS

Foothill Park Permit $15.00

University Garden/North $15.00 Foothills Permit

Replace Lost Permit $5.00

POLICE DEPARTMENT

Bicycle License No charge

False Alarms

The first three false alarms No fee per calendar year

Fourth response $50.00

Fifth response $75.00

Sixth or more responses $100.00 each

Public school $50.00

Police Clearances $8.00

Insurance Letters $10.00

See Administrative: Records and GRAMA Requests for Police Department records-related fees.

60 Pet Licensing As per the South Utah Valley Animal Shelter

UTILITIES

UTILITY TRANSPORTATION FUND FEE

Category Fee per Month

Residential A – Single-Family $3.50

Residential B – Multifamily $2.10

Commercial A (< 100 Trip- $9.50 Ends)

Commercial B (100 – 199 Trip- $25.10 Ends)

Commercial C (200 – 599 Trip- $75.50 Ends)

Commercial D (600+ Trip- $225.50 Ends)

Public Use A (< 300 Trip-Ends) $20.50

Public Use B (≥ 300 Trip-Ends) $91.50

CULINARY WATER

As of July 1, 2021, the following fees will be as follows:

Customer Service Fees

Residential Water Deposit $30.00

61 Nonresidential Deposit Use of greater of 2-month avg. or $100.00

Connect/Processing Fee $20.00

Field Credit Fee $40.00

After-Hours Connect Fee $75.00

Water User Fees

Note: Water service provided to non-Provo residents will be double the rates listed here.

Monthly Base Charge

Unit

3/4" $17.70 Per month

1" $22.34 Per month

1 1/2" $48.03 Per month

2" $71.85 Per month

3" $139.30 Per month

4" $232.12 Per month

6" $275.65 Per month

8" $415.56 Per month

10" $552.75 Per month

12" $897.51 Per month

Commodity Charge – Summer $1.67 Per 1,000 gallons

Commodity Charge – Winter $1.01 Per 1,000 gallons

As of September 1, 2021, the following fees will be as follows:

62 3/4" $18.59 Per month

1" $23.46 Per month

1 1/2" $50.43 Per month

2" $75.44 Per month

3" $146.27 Per month

4" $243.73 Per month

6" $289.43 Per month

8" $436.34 Per month

10" $580.39 Per month

12" $942.39 Per month

Commodity Charge

Residential – Winter $1.06 Per 1,000 (November to April) gallons Tier 1 <100K gallons

Residential – Winter $1.16 Per 1,000 (November to April) gallons Tier 2 >100K gallons

Residential – Summer (May to $1.75 Per 1,000 October) gallons Tier 1 <100K gallons

Residential – Summer (May to $1.94 Per 1,000 October) gallons Tier 2 >100K gallons

Commercial – Winter $1.06 Per 1,000 (November to April) gallons Tier 1 <500K gallons

Commercial – Winter $1.16 Per 1,000 (November to April) gallons Tier 2 >500K gallons

Commercial – Summer (May $1.75 Per 1,000 to October) gallons Tier 1 <500K gallons

63 Residential – Summer (May to $1.94 Per 1,000 October) gallons Tier 2 >500K gallons

As of July 1, 2021, the following fees will be as follows:

Reimbursement for 8" Water $60.00 Per ln. ft. Main Line Extensions

Water Connection Fees – Meter Only

Includes furnishing and setting the meter only.

5/8" $425.02

3/4" $460.02

1" $514.02

1 1/2" $655.02 P.D.

1 1/2" Turbine $653.02

2" P.D. $804.02

2" $812.50 Turbine

3" $1,923.00 Turbine

3" Compound $2,993.00

3" Mag $3,973.00

4" $2,080.00 Turbine

4" Compound $3,608.00

4" Fire Service $6,735.12

4" Mag $4,213.00

6" $3,368.35 Turbine

64 6" Compound $5,615.00

6" Fire Service $12,623.00

6" Mag $5,405.12

8" Fire Service $15,998.00

8" $4,593.72 Turbine

Water Line Tapping Fees

Contractor will be charged down time for city crews if tapping sleeve and valve are not installed and ready to be tapped.

3/4" to $150.00 2"

4" to 8" $450.00

10" to $550.00 12"

Reducer Fees

1" Service Size, 3/4" Meter Size $25.00

1 1/2" Service Size, 1" Meter Size $75.00

2" Service Size, 1" Meter Size $75.00

2" Service Size, 1 1/2" Meter Size $90.00

Fire Hydrant Meter Rental $5.00 per working day

ENERGY

ENERGY CHARGES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:

Monthly Rates and Fees

Schedule No. 1

Residential

65 Customer Service Charge $13.92 per connection

Energy Charge $0.0734 per 1st 500 kWh

$0.1019 per 501 – 1,000 kWh

$0.1209 per additional kWh

Credit for Residential $0.06742 per kWh Electricity Generation

Schedule No. 2

Commercial

General Service Distribution Voltage

Customer Service Charge $30.16

Energy Charge All kWh $0.0446 per kWh

Demand Charge 0 – 5 kW $8.04 per kW

Demand Charge All Additional $14.36 per kW

Schedule No. 3

General Service Distribution Voltage (Optional Time of Use)

Customer Service Charge $30.16

Energy Charge $0.0446 per kWh

On-Peak Demand Charge $13.30 per kW

Off-Peak Demand Charge $4.66 per kW

Schedule No. 4

General Service Primary Voltage

Customer Service Charge $30.16

Energy Charge $0.0446 per kWh

Demand Charge $12.60 per kW

66 Schedule No. 6

Industrial

General Service – High Voltage

Customer Service Charge $227.82

Energy Charge $0.0368 per kWh

Demand Charge $14.79 per kW

Schedule No. 8

Highway Lighting, Traffic and Other Signal System Service

Highway Lighting

Customer Service Charge $13.92

Energy ($/kWh) 1st 500 kWh $0.0734

501 – 1,000 kWh $0.1019

All Additional $0.1209

Traffic and Other Signal Systems

Customer Service Charge $13.92

Energy ($/kWh) 1st 500 kWh $0.0734

501 – 1,000 kWh $0.1019

All Additional $0.1209

Schedule No. 10

Temporary Service

Residential

Customer Service Charge See Schedule No. 1

Commercial – EL10

Customer Service Charge See Schedule No. 2

67 Schedule No. 11

Nonresidential – Non-Commercial Detached Buildings

Customer Service Charge $15.65

Energy Charge $0.0949 per 1st 300 kWh

$0.1088 per additional kWh

Schedule No. 12

Private Outdoor Security Lighting (Not Metered)

Monthly Rate See Table

Light Fixture Type Watts Rate

High Pressure Sodium (HPS) 150 $17.00

250 $20.50

Light Emitting Diode (LED) 65 $26.65

35' Wood Pole Up front – 12 $1,385.00 month billings – $118.57

25' Steel Pole Up front – 12 $2,055.00 month billings – $175.93

Energy Services Only No PVT LT $3.70 Maintenance 75W $4.05

1000 $32.62

Schedule 20

Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA)

Due to volatile and unpredictable power costs, the Energy Department will determine an ECA

68 approximately every 6 months, likely in March and September of each year. The ECA is calculated to collect or refund the base power costs as calculated on cents per kWh basis. Prior to changing the ECA, notice will be given to the Administration and Municipal Council.

(See Rate Schedule 20 for exact formula to get the ECA)

Schedule 21*

Telecom Debt Charge

Residential (Schedule 1) Monthly Charge $5.35

Commercial (Schedules 2, 3, 4, Monthly Charge 10) $10.00 + 2.3%

Industrial (Schedule 6) Monthly Charge $2,000.00 + 0.34%

*This flat charge is subject to change as required to generate $268,000 total revenue per month from the Telecom Debt Charge after applying the Telecom Debt Charge to the Industrial and Commercial Schedules.

Customer Service Fees

Residential Electric Deposit $75.00

Nonresidential Deposit use greater of 2- month avg. or $100.00

Meter Reading Fee for AMI $10.00/month Opt-Out (If Eligible)

Credit Reconnect $40.00

Returned Check as set by State Law

Connect/Processing Fee $20.00

69 After Hours Connect Fee $75.00

Same Day Connect Fee $75.00

Connect/Processing Fee (3-Phase Service) $60.00

Credit Reconnect (3-Phase Service) $150.00

Engineering Division Fees

Temporary Hook-Up Fee $300.00

Upgrade Overhead Connection Fee $435.00

Upgrade Underground Connection Fee $600.00

Demolition Service Removal $200.00

Additional Hook-Up Inspections (beyond 2) $50.00

Net Metering/Solar 100-200 Amp $375.00 Residential

Net Metering/Solar 200-400 Amp $825.00 Commercial/Residential

Meter Tampering Fee

1st Offense $100.00

2nd Offense $250.00

Electric Facility Relocation Fee Actual Costs

Master Metering Penalty Fee $250.00

Aid to Construction Fees Actual Costs

Banner Installation and Removal $150.00

Each Additional Week $50.00

Pole Attachment Fee $15.00

Service Connection Fees

Single-Phase Meters

70 Amperage 1 Meter Multi-Metering 120/240 V Service cost

0 – 200 $700 + $155/additional meter

210 – 400 $650 + $155/additional meter

401 – 1000 $1,700 + $155/additional meter

Three-Phase Meters

Amperage 1 Meter Multi-Metering 120/208 V Service cost

0 – 200 $1,200 + $255/additional meter

201 – 400 $1,100 + $255/additional meter

401 – 800 $2,325 + $255/additional meter

801 – 1600 $3,300 + $255/additional meter

1601 – $3,900 + $255/additional meter 2500

2501 – $4,350 + $255/additional meter 4000

Schedule 22

Renewable Energy Program – Renew Choice

Availability

This schedule is available at any point on the Energy Department electric system where facilities of adequate capacity and standard residential voltages are available.

Application

This schedule is applicable to all electric service points of those who voluntarily participate in this schedule.

Monthly Rate

71 The customer’s monthly utility bill will show the number of requested one hundred (100) kWh blocks multiplied by the rate shown below, as amended from time to time by the Municipal Council. The monthly bill amount is in addition to all other rates, charges, taxes and fees contained within the applicable rate schedules. The monthly charge is one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per one hundred (100) kWh block.

Renewable Energy

In accordance to monthly subscription rates and quantities purchased by customers, renewable energy from wind, hydro and/or solar resources will be purchased by UMPA and certified with the applicable "renewable energy credits – RECs" for the delivery into the power grid as part of the UMPA power supply mix. Renewable energy will be purchased, scheduled, billed and managed by UMPA to meet the demands and interest of the program. UMPA will have sole discretion to purchase and/or build renewable resources to meet the requirements of the renewable program. The UMPA renewable program will be regulated and governed by the UMPA Board of Directors.

Conditions

• Customer must be in good standing to enroll into the program.

• Customer may cancel the service or modify the number of blocks at any time. However, the customer will be responsible for renewable services and charges until the end of the billing cycle. After a customer request to cancel or modify, the City will stop at the end of the next billing cycle or modify the billing of the blocks at the start of the next billing cycle.

• The City and UMPA agree to identify and track all funds associated with the program.

72 • An administrative fee of ten percent (10%) may be included in the rate. The City may collect and use five percent (5%) of the rate to cover the billing costs. UMPA may collect and use five percent (5%) of the rate for marketing materials.

• The City will give notice to the Renew Choice customers sixty (60) days in advance for any rate changes to Renew Choice approved by the City.

Tax Adjustments

The amount computed at the above monthly rate shall be subject to taxes, assessments and surcharges imposed by Provo City or any governmental authority authorized to levy said taxes, assessments or surcharges.

Terms and Conditions

Service under this schedule will be in accordance with the Energy Department’s electric service standards and policies and terms and conditions set forth by the Department’s standard application requirements and Provo City ordinances, including any future additions or amendments.

SANITATION

Curbside Residential Fees (per month for weekly service)

Garbage – No Recycling (No Yard Waste or $19.25 Household Recycling)

Garbage – With Recycling (Yard Waste $17.25 and/or Household Recycling)

Household Recycling $7.70

73 Yard Waste Recycling (Billed March – $6.00 November only)

Return Service Fee $10.00

Suspension of Residential Service

Standby charge of $1.00 per month to be paid during suspension

Roll-Off Disposal

Tipping Fee (in addition to $39.00 per ton hauling fee)

Delivery and First Hauling $120.00

Each Additional Hauling $85.00

Commercial Frontload Fees (per month for weekly service)

3 Yard Container $34.00

4 Yard Container $45.00

6 Yard Container $68.00

8 Yard Container $90.00

Other Charges

Truck and Crew $100.00 per hour

Disposal Charge of Waste $50.00 minimum charge

Replacement of Damaged Can $65.00

Fine for Trash in Yard Waste $25.00 Can

Sanitation Ordinance Violation $25.00 per violation

Can Return Fee (Less Than One $65.00 Year of Service)

74 Compost

Drop-Off Fee (only $5.00 per load noncommercial, Provo residents allowed)

Compost Purchase (residents) $3.00 per load cubic yard

Compost Purchase $6.00 per load

(nonresidents) cubic yard

STORM WATER

See Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule.

WASTE WATER WASTEWATER

Note: Waste water Wastewater service provided to non-Provo residents will be double the rates listed here.

Monthly Residential Base Charge

Base Rate Single Unit – $17.16 $18.88 per connection

Base Rate Multiple Units – $15.45 $17.00 per unit

Monthly Nonresidential Base Charge

Meter Size Base Charge

3/4" $17.16 $18.88

1 $42.91 $47.20

1.5 $85.83 $94.41

2 $137.31 $151.04

75 3 $257.46 $283.21

4 $429.10 $472.01

6 $858.19 $944.01

8 $1,373.10 $1,510.41

All Uses Commodity Charge – $4.70 $5.17 per 1,000 gallons

Equipment Rates

Jetter Truck $150.00 $225.00/hour

Closed Circuit TV Truck $150.00 $225.00/hour

Waste water Wastewater Contribution Permit

Annual Fee $200.00 per year

Other fees are based on time and materials

Hauled in Waste

Resident Waste $30.00 per 1,000 New dump from Septic Tanks gallons station recovery cost.

Resident Waste $13.00 per 1,000 from Holding Tanks gallons

Nonresident Waste $60.00 per 1,000 from Septic Tanks gallons

Nonresident Waste $26.00 per 1,000 from Holding Tanks gallons

Nonconnection to Available Sewer

Within 300 ft. of $17.16 $18.88 per month City Sewer

Waste water Wastewater Surcharge Fees

76 Biochemical $0.2503 per pound Will be Oxygen Demand reviewed again in Plant Master Plan.

Suspended Solids $0.1006 per pound Will be reviewed again in Plant Master Plan.

Oil or Grease $0.1700 per pound Will be reviewed again in Plant Master Plan.

Standard $50.00 per To cover Monitoring Fee occurrence inspections cost.

Reimbursement for $50.00 Per ln. ft. 8" Sewer Main Line Extensions

(Am Res. 2008-26, Am Res. 2011-09, Am 2012-14, Am 2012-15, Am 2012-26, Am 2012-38, Am 2012-46, Am 2013-10, Am 2013-21, Am 2013-23, Am 2013-24, Am 2013-42, Am 2014-17, Am 2015-08, Am 2015-28, Am 2016-05, Am 2016- 12, Am 2016-19, Am 2016-22, Am 2016-28, Am 2017-03, Am 2017-11, Am 2017-28, Am 2018-08, Am 2018-19, Am 2018-35, Am 2019-03, Am 2019-23, Am 2019-30, Am 2019-36, Am 2019-44, Am 2020-19)

The Provo City Code is current through Ordinance 2021-05, passed February 2, 2021.

77 Disclaimer: The city recorder has the official version of the Provo City Code. Users should contact the city recorder for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.

1

78 PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: JMAGNESS Department: Council Requested Meeting Date:

SUBJECT: A presentation regarding a Local Government Disaster Fund. (21-066)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation and discussion; the Council may consider action by majority vote.

BACKGROUND: There has been a discussion about creating a Local Government Disaster Fund as authorized in UCA 53-2a-605. Creation of a Local Government Disaster Fund would be used to fund the services and activities of the local government in response to a declared disaster within the boundaries of the local government, the aftermath of the disaster within the boundaries of the local government, and emergency preparedness (it cannot spend more than 10% of the money budgeted to be deposited during a fiscal year for emergency preparedness). The State's Disaster Recovery Fund will make loans to local governments on preferential rates depending on the amount reserved in the fund over the five previous fiscal years; the local government must reserve at least 50% of the amount authorized in UCA 53-2a-605 over the previous five fiscal years to qualify for a loan. That number is based on a percentage of the total estimated revenues of the local government for the current fiscal period that are not restricted or otherwise obligated.

There are few issues that might discussed: 1. Creation of a Local Government Disaster Fund itself 2. How to fund it. 3. How much should the fund balance should be.

If the Council decides to create the Disaster Fund the Finance Department would be asked to come back to the Council in a future meeting to discuss the funding options as well as the what the maximum fund balance should be.

FISCAL IMPACT: TBD

PRESENTER’S NAME: Cliff Strachan, Executive Director of Council

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 15 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 21-066

1 Disaster Recovery Funding

Overview: Provo has a plan and an Emergency Management Executive Committee that has overall responsibility for emergency preparedness and disaster response – though ultimate responsibility rests with the Mayor. Financial preparedness is an important part of an effective disaster response plan.

Utah Code Section 10-6-116(2) limits the accumulation of a fund balance in the city general fund to 25% of total revenue for the current fiscal period. This is sometimes referred to as a “rainy day” fund that the city can use to solve problems or take advantage of opportunities. However, there is no guarantee that there will sufficient rainy day funds available when disaster strikes.

Section 53-2a-605 allows cities to create a local government disaster fund (“disaster fund”), for use only to fund services and activities in response to a declared disaster or its aftermath, or in limited amounts for emergency preparedness. The city may accumulate money in the disaster fund up to 10% of total estimated revenues for the current fiscal period that are not restricted or otherwise obligated. Accumulating money in the disaster fund does not affect the maximum limit for the rainy day fund.

Section 53-2a-607 creates a state Local Government Emergency Response Loan Fund. As per Section 53- 2a-608, cities who experience a disaster may apply to receive a loan from this fund for:

(i) costs incurred providing emergency disaster services as defined in Section 53-2a-602 (ii) providing matching funds to secure federal funds or grants related to a declared disaster

Cities are not eligible to receive loans from this state loan fund unless they have maintained an average balance, over five years, in their disaster fund of at least half of the maximum authorized. The interest rate and maximum payback period also differ according to average disaster fund balance as follows:

Average balance as % of revenue Interest Rate Maximum Payback Period 9% to 10% State prime rate +0% 10 years 7% to 9% State prime rate +2% 5 years 5% to 7% State prime rate +4% 3 years less than 5% *** Not eligible*** *** Not eligible ***

The statute also states that if multiple cities submit loan requests concurrently, priority will be given to the cities who developed their disaster funds the most.

Proposal: Establish a local government disaster fund and a policy that we will build up both the “rainy day” general fund balance and the disaster fund until both have reached their maximums. Currently, we replenish our rainy day balance when there is an excess of revenue at the end of the fiscal year above budget projections. Instead of putting 100% of this excess into the rainy day fund, consider establishing a policy of putting X% (perhaps in the range of 10-25%) into the disaster fund and the remainder in the rainy day fund. In cases where either fund has reached its maximum, 100% of the excess would go to the other until both have reached their maximum. If there is no excess of revenue beyond projections in a given year, neither fund would receive a contribution that year. PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Minutes 12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 27, 2018 Room 310, Provo City Conference Room 351 W. Center Street, Provo, UT 84601

Agenda (0:00:00)

Roll Call The following elected officials were present: Council Chair Gary Winterton, conducting Council Vice-Chair David Harding Council Member Kay Van Buren Council Member David Sewell Council Member David Knecht Council Member George Stewart Council Member George Handley Excused: Mayor Michelle Kaufusi

Prayer The prayer was given by Hannah Salzl, Policy Analyst.

Business

1. A discussion on the proposed Council Meeting schedule for 2019 (18-104) (0:03:52)

Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director, introduced the tentative 2019 meeting schedule for the Provo Municipal Council. Mr. Strachan highlighted dates when holidays have affected the schedule, as well as election events and other schedule shifts. Mr. Strachan indicated that this schedule would be presented for Council approval at the Council Meeting on December 11, 2018. Presentation only.

2. A presentation on the option for municipalities to create a local government disaster fund (18-096) (0:08:30)

Jona Whitesides, Preparedness Bureau Chief with the Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS), introduced the presentation. Kris Hamlet, Director of the Utah Division of Emergency Management, presented. Utah falls 48th in the nation for federally declared disasters. However, Utah has the potential for catastrophic earthquakes due to fault lines along the Wasatch Front. The DPS has sought to work with the State Legislature to expand the abilities of municipalities to address disaster situations. Following a flood disaster in St. George, leftover funds were used to create a state disaster recovery fund. This fund is for the disposal of state agencies and state budgets affected by working in a disaster scenario to meet unbudgeted needs. There is currently

1 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant about $24 million in this fund. When the State has a surplus, a percentage of the surplus is deposited into this fund. The State Legislature wanted this tool to be available to cities, but for there to be a buy-in component in order to implement some reciprocity in covering the costs to the State. The fund has added some language which gives cities the ability to create a local government disaster fund. The legalities of the statute are somewhat complicated, and the DPS was open to input from Provo City officials to improve the process. The City may put up to 10% of its given revenues into this local disaster fund annually, and any interest generated by the account may be reinvested into the fund. The Ctiy may also withdraw up to 10% from the fund during a given year to address preparedness initiatives.

Mr. Hamlet outlining other parameters of the program. The fund was designed for cities to contribute to the fund for at least five years. Mr. Hamlet took some questions from Councilors and addressed several clarifications about the program and how it works. Mr. Hamlet noted that the legislation looks at the projected revenues of a city. FEMA has encouraged states to do more locally to prepare for natural disasters at the state and local levels. Mitigation and preparedness were important elements in the process to anticipate the impacts of natural disasters.

Mr. Hamlet also outlined the pre-disaster mitigation program. He noted a great program that Salt Lake City runs which focuses on retrofitting homes and structures to bolster habitable buildings against damage from earthquakes. FEMA has put these kinds of programs as a priority and continues to provide funding for those kinds of programs.

Councilor David Knecht asked whether there were a limit to the size of the fund. Councilors discussed the language in the statute, which had a number of ambiguities with the city's ability to put funds into this program.

Councilor George Stewart expressed his view that the electric power grid would be one of the main costs associated with a disaster, and he felt that there was an adequate reserve in place.

Mr. Hamlet explained that earthquakes are one of the largest concerns, but there were also concerns with wildfires, flooding, and other natural disasters. Mr. Hamlet explained that there is typically about a 20% match for utilizing federal funds for disaster recovery. If a disaster were highly catastrophic, the match requirement may be waived, but it was best to plan for a match requirement. Mr. Hamlet explained that the last time Utah had a federally declared disaster was in Box Elder County in 2017 due to winter thaw and related flooding.

Councilor David Harding applauded the federal government's move toward placing responsibility back on local and state agencies. Mr. Harding also applauded the State Legislature for creating the program and encouraging cities’ participation. Mr. Harding suggested that a 5% or 10% proportion would be about $3 million or $6 million; with $30 million in the enterprise fund reserves, he felt the City was in a good position with regard to disaster recovery. He felt that overall, the City was in a good position but it may be advantageous to utilize the program while conditions were positive.

Mr. Strachan gave a policy consideration for Council to consider; the Council could theoretically put the program in place to utilize as a repository for any surplus which exceeded the 25%

2 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant maximum for the general fund. Council Chair Gary Winterton invited Councilors to consider the implications of the program and to continue the conversation among themselves to see whether there was consensus on the process forward regarding a local government disaster fund.

Mr. Knecht felt there was a lot of appeal to the program. Councilor David Sewell felt there was a dual benefit to participating, although further review may be needed after the State legislature clarified requirements. Mr. Sewell felt that if designated funds were not set aside, during a disaster it may be complicated to find the funds among other City funds. Mr. Sewell explained that this program also increased the City's access to low-cost loans from the State. Mr. Stewart felt that was an important question to consider.

Mr. Sewell proposed putting a small percentage of the City’s excess revenue into the disaster recovery fund. During years where there was not an excess, then no money could be added to the fund, but with this process there would be a clear designation. Councilor George Handley suggested a more aggressive policy option would be to earmark a certain amount of the rainy day fund now for the disaster recovery fund if there were enough to start the program. Mr. Sewell said that Representative Curt Oda would be available to speak with the Council and clarify the various aspects of the statute. Mr. Hamlet indicated that there was a bill in progress and he could incorporate feedback from Provo City. Presentation only.

3. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify that unauthorized energy generation shall not receive any rate or bill credits (18-103) (0:42:43)

Travis Ball, Energy Director, presented. He explained that city code outlined requirements for businesses generating power under 25 kW and the proposed ordinance would clarify requirements for those generating power over 25 kW. In a buy-all, sell-all scenario, any energy generated on-site would still be charged at the rate mandated by the primary utility. The ordinance would also address the process for a business engaging in unlicensed self-generation, which would result in the business not being paid for their energy generated and their being disconnected from the network. Mr. Ball explained that this was not a net-metering situation.

In response to a question from Councilor David Harding, Brian Jones, Council Attorney, clarified that this ordinance was a change in what the ordinance said, but was not a change in what the ordinance was intended to do. In Provo City Code 12.03.090, there was a class of customers that may receive a designation from the federal Department of Energy for power generation, but there was a specific process in place for this designation. The ordinance specifies what the purchase price would be for power generated by such entities.

Mr. Ball explained that these changes would be consistent with changes that would be proposed at the Utah Municipal Power Agency Board Meeting on November 28, 2018. Presentation only. This item was anticipated to return to the December 11, 2018 Work and Council Meetings.

4. A presentation about the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce (18-070) (0:49:02)

Rona Rahlf, President of the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce, presented. Councilor David Harding had invited her to share the Chamber's feedback on the housing resolution proposed by

3 https://documents.provo.org/onbaseagendaonline Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant Utah Code

Effective 5/10/2016 53-2a-608 Purposes and criteria for loans. (1) Money in the fund shall be used by the division, as prioritized by the director, only to: (a) provide loans to local government entities for: (i) the costs incurred by a local government entity for providing emergency disaster services as defined in Section 53-2a-602; or (ii) providing any state or local matching funds to secure federal funds or grants related to a declared disaster, as defined in Section 53-2a-602; (b) pay the Division of Finance for the costs of administering the fund, providing loans, and obtaining repayments of loans; and (c) provide funds to state agencies for the costs of responding to a declared disaster. (2) The division shall establish the terms and conditions of the loans and the repayment schedule consistent with the following criteria: (a) the interest rate charged and the maximum payback period on all loans shall be: (i) the state's prime interest rate at the time of loan closing, plus zero percent, with a maximum payback period of 10 years if the applicant has reserved an average of 90% to 100% of the amount authorized in Section 53-2a-605 over the previous five fiscal years; (ii) the state's prime interest rate at the time of loan closing, plus 2%, with a maximum payback period of five years if the applicant has reserved an average of 70% up to 90% of the amount authorized in Section 53-2a-605 over the previous five fiscal years; or (iii) the state's prime interest rate at the time of loan closing, plus 4%, with a maximum payback period of three years if the applicant has reserved an average of 50% up to 70% of the amount authorized in Section 53-2a-605 over the previous five fiscal years; and (b) the division may not authorize a loan from this fund on any terms or conditions to local government entities that have reserved an average of less than 50% of the amount authorized in Section 53-2a-605 over the previous five fiscal years. (3) If the division receives multiple loan applications concurrently, priority shall be given to applicants based on the extent of their participation in the reserve account authorized in Section 53-2a-605.

Enacted by Chapter 134, 2016 General Session

Page 1 Utah Code

Effective 5/10/2016 53-2a-602 Definitions. (1) Unless otherwise defined in this section, the terms that are used in this part mean the same as those terms are defined in Part 1, Emergency Management Act. (2) As used in this part: (a) "Agent of the state" means any representative of a state agency, local agency, or non-profit entity that agrees to provide support to a requesting intrastate or interstate government entity that has declared an emergency or disaster and has requested assistance through the division. (b) "Declared disaster" means one or more events: (i) within the state; (ii) that occur within a limited period of time; (iii) that involve: (A) a significant number of persons being at risk of bodily harm, sickness, or death; or (B) a significant portion of real property at risk of loss; (iv) that are sudden in nature and generally occur less frequently than every three years; and (v) that results in: (A) the president of the United States declaring an emergency or major disaster in the state; (B) the governor declaring a state of emergency under Title 53, Chapter 2a, Part 2, Disaster Response and Recovery Act; or (C) the chief executive officer of a local government declaring a local emergency under Part 2, Disaster Response and Recovery Act. (c) "Disaster recovery account" means the State Disaster Recovery Restricted Account created in Section 53-2a-603. (d) (i) "Emergency disaster services" means: (A) evacuation; (B) shelter; (C) medical triage; (D) emergency transportation; (E) repair of infrastructure; (F) safety services, including fencing or roadblocks; (G) sandbagging; (H) debris removal; (I) temporary bridges; (J) procurement and distribution of food, water, or ice; (K) procurement and deployment of generators; (L) rescue or recovery; (M) emergency protective measures; or (N) services similar to those described in Subsections (2)(d)(i)(A) through (M), as defined by the division by rule, that are generally required in response to a declared disaster. (ii) "Emergency disaster services" does not include: (A) emergency preparedness; or (B) notwithstanding whether or not a county participates in the Wildland Fire Suppression Fund created in Section 65A-8-204, any fire suppression or presuppression costs that may be paid for from the Wildland Fire Suppression Fund if the county participates in the Wildland Fire Suppression Fund.

Page 1 Utah Code

(e) "Emergency preparedness" means the following done for the purpose of being prepared for an emergency as defined by the division by rule made in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act: (i) the purchase of equipment; (ii) the training of personnel; or (iii) the obtaining of a certification. (f) "Governing body" means: (i) for a county, city, or town, the legislative body of the county, city, or town; (ii) for a local district, the board of trustees of the local district; and (iii) for a special service district: (A) the legislative body of the county, city, or town that established the special service district, if no administrative control board has been appointed under Section 17D-1-301; or (B) the administrative control board of the special service district, if an administrative control board has been appointed under Section 17D-1-301. (g) "Local district" means the same as that term is defined in Section 17B-1-102. (h) "Local fund" means a local government disaster fund created in accordance with Section 53-2a-605. (i) "Local government" means: (i) a county; (ii) a city or town; or (iii) a local district or special service district that: (A) operates a water system; (B) provides transportation service; (C) provides, operates, and maintains correctional and rehabilitative facilities and programs for municipal, state, and other detainees and prisoners; (D) provides consolidated 911 and emergency dispatch service; (E) operates an airport; or (F) operates a sewage system. (j) "Special fund" means a fund other than a general fund of a local government that is created for a special purpose established under the uniform system of budgeting, accounting, and reporting. (k) "Special service district" means the same as that term is defined in Section 17D-1-102. (l) "State's prime interest rate" means the average interest rate paid by the state on general obligation bonds issued during the most recent fiscal year in which bonds were sold.

Amended by Chapter 83, 2016 General Session Amended by Chapter 134, 2016 General Session

Page 2 Utah Code

Effective 5/12/2015 53-2a-605 Local government disaster funds. (1) (a) Subject to this section and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Title 10, Utah Municipal Code, or Title 17, Counties, Title 17B, Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Local Districts, or Title 17D, Chapter 1, Special Service District Act, the governing body of a local government may create and maintain by ordinance a special fund known as a local government disaster fund. (b) The local fund shall consist of: (i) subject to the limitations of this section, money transferred to it in accordance with Subsection (2); (ii) any other public or private money received by the local government that is: (A) given to the local government for purposes consistent with this section; and (B) deposited into the local fund at the request of: (I) the governing body of the local government; or (II) the person giving the money; and (iii) interest or income realized from the local fund. (c) Interest or income realized from the local fund shall be deposited into the local fund. (d) Money in a local fund may be: (i) deposited or invested as provided in Section 51-7-11; or (ii) transferred by the local government treasurer to the state treasurer under Section 51-7-5 for the state treasurer's management and control under Title 51, Chapter 7, State Money Management Act. (e) (i) The money in a local fund may accumulate from year to year until the local government governing body determines to spend any money in the local fund for one or more of the purposes specified in Subsection (3). (ii) Money in a local fund at the end of a fiscal year: (A) shall remain in the local fund for future use; and (B) may not be transferred to any other fund or used for any other purpose. (2) The amounts transferred to a local fund may not exceed 10% of the total estimated revenues of the local government for the current fiscal period that are not restricted or otherwise obligated. (3) Money in the fund may only be used to fund the services and activities of the local government creating the local fund in response to: (a) a declared disaster within the boundaries of the local government; (b) the aftermath of the disaster that gave rise to a declared disaster within the boundaries of the local government; and (c) subject to Subsection (5), emergency preparedness. (4) (a) A local fund is subject to this part and: (i) in the case of a town, Title 10, Chapter 5, Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Towns, except that: (A) in addition to the funds listed in Section 10-5-106, the mayor shall prepare a budget for the local fund; (B) Section 10-5-119 addressing termination of special funds does not apply to a local fund; and (C) the council of the town may not authorize an interfund loan under Section 10-5-120 from the local fund;

Page 1 Utah Code

(ii) in the case of a city, Title 10, Chapter 6, Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities, except that: (A) in addition to the funds listed in Section 10-6-109, the mayor shall prepare a budget for the local fund; (B) Section 10-6-131 addressing termination of special funds does not apply to a local fund; and (C) the governing body of the city may not authorize an interfund loan under Section 10-6-132 from the local fund; and (iii) in the case of a county, Title 17, Chapter 36, Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Counties, except that: (A) Section 17-36-29 addressing termination of special funds does not apply to a local fund; and (B) the governing body of the county may not authorize an interfund loan under Section 17-36-30 from the local fund; (iv) in the case of a local district or special service district, Title 17B, Chapter 1, Part 6, Fiscal Procedures for Local Districts, except that: (A) Section 17B-1-625, addressing termination of a special fund, does not apply to a local fund; and (B) the governing body of the local district or special service district may not authorize an interfund loan under Section 17B-1-626 from the local fund; and (v) in the case of an interlocal entity, Title 11, Chapter 13, Part 5, Fiscal Procedures for Interlocal Entities, except for the following provisions: (A) Section 11-13-522 addressing termination of a special fund does not apply to a local fund; and (B) the governing board of the interlocal entity may not authorize an interfund loan under Section 11-13-523 from the local fund. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(a), transfers of money to a local fund or the accumulation of money in a local fund do not affect any limits on fund balances, net assets, or the accumulation of retained earnings in any of the following of a local government: (i) a general fund; (ii) an enterprise fund; (iii) an internal service fund; or (iv) any other fund. (5) (a) A local government may not expend during a fiscal year more than 10% of the money budgeted to be deposited into a local fund during that fiscal year for emergency preparedness. (b) The amount described in Subsection (5)(a) shall be determined before the adoption of the tentative budget.

Amended by Chapter 265, 2015 General Session

Page 2 PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: JMAGNESS Department: Council Requested Meeting Date: 06-01-2021

SUBJECT: A presentation regarding Property Taxes (21-064)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation and discussion; the Council may consider action by majority vote.

BACKGROUND: As part of the FY 2022 budget discussions, a suggestion was made that additional police officers could be added if the city were to increase property tax revenues by increasing the certified tax rate by some amount. It was noted that property taxes have not been raised for several years and that the property tax portion of total general revenues is diminishing in significance.

Staff will present an overview of state laws governing property tax increases (Truth in Taxation), an estimation of the amount of property in Provo City that is subject to property tax, and projected revenues a rate increase would generate.

Should the Council wish to increase property tax revenues by increasing the certified tax rates, a motion to make the changes and to initiate a truth in taxation process will be needed.

FISCAL IMPACT: Depends on the decision on the Council.

PRESENTER’S NAME: Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 30 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 21-064

1 PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: JMAGNESS Department: Council Requested Meeting Date:

SUBJECT: A discussion regarding the Residential Dwelling License Program. (21-063)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation and discussion; the Council may consider action by majority vote.

BACKGROUND: Currently the cost for a Residential Dwelling License (RDL)is $20.00 (twenty dollars) and no more than $60.00 (sixty dollars), the difference is determined by how many properties a license holder has. There are 2,713 RDL’s in Provo that are projected to generate $150,000 for FY 2022. The cost associated with administering the program is estimated to be $100.00 (one hundred dollars) per license. We are asking the Council for direction in reevaluating how cost for the licenses are assigned to ensure that the program is operating at a cost recovery model and not taking funds from the General Fund.

FISCAL IMPACT: Possible increase to the General fund depending on the amount of increase for the license.

PRESENTER’S NAME: John Magness, Policy Analyst

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 30 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 21-063

1 PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: JMAGNESS Department: Council Requested Meeting Date: 06-01-2021

SUBJECT: A discussion regarding Budget Intent Statements for FY 2022. (21-015)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation and discussion; the Council may consider action by majority vote.

BACKGROUND: The Council has had previous discussions concerning budget priorities, carryover funds, supplemental requests and the use of federal recovery funds. In creating a Budget Intent Statement, it gives the public and the administration an understanding how the Council thinks revenue should be spent and the priority given to programs within the City. In this item, staff will present and discuss the various parts of the proposed budget ordinance and seek direction on any changes requested or proposed by the Council. Any additional intentions should also be discussed at this time.

FISCAL IMPACT: TBD

PRESENTER’S NAME: Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 20 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 250-015

1 PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: JMAGNESS Department: Council Requested Meeting Date:

SUBJECT: A presentation from the Foothills Protection Committee. (21-068)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation and discussion; the Council may consider action by majority vote.

BACKGROUND: Currently, Community and Neighborhood Services is overseeing a General Plan update. Recently the Council approved an expenditure to expand the Scope of Work for the contractor on the General Plan to include a section on Sustainability. The Foothills Protection Committee is making a presentation regarding the possible expansion of the Scope of Work for the General Plan to included sections coving plans for the Foothills and Canyons, Gateways, and possibly Lakes and Rivers.

FISCAL IMPACT: TBD

PRESENTER’S NAME: Robert Mills, Planning Supervisor

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 45 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 21-068

1 PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Submitter: JMAGNESS Department: Council Requested Meeting Date:

SUBJECT: A presentation regarding the Intent Statement for the Southwest Area Plan. (21-067)

RECOMMENDATION: Presentation and discussion; the Council may consider action by majority vote.

BACKGROUND: This will be a discussion about the Southwest Area Plan and the policies developed by the Westside Planning Committee. As development keeps happening in the Southwest Area of Provo we need to look at the policies that govern this area these include the General Plan, Westside Development Policies and the Southwest Area Future Land Use Map, to ensure that development in this area proceeds in a manner that is consistent with adopted Council Policies.

FISCAL IMPACT: none

PRESENTER’S NAME: Counclor Dave Harding

REQUESTED DURATION OF PRESENTATION: 30 minutes

COMPATIBILITY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES:

CITYVIEW OR ISSUE FILE NUMBER: 21-067

1 2/28/2017 The Westside Planning Committee, after considering comments received at the stakeholders’ meeting held 2/16/2017 and online at Open City Hall concerning draft policy statements, amended and approved the policy statements herein.

Westside Development Policies As Recommended by the Westside Planning Committee

Purpose The purpose of these policies is to guide development in southwest Provo in order to promote a smart, sustainable, vibrant community that offers a high quality of life for current and future residents while respecting Provo’s agricultural heritage.

Policies 1. Preserve Provo’s agricultural heritage and support agriculture for as long as farmers choose to farm: a. Approve the creation of a Provo Agricultural Commission to support local commercial and non- commercial agriculture. b. Request that the Provo Agricultural Commission identify obstacles to the success of current and prospective farmers, including non-traditional farmers, and recommend ways to remove these obstacles. c. Request that the Provo Agricultural Commission explore tools for agricultural preservation. These tools may include: conservation easements, transfers of development rights, community land trusts, a privately funded farmland trust fund, and Utah’s “Agricultural Protection” Program.1 d. Encourage the Provo Agricultural Commission to improve the productive use of agricultural land. e. Encourage Development-Supported Agriculture2 and Agritourism3 to help preserve Provo’s agricultural heritage. f. Encourage our state lawmakers to increase funding for the LeRay McAllister Fund.4 g. Protect agricultural operations from the impact of residential encroachment. h. Identify agricultural land owners, have their properties listed on developmental maps to better avoid encroachment onto agricultural lands.

1 Utah Code Title 17 Chapter 41- a law that helps preserve vital food-producing land. 2 Development-supported agriculture (DSA) is a movement in real estate development that preserves and invests in agricultural land use. As farmland is lost due to the challenging economics of farming and the pressures of the real estate industry, DSA attempts to reconcile the need for development with the need to preserve agricultural land. 3 Agritourism involves any agriculturally based operation or activity that brings visitors to a farm or ranch. 4 The LeRay McAllister Critical Land Conservation Fund is an incentive program providing grants to encourage communities and landowners to work together to conserve their critical lands. The fund targets lands that are deemed important to the community such as agricultural lands, wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and other culturally or historically unique landscapes. 2. Preserve and Create Quality Usable Open Space a. Update and utilize the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to provide developed parks and open space that satisfy a range of leisure and recreational needs. b. Preserve and develop natural amenities for sustained enjoyment by the community. Examples include the Provo River and banks, the Provo River Delta, Utah Lake shoreline, and wetlands. c. Provide parks and trails of different uses and sizes.5 d. Encourage agritourism as a means to provide agriculturally themed open space. e. Useable neighborhood open space should be an integral part of neighborhood design or combined to serve larger areas than the immediate development.

3. Encourage Sustainable Residential Development Patterns a. Establish ordinances to require a mix of housing types, lot sizes, and designs to accommodate various stages of life. b. Detached single-family homes should be the predominant housing type and the use of other types should augment and not detract from the single-family feel of the area. c. Housing types should be mixed without barriers separating types or densities. d. The scale and style of residences should enhance the surrounding area, regardless of housing type. e. Create design standards for important road corridors in southwest Provo. f. The overall density of the area should average four units to the acre.

4. Promote Development of Commercial Amenities and Employment Opportunities in Appropriate Locations a. Regional commercial uses may be located adjacent to the I-15 or within the Airport Related Activities district. b. Neighborhood and Community Shopping zones may be located at or adjacent to arterial or collector streets. c. Design, scale and intensity of commercial zones or properties should transition to adjacent residential uses to minimize impact on the residential use.

5. Create a Robust Transportation Network

a. Update the Transportation Master Plan to accommodate the changing needs of southwest Provo. b. The planned collector road network should be built as development occurs. No development should interrupt the collector road network. c. Update the Provo City Major & Local Street Plan to include a network of proposed local streets to ensure connectivity in between the land between collector and arterial roads.

5 Examples include neighborhood parks, pedestrian, equestrian, and bike trails, community/school gardens, a regional sports park, a farm-themed park, and the Provo Beach concept. d. Utilize Complete Streets Policies to ensure all modes of transportation are considered. e. Utilize the Transportation Master Plan to identify corridors that should have sufficient right-of- way to accommodate public transit. f. Lakeview Parkway is to be maintained as an arterial roadway with limited access.

6. Require Proper Integration and Sequencing of Development a. The full block should be considered when rezoning away from agricultural uses b. Conceptual Integrated Development Plan for the entire block should be required for zone change applications. c. Discourage rezoning of land that is surrounded by agricultural zoning.6 d. Development may be limited or deferred depending on the availability of adequate municipal infrastructure (such as sewer, storm drainage, water, etc.).

7. Restrict Development in Wetlands and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas a. Land south and west of the Lake View Parkway up to Center Street (excepting the airport protection area) should be preserved for open space and agricultural uses. b. No development should occur in flood-prone areas unless the risks can be mitigated. Plans for mitigation should be reviewed for adequacy by the Provo City Engineer and any State or Federal regulatory agency with jurisdiction to ensure that sensitive lands are appropriately developed to protect people, property or significant natural features. Mitigation plans should not adversely affect adjacent properties.

6 That is, no leap frog development. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 1 of 50

1.2 Background

SECTION HEADINGS 1.2.1 Relationship between the General Plan Map and Land Use Element 1.2.2 Relationship between Land Use Policies and Zoning 1.2.3 Urban Growth 1.2.4 Urban Design 1.2.5 Design Standards 1.2.6 Design Corridors Approved by Ordinance 1.2.7 General Plan Designations 1.2.8 Zoning and Development Policy Changes 1.2.9 Key Land Use Policies (by Area and Neighborhood) 1.2.10 Additional Tools for Urban Growth and Land Use Annexation Policy Plan

1.2.1 Relationship between the General Plan Map and Land Use Element

The General Plan Map is developed from the policies in this chapter, but is not intended to be used as a stand- alone reference. The neighborhood policies in this chapter are intended to be used in conjunction with the map. Where there seems to be a discrepancy between the two, the written policies generally take precedence.

However, in some cases, a restrictive map designation serves as notice that physical limitations or hazards may be associated with development of some lands. These are often found in the areas designated as Developmentally Sensitive (DS), described further in Chapter 4, Natural Resources and Environment, although a parcel’s location outside the DS boundaries cannot be taken as assurance that similar characteristics do not exist on that property. Any lands with specific characteristics, whether located within this generally defined DS boundary or outside the boundary, will be subject to Title 15 of the Provo City Code, relating to Sensitive Lands.

Likewise, the broad-brush application of the DS map designations does not, in itself, indicate that a specific parcel of land within this boundary is not suitable for development – or even that there will be problems associated with the development of a specific area within or comprising one parcel or multiple parcels. It does indicate a higher likelihood that additional studies may be required prior to determining whether the land can or should be developed. It also indicates a higher likelihood that special requirements and restrictions may apply to any development that is approved on at least some portion of these lands.

Existing zoning designations govern the use of land within Provo City limits until a change in land use is approved through the rezoning of property. Written policies in this element provide additional insight and guidance for evaluating zone change proposals.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 2 of 50

1.2.2 Relationship between Land Use Policies and Zoning

Land use designations on the General Plan Map are often not indicative of the current zoning on the land and may or may not be clearly indicative of an appropriate zoning for future use. The Council should use discretion in determining the most appropriate zone district in relation to the guidance available.

Zoning is legislation that regulates the use and development of property. The General Plan Map designation does not change current zone regulations; rather it informs interested parties of what types of land uses may be considered for future development. The written policies of this chapter are consulted in the analysis of such proposals, but with consideration for the uses and the development parameters of the current zone applied to the property.

General Plan Map designations and General Plan policies included in this chapter may strongly influence zone change requests. The rezoning of property is a legislative act that amends the Zoning Map, which is an integral part of Title 14, Zoning, of the Provo City Code.

Proposed changes in zoning that do not comply with the General Plan will be considered only after making a decision on an application to amend the General Plan. The General Plan should be substantially reliable as a guide to land use to those who may reside in an area or who may be considering purchasing or investing in an area of the City.

General Plan Map designations are broader or more specific depending on areas of the City and the level of concern over specific parcels of property. These differences may be influenced by the density of the area, the special character of an area, a development aspect unique to a parcel, or some other concern that warrants a greater level of specificity in defining land use boundaries. For this reason, there may be times when the Council will use its discretion in determining that a parcel complies with the generalized boundary of a recommended land use designation, or with the overall guiding principles of the General Plan, and may make zoning decisions without the requirement for a General Plan amendment.

1.2.3 Urban Growth

Provo’s population growth, and the resulting demands on the built environment, continues at a steady rate. Much of Provo is developed, with limited areas for new construction (particularly east of I-15).

Redevelopment (replacing or rehabilitating existing development) and infill development (making use of confined parcels of land surrounded by existing development) are useful tools in these areas for meeting the City’s current and expanding needs for housing, businesses, schools, medical facilities, recreational spaces and other uses.

Provo has geographic limitations, which can limit traditional growth patterns. The Wasatch Range blocks the City’s physical growth to the east, and Utah Lake limits physical growth to the west and southwest. Orem and Springville block physical growth to the north and south, though there are still some areas within Provo’s influence that can be annexed to Provo. If it is the desire of Provo to accommodate some of the projected population increase for Utah County, a variety of housing products and forms will need to be considered due to the lack of available raw land.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 3 of 50

Provo is a mature city with an established infrastructure. Nevertheless, the City must balance demands for development with cost effective capacity in meeting the needs for water, sewer, storm drainage, flood protection, fire protection, police services, street construction and maintenance, and other aspects of public support for the City’s residents and businesses. Infill development may be more timely and appropriate in order to provide for logical growth of the built environment and control of costs to taxpayers for expansion of municipal services. Those constraints on new growth are particularly important when considering the mountainous bench areas to the east and on the agricultural lands of west Provo.

The 5,200-foot elevation from mean sea level is generally considered the approximate boundary for urban development along the eastern benches of the City. This corresponds roughly with the natural gas easement that traverses the City. A system of trails for recreation and access to the canyons is being developed along the easements and service roads through this area. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail is envisioned to someday provide nearly continuous trail access from Logan to Spanish Fork along the ancient “shoreline” Lake Bonneville. Efforts should be made to ensure that public access to these trails and canyons is maintained.

For the most part, lands above these elevations become too steep for development (usually 25 percent slope and greater) and are fraught with geologic hazards and natural drainage ways that should not be disturbed.

Slopes of 30 percent or greater are restricted from development by Chapter 15.05 of the Provo City Code, relating to Sensitive Lands. These areas are designated as Developmentally Sensitive (DS) in the General Plan. Providing services to these areas brings inordinate costs or, in some cases, is simply impossible. Residents in these areas may be at risk because of the natural hazards and the City’s limited capability to provide services to these areas. The DS designation and related physical constraints of the land are further discussed in Chapter 4, Natural Resources and Environment.

The natural boundary to urban growth on the west side has historically corresponded roughly with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) definition of the “AE” flood zone, as defined on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Policies intended to ensure that infrastructure for development can be extended in a logical manner without “leap-frogging” (expanding to noncontiguous properties by jumping over undeveloped land and areas without municipal services) will continue to influence decisions about the use of agricultural lands and properties west of I-15 for the foreseeable future. These areas include those designated as DS on the General Plan Map.

For sustained growth, the demands on our natural and manmade resources should be in balance with the ability of those resources to be replenished. The City needs to wisely utilize its available resources; conserving where necessary and replenishing where possible. Having a strong agricultural base may become extremely important to the City if normal interurban or interstate lines of transportation are disrupted, if weather conditions adversely affect major agricultural suppliers, or if the supply of fossil fuels is suddenly disrupted.

The protection of some rural, natural, and even “wild” places in urban areas is something Provo’s residents seek, almost as a refuge from the urbanization that is taking place all around the City. Many communities that have set out to preserve significant open spaces on their periphery, and to guide development into more compact urban corridors, have found that their communities have become even more attractive places to live and work. Many high-tech companies gravitate to those types of communities for the quality of life.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 4 of 50

1.2.4 Urban Design

Urban design standards for commercial and residential developments should be implemented to promote neighborhood conservation, maintain property values, and enhance Provo City’s appearance. Design standards should promote public health, safety, and general welfare. Design standards should regulate landscaping, signage, architecture, scale, setbacks, height, massing, and the overall style character of developments in order to help protect important views, significant architectural resources, and improve the overall built environment.

Urban design should also include the overall contextual design of neighborhoods and streets to promote safe and convenient walkability and bike-ability where possible. Easy access to public transportation and basic shopping needs to cut down on automobile traffic and encourage alternative modes of transportation is a positive outcome of effective urban design.

Design Review Process

A Design Review Committee (DRC), consisting of professionals in various fields of design, architecture, and planning, was established to address general design relationships and site planning principles that are applicable citywide. District guidelines, based on existing design characteristics, as well as needs observed in particular districts, are also addressed in design review.

The design review process seeks to ensure compatibility of structures in districts. This can be achieved by repeating building lines and surface treatment and by requiring a degree of uniformity in detail, scale, proportion, textures, materials, color, and building form. Harmony of design is sought to protect visual patterns of the community and to enhance visual relationships and transitions between older and newer buildings.

Visible Design Influences in Provo

Provo has not developed as a design-oriented community, nor does it have thematic districts; however, areas with strong design elements do exist. Developments and infrastructure improvements have helped to establish a character for localized regions of the City and have, in some cases, influenced the design of new projects occurring on nearby properties. Favorable examples of urban design elements may be seen in the Jamestown office park region along N. University Avenue, the pedestrian-oriented historic downtown Provo region of the Central Business District, the Provo City Old Academy Library, the Shops at Riverwoods and Riverwoods Research and Business Park, and the South University Avenue/East Bay planned commercial and industrial complex.

Landscaping is a common element that enhances the appearance of any site. Best practices for incorporating water-wise landscape design should be used where and when possible. Plantings and design, including endemic and drought-tolerant plants, should be utilized to reduce unnecessary water use.

The absence of freestanding signs and the use of small-scale signs reduce the amount of visual clutter. Architectural design has improved the appearance of buildings that could otherwise be mundane. Urban design is not limited to exterior design of buildings. It takes into account the appearance of the entire built environment and all aspects of development.

The implementation of urban design requirements will establish citywide design standards to beautify the City as a whole and will help to carry out the values, goals, and objectives of Provo’s citizens.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 5 of 50

1.2.5 Design Standards

The following categories are to be implemented in some type of policy, regulation, or ordinance to establish urban design criteria within Provo City. Design elements should promote public health, safety, and general welfare while serving the general interest of the public. Policies should be implemented in a timely fashion to encourage the style of development requested by the general citizenry.

Landscaping

Landscaping adds aesthetic qualities to the built environment. Without trees, shrubs, grass, and other greenery, the environment may be dull and unattractive. Landscaping improves the look and feel of the community. It softens hard surfaces, adds color and visual contrast, provides pedestrian appeal and comfort, creates human scale along large-scale building faces, screens parking or mechanical areas, provides transition between uses, and provides shade and cooling in urban areas. To avoid becoming a concrete and asphalt-paved community, the City should require developments to meet landscaping standards.

Signs

Without restrictions, signs can become garish and overbearing. Provo City has a sign ordinance, but further steps need to be taken to improve the appearance of signs throughout the city. Steps need to be taken to improve the desirability of monument signs. Signs should be required to reflect the building’s architecture and complement landscaped areas. Billboards should be removed from developed sites.

Construction

Incentives that encourage diversity in appearance (material, height, form) in multi-structure projects need to be provided. While diversity is encouraged, compatibility needs to exist in architecture and themes. Multi-structure projects that could benefit from incentives include commercial, multiple-family, and one-family residential subdivisions. New construction in older, developed areas should be sympathetic to existing form, color, material, style, and scale. Remodels and additions should also be sympathetic to form, color, material, style, and scale of the existing structure. However, there may be a few areas of the city where there are no aesthetic qualities. In these areas, a new design or style may benefit the community and offer diversity in theme, form, color, material, style, and scale.

1.2.6 Design Corridors Approved by Ordinance

Design corridors preserve the aesthetic integrity of an area by imposing criteria for the appearance and design of buildings within the corridor. In 1997, twelve design corridors were proposed to improve design and beautify the city; the list has since been expanded to fourteen. Map 1.1 – Design Corridors Map shows the current and proposed design corridors for Provo. As Table 1.1, Current Design Corridors, indicates, five design corridors have been implemented by ordinance. The design corridors should be comprehensively evaluated and amended, where appropriate. As these corridors typically straddle neighborhood boundaries, amendments should be developed to all design corridors that will make meaningful connections between neighborhoods.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 6 of 50

TABLE 1.1 – CURRENT DESIGN CORRIDORS

Design Corridor Location of Design Corridor

North University Avenue 500 North to 960 North

North University Avenue Riverbottoms 2230 North to the mouth of Provo Canyon

West Center Street Interstate 15 to Utah Lake

South State Street 300 South to Highway 75

East Center Street 200 East to Roundabout at Seven Peaks Boulevard

Proposed—Standards to Be Developed

Listed below, in Table 1.2, Proposed Design Corridors, are design corridors that still need implementation. Some of the proposed corridors are dilapidated and there are no aesthetic qualities to maintain. In these corridors, it is hoped that attractive, uniform design will aid redevelopment efforts. Each corridor will be established with design requirements specific to that corridor. Developments in these corridors will be subject to design review. Corridors at City entryways will have logos, landscaping, and welcome signs. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) rights-of-way also need to be beautified, but are subject to special regulations and approvals through the State of Utah.

TABLE 1.2 – PROPOSED DESIGN CORRIDORS

Design Corridor Approximate Location of Design Corridor

University Parkway University Avenue to City Boundary

North State Street 1230 North to City Boundary

South University Avenue 600 South to Interstate 15

Downtown University Avenue 500 North to 600 South

500 West 300 South to 1230 North

Center Street 1100 West to 200 East

4800 North University Avenue to City Boundary

3700 North University Avenue to City Boundary

300 South 500 West to 850 East

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 7 of 50

TABLE 1.2 – PROPOSED DESIGN CORRIDORS

Design Corridor Approximate Location of Design Corridor

Columbia Lane 500 West to 1200 West/City Boundary

Geneva Road Center Street to 2000 North/City Boundary

1.2.7 General Plan Designations

Table 1.3, General Plan Land Use Designations, shows the names and acronyms of the land use designations as used on the General Plan Land Use Map. It also shows the zoning districts that may be allowed in the various land use designations. When property is annexed to the city, the property annexed is zoned to the lowest density or intensity zone allowed under that land use designation.

For order of lowest to highest density or intensity of zones, please refer to Table 1.3, General Plan Land Use Designations.

TABLE 1.3 – GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Designation Zones

Developmentally Sensitive (DS) A1.40 when annexing to Provo City. Lands currently within City limits retain their current zoning designations, but are designated as DS on the City General Plan Map to denote the need for additional studies needed to determine if lands can or should support new development or redevelopment.

Agricultural (A) A1.40, A1.20, A1.10, A1.5, A1.1, and RA

Residential (R) R1.20, R1.15, R1.10, R1.9, R1.8, R1.7, R1.6, RC, RM, R2, R2.5, R3, R4, R5, SDP1, SDP2, LDR, MDR, HDR, CHDR, and PRO-R or PRO-A

Public Facilities (PF) PF

Commercial (C) SSC, PO, SC1, SC2, SC3, CA, CBD, CG, MP, CM, PIC, and PRO-C

Industrial (I) FI, PIC, M1, and M2

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 8 of 50

TABLE 1.3 – GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Mixed-Use (M) PRO and future zoning districts tailored for this designation

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) ITOD and future zoning districts tailored for this designation

Downtown Planning Area (D) CBD and future zoning districts tailored for this designation

Airport Related Activities (AR) PIC, M1 and future zoning districts tailored for this designation

Using the above General Plan Land Use Designations in Table 1.3, Table 1.4, Acres of General Plan Land Use Designations, shows the acres of land for each category as proposed on the General Plan Map.

TABLE 1.4 – ACRES OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Designation Acres without Seven Peaks Acres with Seven Peaks Annexation Annexation

Agricultural (A) 9,508 (36.4%) 16,734 (50.2%)

Residential (R) 8,748 (33.5%) 8,748 (26.2%)

Public Facilities (PF) 3,594 (13.8%) 3,594 (10.8%)

Commercial (C) 821 (3.1%) 821 (2.5%)

Industrial (I) 1,651 (6.3%) 1,651 (5.0%)

Mixed-Use (M) 528 (2.0%) 528 (1.6%)

Transit Oriented Development 350 (1.3%) 350 (1.0%) (TOD)

Downtown Planning Area (D) 268 (1%) 268 (0.8%)

Airport Related Activities (AR) 651 (2.5%) 651 (2%)

Total 26,120 33,345

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 9 of 50

1.2.8 Zoning and Development Policy Changes

This subsection identifies several major issues Provo is facing and sets forth goals, objectives, and specific actions to deal with these issues. Refinements in overall build-out have been modified downward as a result of the scarcity of developable land, politically unacceptable changes in the quality of life, and the adequacy of public facilities.

Protecting Viable One-Family Neighborhoods, while Meeting the Need for Affordable Owner-Occupied Housing

Past City policies of rezoning older neighborhoods for multifamily housing created a hodgepodge of densities in some central city neighborhoods. Potential homeowners have to compete with outside investors who are willing to pay duplex, triplex, and four-plex prices for homes. As a result, these once affordable homes are being priced outside the reach of many homebuyers.

Apartment licensing was started in 2003 to help enforce existing occupancy requirements. The object of apartment licensing is to make sure all rentals are legal, safe, and have sufficient parking. Zoning verification is part of the licensing process and can identify units that were illegally, and often unsafely, created. Landlords must also provide the name of a responsible agent within 20 miles of the rental, which helps with any enforcement issues. In the end, legal and safe rentals make things better for renters, as well as for homeowners, both of whom reside in the same neighborhood. NeighborWorks of Provo, Provo Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity, and other interested groups have combined forces and are working with the Redevelopment Agency to provide new and refurbished housing units for families desiring to stay in, or move to, the Pioneer neighborhoods. Residents of these neighborhoods have also made a positive difference by working with the Community Oriented Policing (COP) program and by forming Neighborhood Watch organizations.

In addition to the Pioneer Neighborhoods, other neighborhoods are also struggling and have requested that homebuyer assistance programs be made available outside the current boundaries for these programs.

Finding Ways to Reduce the Exponential Growth of Automobile Traffic

In many neighborhoods, the number of vehicle trips made by households exceeds national averages. Provo’s development pattern has historically segregated land use activities, causing reliance on the automobile which probably will not change significantly unless area-specific plans are adopted and implemented that facilitate reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However, in developing and redeveloping areas, changes in development patterns—such as a mix of uses and modern housing alternatives—could help decrease automobile traffic. Much can be done to encourage pedestrian travel, bicycle usage, and other forms of transportation.

Efforts to reduce commuter traffic to locations of employment, commerce, and major educational institutions are likely to be most effective in automobile trip reduction. New public transit options such as FrontRunner and Utah Valley Express (UVX), the bus rapid transit system, provide increased opportunities for decreased automobile dependence. Both residents and nonresidents benefit from increased transit usage through reduced traffic congestion and reduced emissions.

Transit Oriented Development

Provo’s Intermodal Center and UVX route have great potential to combine transit ridership and higher-density residential and commercial development in a development pattern known as Transit Oriented Development

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 10 of 50

(TOD), which is a significant opportunity to decrease local and regional vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion. The Mountainland Association of Governments – which helps facilitates regional transportation planning – has indicated the UVX line may be upgraded to light rail in the future if warranted.

The Interim Transit Oriented Development (ITOD) zone around the intermodal center sets the stage for this development pattern. Future TOD areas should be planned and tailored for selected bus-rapid transit station areas. Special attention should be given to each TOD plan and regulating zone to:

• Determine the appropriate mix and intensity of residential and commercial development near UVX stations.

• Be cognizant of creating an appropriate transition from UVX stations to established neighborhoods using transitional zoning standards in building form, mass and scale.

• Define the desired urban form with emphasis on enhancing the pedestrian scale and relationship to the planned environment through carefully articulated form and design standards.

• Enhance transit ridership through carefully sited retail locations, civic and open spaces, and density.

• Reduce the need for parking and automobile ownership.

• Enhance additional alternative transit modes such as pedestrian, bicycle and bike and car-sharing facilities to FrontRunner and UVX stations.

Transit Oriented Planning Areas are identified on the General Plan Map as TOD.

Mixed-Use Development Areas

Occasionally areas within the General Plan call out mixed-use (commercial and residential) development areas that currently have limited access to alternative transit options such as bus and bike facilities. Reductions in parking and automobile facilities in these areas should be augmented by development of alternative transit options along with a traffic demand management plan. However, these mixed-use planning areas, like TOD, should:

• Determine the appropriate mix and intensity of residential and commercial development near future determined neighborhood centers.

• Be cognizant of creating an appropriate transition from neighborhood centers to established neighborhoods using transitional zoning standards in building form, mass and scale.

• Define the desired urban form with emphasis on enhancing the pedestrian scale and relationship to the planned environment through carefully articulated form and design standards.

• Enhance transit ridership, where available, through carefully sited retail locations, civic and open spaces and density.

• Enhance additional alternative transit modes such as local bus service, pedestrian, bicycle, and car- sharing facilities.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 11 of 50

Within newly developing areas, careful attention to placement of housing types, commercial and public services, and employment, in relation to each other and in relation to key transportation corridors, helps to reduce the resulting need for excessive automotive trips. Throughout the city, much can be done to encourage walking and bicycling as a primary means of transportation and to access transit and for travel independent of transit.

Protecting Historic Neighborhood Character

The mix of land uses, density, and design affect neighborhood character. Historically significant design themes should be preserved through rehabilitation and protection of significant existing properties. New construction should be compatible with existing design themes in an area. Provo City’s Design Review Committee is raising the level of awareness of design issues, and quality projects are being constructed because of this awareness. The Landmarks Commission is identifying properties worthy of preservation, finding ways to provide preservation incentives, and protecting historic properties.

Promoting Safe Development, Promoting Open Space Preservation, and Protecting Public Access to Recreational Areas in the Foothills

Current policies regarding hillside development should be strictly enforced and periodically reevaluated to ensure public services are not strained, homes are safe, and access to open space is preserved.

Increasing the Tax Base through Commercial Development

Residential development requires more services than property taxes and user fees provide. This is also true of many institutional land uses, such as churches and schools. To offset this, opportunities to establish and sustain revenue-producing uses, or to revitalize old uses, need to be found. Provo City should be a “full service” community, providing consumer choices and convenient shopping opportunities.

Replacing and/or Consolidating Neighborhood Plans Adopted Since 1977

Lacking resources to revise the 1977 General Plan, the City adopted neighborhood plans. They were substitutes for a comprehensive general plan and filled policy voids. The neighborhood plans resulted in an amalgam of policies, codes, and requirements that proved cumbersome to administer and difficult to interpret. Since that time, Provo City has worked with many stakeholders to provide a more comprehensive General Plan. The creation of that General Plan in 1997 provided one document, ensuring consistency within the document and with overall citywide needs. The comprehensive update to the plan, adopted in 2004, addressed changing needs and circumstances in a number of these neighborhoods, but through a comprehensive, citywide planning process. Since the 2009 General Plan Update, several other neighborhood plans have been adopted. These plans have been incorporated into the General Plan and added as appendices.

For a discussion regarding the population and demographic characteristics of Provo City, please see the Plan’s Population section.

1.2.9 Key Land Use Policies (by Area and Neighborhood)

Neighborhood Structure in Relation to Land Use Policies

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 12 of 50

The City is divided into 34 neighborhoods within five area neighborhood councils. Map 1.2 – Provo City Neighborhoods Map shows the 34 neighborhood boundaries. Map 1.3 – General Plan Map shows the General Plan land use designations for all of Provo. Area Neighborhood Council Maps for the various area neighborhood councils can be found in the map document accompanying the General Plan with its land use designations (Maps 1.4 to 1.8). They include the Central Area Neighborhood Council, Northeast Area Neighborhood Council, Northwest Area Neighborhood Council, Southeast Area Neighborhood Council, and the Southwest Area Neighborhood Council.

Land Use Policies by Area Council and Neighborhood

Map 1.4 - Central Area Neighborhood Council Map (PDF)

CENTRAL AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Downtown Franklin Maeser

Dixon Franklin South North Park

East Bay Joaquin Timp

The Central Area Neighborhood Council consists of nine neighborhoods. They include the Downtown, Dixon, East Bay, Franklin, Franklin South, Joaquin, Maeser, North Park, and Timp. Five of those neighborhoods are defined as Pioneer Neighborhoods; they are Dixon, Franklin, Joaquin, Maeser, and Timp. The Pioneer

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 13 of 50

Neighborhoods are being targeted for neighborhood conservation by protecting one-family structures. By protecting these homes, the City hopes that the real estate market will stabilize so these homes will be preserved for residential uses and to make it possible and desirable for greater numbers of families to move back into these neighborhoods.

While the single-family dwelling should remain the ideal, this emphasis should not exclude a growing demand for housing types for middle-income individuals who often are priced out of larger family homes and not looking to move into student apartments.

Key policies for the Central Area Council are listed below, with policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Central Area neighborhoods, followed by policies of specific importance.

Central Area Guiding Principles, Policies and Goals

The following policies and goals are considered to be shared, to some degree, by all of the Central Area neighborhoods and apply in addition to the policies listed individually for each neighborhood:

1. Residents in the Central Residential Area strongly support establishing and encouraging healthy neighborhoods where residents and property owners live and invest their time, energy, and money because they are family friendly and because financial investment makes economic sense. Actions include:

a. Increasing owner occupancy; and

b. Establishing the one-family dwelling as the principal residential use except in areas designated for higher-density, campus-oriented redevelopment in the Joaquin South Campus Planning Area, the Central Business District zone, Transit Oriented Development zones and areas identified as Transit Oriented Development, Downtown or Mixed-Use on the General Plan Map.

Within Central Residential Area neighborhoods, the City must continue to strongly support and participate in revitalization programs and ensure responsible management of nonresident owned properties through enforcement of the Rental Dwelling Business Licensing ordinance.

2. Strengthen and enhance the Community Oriented Policing, mobile watch, and Neighborhood Watch programs, to increase crime awareness, provide key contact people and a process for reporting crime concerns, and to educate neighbors in neighborhood safety. Report back to the neighborhoods and maintain a responsive relationship between law enforcement and citizens.

3. Pedestrian-friendly design is strongly encouraged to achieve standards of “livability” within urban corridors, with special concern for safety aspects of collector streets for pedestrians and bicyclists, including children using these corridors to access schools, parks, libraries and community-oriented commercial services.

4. Integrity in architecture is strongly urged for any new development or redevelopment; the styles that exist may vary between neighborhoods and within sections of a neighborhood.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 14 of 50

5. Evaluate development proposals against the backdrop of the community goals to promote homeowner occupancy, but also with consideration for the character and general scale of housing on surrounding and nearby properties. Projects should reflect the type of housing and architectural style of the surrounding neighborhood and be compatible with the density of the neighborhood. The benefits of redevelopment should be weighed against the current use of the property in order to achieve the most desirable result, but not as a substitute for good maintenance of existing uses through responsible property management and enforcement of the rental dwelling business- licensing requirements.

6. Ensure that businesses comply with zoning laws.

7. Monitor and enforce truck routes for businesses that impact neighborhoods with illegal truck routing, stacking and standing. Continue to improve infrastructure to provide appropriate and adequate street access for trucking, as an alternative to unsatisfactory routes through residential areas. The need for social service clients to reside near public transit or within walking distance of social service agency offices, places of employment and shopping is acknowledged; yet there is concern with concentrating special populations within a particular neighborhood and the possible inequitable burden placed on a neighborhood’s residents as a result of this concentration of high- impact residents.

8. Plan for appropriate transit-oriented redevelopment (TOD), to focus new development and redevelopment along transit corridors, with (a) appropriate residential densities to support transit use, (b) mixing of uses to reduce the need for vehicle trips, and (c) efficient use of infrastructure, in such a way as to further support a reduced reliance on individual automobile trips.

9. Plan for new street connections to open up large blocks of land that have inadequate access for good development or redevelopment.

10. Consider possibilities for grade separation of streets (including pedestrian walkways) and railroad tracks to:

a. Reduce access issues related to trains blocking streets for buses and automobiles using the intermodal station; and

b. Facilitate pedestrian access between the Amtrak station (located north of the railroad tracks on 600 South, west of Freedom Boulevard) and the intermodal station; and

c. Improve safety and access for other walking and bicycling trips to surrounding dwellings, services, and businesses.

11. Work with the railroads to resolve feasibility issues for transit improvements impacting neighborhoods:

a. Impacts to traffic related to neighborhood access and related to scheduling of buses traveling to and from the planned intermodal station and providing local bus service;

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 15 of 50

b. Safety, noise and aesthetic issues for existing, new and redeveloped residential and business uses in the vicinity of the intermodal station through facility enhancement of the existing heavy rail lines (such as fencing, landscaping, walkways and bicycle paths) and through operations management related to heavy rail use and switching yards; and

c. Work with UTA and railroad companies to improve quiet zones in conjunction with commuter rail.

12. Commercial development fronting an arterial or collector road should not be extended beyond existing property lines to include other lots that do not front on an arterial or collector road. The rear yard of a lot fronting on a local street should not be used to extend the depth of a lot used for commercial purposes.

13. Study the feasibility of establishing a transferable development rights (TDR) program to increase owner occupancy in targeted areas. Potential TDR sending and receiving areas should include, but not be limited to, the North Joaquin, Interim Transit Oriented Development and Center Street areas, including West Center Street to I-15.

14. Structures originally built for residential use on the streets listed below should be allowed to retain commercial uses. A feasibility study should be conducted of historic and other aesthetically valuable structures along arterial and collector roads that have been identified for mixed-use and commercial redevelopment to determine costs and viability of their relocation within adjacent neighborhoods as a tool for neighborhood revitalization programs.

• Center Street: 100 East to 400 East and 600 West to 800 West

• 500 West: 200 North to 500 North

• University Avenue: 500 North to 960 North

15. Freeway-oriented commercial zoning should be initiated for property adjacent to I-15, excepting the property to the southeast of the intersection of 1860 South and I-15. Planning for the area should identify and implement mechanisms to ensure that frontage properties are developed with adequate street access to the north and south.

16. Center Street, between 500 West and the railroad tracks, should be studied and planned to capitalize on the reconstruction of the Interstate 15 Center Street interchange. An analysis of appropriate mixed-use and commercial land uses, densities and other factors should guide the development of any zoning ordinances regulating this area.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Central Area Council are listed below by neighborhood:

Downtown Neighborhood

The Municipal Council adopted the Downtown Master Plan on April 7, 2015, as a component of the General Plan. The Downtown Master Plan provides specific details on the existing conditions of the

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 16 of 50

Downtown Neighborhood. Guidance for future land uses and development patterns are detailed in the Downtown Master Plan. Additionally, it sets forth urban design criteria and gives direction for parks and open space as well as transportation patterns and circulation. The Downtown Master Plan is incorporated into the General Plan by reference, and it should be adhered to as redevelopment projects within the area are reviewed.

Dixon Neighborhood

One of the first areas settled in historic Provo, Dixon Neighborhood is adjacent to Downtown and has a rich heritage. It offers an attractive and sustainable mix of housing focused on long-term homeownership while meeting the needs of a variety of short-term residents, both homeowners and renters. Dixon Neighborhood is a walkable community due to its proximity and convenient access to numerous and varied destinations in the neighborhood and nearby neighborhoods, including parks and trails, schools, churches, libraries, community centers, arts, entertainment and recreation venues, government and business offices, grocery and other shopping opportunities, medical centers and a post office. Close to public transportation, Dixon offers a safe, attractive, atmosphere of large, tree-lined streets, sparse traffic and friendly neighbors. Dixon residents envision the neighborhood as a family-oriented area with one-family households, residing in one-family dwellings, with or without accessory apartments.

Goals of the Neighborhood

1. Increase permanent residents to support community, school and a mix of ages.

2. Improve the housing choices to accommodate the people who do want to stay. Provide good housing options for all life stages.

3. Maintain the family nature of the neighborhood while welcoming people of various household structures. Maintain and improve on the great quality of life while addressing the changing development pressures and resident preferences.

4. Maintain and improve on the historical feel, sense of place, and heritage of the area. Become the premier location for families and individuals looking for a semi-urban lifestyle. (As properties within the neighborhood redevelop, architectural styles to be reflected include Victorian, Victorian Classic, Modern Victorian, Tudor Revival, bungalow, Salt Box, Post-War and Modern Ranch in order to preserve the historic character of the community.)

5. Support and encourage quality businesses that serve the needs of the residents. Improve the pedestrian-friendly aspects of our neighborhood.

6. Improve the sense of safety and well-being of people out in the neighborhood.

7. Improve the transportation options for residents. Improve the feeling of belonging and of mutual concern among residents, particularly across demographic differences.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 17 of 50

8. Improve the two existing schools (Dixon Middle School and Timpanogos Elementary) to meet the demands of new population growth and to replace, or bring up to code, existing structures.

Key Land Use Policies to Achieve the Goals of the Dixon Neighborhood

1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures in areas designated as Residential (R).

2. Restrict commercial uses along Center Street from 500 West to 1000 West from extending into the Residential (R) General Plan designation.

3. Ensure that approved redevelopment projects will move Dixon Neighborhood forward to realize the neighborhood vision.

4. Study the feasibility of placing landscape medians in Center Street from 500 West to 900 West to enhance the proposed design corridor.

5. Study the feasibility of conducting a historic designation survey in the Dixon Neighborhood.

6. If redevelopment of the Fresh Market Commercial Center—located between 600 West and 500 West Center Street—should occur, the plan should provide for a more appropriate transition between commercial and residential uses on 600 West. Loading docks, block walls and other uninviting design is strongly discouraged. Preferably, residential development should front 600 West.

7. Support the Gateway, West Gateway, Freeway Commercial, and Freeway Commercial Two zones, to transform Center Street into a fitting entry into the City and to take full advantage of the prime freeway access of the Draper Lane area. Consider a pedestrian bridge to connect Draper Lane to the rest of the neighborhood near 200 North.

8. Consider Complete Street principles when planning any road maintenance or improvement.

East Bay Neighborhood

1. Restrict the heavy commercial and heavy manufacturing uses from encroaching into the retail shopping areas.

2. Evaluate the Planned Industrial/Commercial Zone to determine whether greater distinction should be drawn between the industrial park development and the commercial development, using East Bay as the foundation for the evaluation. Distinction in principal uses, conditional uses, sign standards and colors, and traffic circulation may be appropriate for greater distinction between the industrial and commercial areas.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 18 of 50

3. Evaluate the East Bay covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for conflicts with the PIC zone language and consider revisions that impact the City’s issuance of permits in conformance with City ordinances that may conflict with the East Bay covenants.

4. The Neighborhood Chair will continue to serve on the East Bay Association Board of Directors during the development phase of East Bay and work toward establishing and maintaining long-term, successful businesses in the planned industrial/commercial park.

5. Continue to encourage quality development and redevelopment near the Provo Towne Centre Mall, including an attractive, well landscaped frontage along University Avenue, to create a more significant entrance to this vital retail anchor. Uses that complement and support the shopping mall should be actively sought and encouraged. Ordinances should be reviewed for uses that could detract from the long-term success of the Provo Towne Centre Mall. Design to facilitate traffic circulation between the mall and these University Avenue businesses should be required during the development process.

Franklin Neighborhood

Neighborhood Vision, Challenges, and Goals

Franklin Neighborhood encompasses the first permanently settled area in what is now Utah County. The Franklin Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the Municipal Council, and it is incorporated in the General Plan by reference. It details existing conditions in the neighborhood and provides additional detail on acceptable future land uses. It should be closely followed as properties redevelop.

Franklin South Neighborhood

Goals of the Franklin South Neighborhood are as follows:

1. Add another access across the railroad tracks;

2. Develop intermodal plans and design all development around the plan;

3. Develop better road infrastructure and access to the neighborhood;

4. Increase homeowner occupancy;

5. Eliminate existing blighted, high-density properties and identify locations for appropriately located and designed public recreational parks to serve this densely populated neighborhood;

6. Complete sidewalks and off-site improvements to provide walkability throughout the neighborhood and adjoining communities.

Challenges for the Neighborhood

Franklin South Neighborhood is one of Provo’s more population-dense neighborhoods, yet lacks recreation facilities for children and families. Children are bussed to schools outside the

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 19 of 50

neighborhood, and central park space is not available. Neighborhood cohesion that builds on the strengths of diversity is also a challenge.

Franklin South needs the cooperative efforts of the City and other agencies to achieve appropriate new development and redevelopment. The neighborhood could significantly benefit from the Provo Redevelopment Agency homebuyer assistance programs and other related neighborhood programs.

Franklin South is the gateway to the Provo Towne Centre Mall. Transportation connections between this neighborhood and the mall and other commercial services should include walkways, bikeways, traffic calming measures, and transit. Improvements for pedestrian access from the neighborhoods to the mall should be identified and implemented.

Key Land Use Policies for the Franklin South Neighborhood

1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures in areas designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map.

2. Encourage an open public place or a small park for any large-scale redevelopment within the neighborhood.

3. New development should be coordinated with the intermodal center and related street network and redevelopment guidelines, including mixed-use, transit-oriented development in appropriate locations. Residential development in mixed-use projects should be developed above the ground floor. Commercial development on ground floors within mixed- use zoning should be carefully sited to ensure maximum success and long-term viability with the neighborhood.

4. Develop a dialogue between citizens, the City and social service agencies.

5. Continue to evaluate how eligible neighborhoods may effectively utilize neighborhood revitalization initiatives, such as Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).

Joaquin Neighborhood

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the Joaquin Neighborhood

The Joaquin neighborhood has long been a desirable area to live in Provo due to its excellent location, peaceful tree-lined streets and rich architectural history, but has experienced special challenges due to its proximity to Brigham Young University. The Joaquin Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the Municipal Council, and it is incorporated into the General Plan by reference. It further describes the existing conditions of the Joaquin Neighborhood and provides guidance for implementation of future land uses. The Joaquin Neighborhood Plan should be closely followed when considering redevelopment of properties in the neighborhood.

Maeser Neighborhood

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 20 of 50

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the Maeser Neighborhood

The Maeser neighborhood is one of the Pioneer Neighborhoods of Provo, with a desirable central location and pleasing architectural styles that reflect the history of the area. The Maeser School is a valuable historical architectural resource and a reflection of community values through the efforts to preserve this structure, which have resulted in an adaptive reuse of the school building and surrounding grounds to one-family dwellings. The Maeser Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the Municipal Council, and it is incorporated into the General Plan by reference. It further describes plans for projected growth, goals and objectives that reflect the needs of the areas, and a discussion on guiding principles for the residents of the Neighborhood. The Maeser Neighborhood Plan should be closely followed when considering redevelopment and land use decisions in the neighborhood.

North Park Neighborhood

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the North Park Neighborhood

The North Park Neighborhood shares many of the characteristics of the other Central Area neighborhoods. There is a desire to reestablish one-family occupancy and opportunities for home ownership and residency by families and individuals who can make a long-term commitment to the neighborhood. A high rate of rental properties and a general decline in the condition of many properties provides a challenge for the revitalization of the neighborhood. The architectural character of historic homes contributes character to the neighborhood, and there is a desire to see these homes preserved and restored.

1. Increase the number of owner-occupants to stabilize and strengthen the neighborhood.

2. Improve and support the availability of off-street parking and enforce current requirements.

3. Improve the pedestrian-friendly and safety aspects of the neighborhood.

4. Reduce crime and implement programs to have a drug-free neighborhood.

5. Preserve and maintain the family-oriented public recreational facilities in the neighborhood, including Exchange Park, North Park, Paul Ream Wilderness Park, and Riverside Park.

6. Maintain the architectural heritage on University Avenue that is a unique part of Provo’s heritage.

Key Land Use Policies to Address the Goals of the North Park Neighborhood

1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map. Promote owner occupancy throughout the neighborhood by limiting new development to detached, one-family homes and the rehabilitation of existing one- family homes, where designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 21 of 50

2. Study the feasibility of doing a historic designation survey in the North Park Neighborhood with the goal of preserving homes and buildings of historic and architectural value that help to create the character of the neighborhood.

3. Should redevelopment occur, efforts should be made to incorporate historic structures into the development or to relocate them.

4. Encourage responsible property management through the enforcement of the Rental Dwelling Business Licensing ordinance and other applicable zoning ordinances.

5. Develop a dialogue between neighborhoods, the City, landlords, and social service agencies to review concerns and complaints about social service clients living in the neighborhood. Evaluate the service the agencies are providing, the degree of responsibilities for clients by these agencies, and possible changes to reduce neighborhood resident complaints and concerns resulting from these services.

Timp Neighborhood

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the Timp Neighborhood

The Timp Neighborhood is considered one of the most walkable neighborhoods in Provo. With this, the neighborhood emphasizes creating an inviting environment for residents with a diverse range of ages, income levels, and backgrounds. The Timp Neighborhood has protected the unique residential attributes that allow families and individuals to thrive in a close-knit environment while still enjoying the social and commercial benefits of walkability to downtown Provo and surrounding areas. The Timp Neighborhood is home to, and located near, some of the most historically significant sections of downtown. Restoring and maintaining the historic features of the neighborhood and continuing emphasis on owner occupancy will provide balance and stability to this neighborhood. The Timp Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the Municipal Council, and it is incorporated into the General Plan by reference. It further describes the existing conditions of the Timp Neighborhood and provides guidance for implementation of key land use policies and future land uses. The Timp Neighborhood Plan should be closely followed when considering restoration and redevelopment of properties in the neighborhood.

Map 1.5 - Northeast Area Neighborhood Council Map (PDF)

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 22 of 50

NORTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Edgemont North Timpview Sherwood Hills

Indian Hills Rock Canyon

The Northeast Area Neighborhood Council consists of five neighborhoods: Edgemont, Indian Hills, North Timpview, Rock Canyon, and Sherwood Hills. Key policies for the Northeast Area Council are listed below, with policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Northeast Area neighborhoods, followed by policies of specific importance, by neighborhood.

Northeast Area Guiding Principles, Policies and Goals

The following policies and goals are shared, to some degree, by all of the Northeast Area Neighborhoods, and they apply in addition to the policies listed for each individual neighborhood:

1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures in areas designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map.

2. Maintain the Residential (R) General Plan designation with one-family residential development with a goal of increasing the amount of owner-occupied housing units.

3. Any new development within areas with the Provo City General Plan Map designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS) will be subject to studies of potential geologic hazards, geotechnical

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 23 of 50

constraints, slopes or other conditions, as required by the City Engineer or State Geologist. This will ensure that sensitive lands are appropriately developed or, where necessary to protect people, property or significant natural features, withheld from development.

4. Establish policies and ordinances for Rock Canyon that limit commercial activity and development as well as protect and enhance the area as a citywide recreational asset.

5. Any properties within the Northeast Area identified for possible future annexation in the Annexation Policy Plan designated as “Agricultural” on the General Plan Land Use Map, shall be assigned to the Open Space, Preservation, and Recreation (OSPR) Zone upon being annexed.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Northeast Area Neighborhood Council are listed below by neighborhood:

Edgemont Neighborhood

1. Maintain all existing one-family residential areas of the neighborhood as one-family, detached housing. Duplexes, twin homes, condominiums, and apartments are not compatible with the goals for this neighborhood. Housing should be developed at the scale of surrounding existing development. The neighborhood may consider design regulations to control housing scale in established residential areas to prevent incompatible infill development.

2. Limit rural agricultural tracts south of Timpview High School to one-family residential development. If developed as performance developments, they should be limited to one-family dwellings.

3. Prohibit existing commercial and office nodes from expanding into the Residential (R) General Plan designation.

4. Retain the auto repair service and gas station property on the northeast corner of 2950 North and Canyon Road as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map to reflect neighborhood concern that this property not be sold for commercial redevelopment or change in commercial use. The City has approved a PRO (Project Redevelopment Option) zone to allow facility expansion and redesign of the existing, nonconforming business within the original parcel boundaries, using the PRO process. This action recognizes that this business has provided a needed service to the community for many years, but is in need of modernization to compete economically and to better integrate into this substantially one-family residential area.

a. This action is not intended to encourage or facilitate further commercial development at this intersection, but to allow this nonconforming use to establish as a conforming business through the PRO process. It is not the Council’s intent to amend the General Plan Map upon rezoning, but to maintain the R map designation.

b. The adjoining lot(s) under the same ownership, fronting 2950 North, would remain designated as Residential (R) for the purpose of one-family residential use. The General Plan

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 24 of 50

boundary for expansion of the existing commercial use is considered to be the existing property line.

5. The property located generally at 3645 North Canyon Road, now used for a car wash, may be redeveloped for low-density residential use (R1.10 Zone) with areas exceeding 30 percent slope restricted from development. Any development must be compatible in density, scale and design with adjoining residential development. Consolidating the property with additional property is encouraged.

6. The Fire Station along Canyon Road should be designated as Residential on the General Plan Map. If the property is sold by the City, it should be developed comparable to the R1.10 Zone.

Indian Hills Neighborhood

1. Prohibit development in the unincorporated USDA Forest Service land east of Indian Hills within the Provo City General Plan Map designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS).

2. Work with the Provo City Traffic Engineer to explore the possibilities of developing a traffic- calming improvement plan to address issues of traffic speed concerns, particularly on Navajo Lane and Indian Hills Drive.

North Timpview Neighborhood

1. Prohibit new Agricultural (A) designations, within the City limits, which grant animal rights, except where agricultural use is established on property that may be annexed into City limits.

2. Strive for increased owner occupancy. Density higher than R1.10 zoning is not within the goals of this neighborhood.

3. Although not shown on the map as PF – Public Facilities, the anticipation is that the East Lawn Cemetery will expand in a manner consistent with the PF designation. Provo City recognizes the need to appropriately expand the East Lawn Cemetery to provide services for Provo’s population and does not intend this expansion to require an amendment to the Provo City General Plan.

4. Work to establish an infrastructure improvement plan that focuses on installing, replacing, or repairing sidewalks and streetlights. Also, improve access of private residences to sewer laterals to replace existing septic systems.

Rock Canyon Neighborhood

See the Country Club Manor Specific Development Plan for information pertaining to Rock Canyon Neighborhood.

Sherwood Hills Neighborhood

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 25 of 50

New development above the 5,200-foot elevation within the Provo City General Plan Map designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS) is restricted due to conditions described in Chapter 4, Natural Resources and Environment, of this General Plan.

Map 1.6 - Northwest Area Neighborhood Council Map (PDF)

NORTHWEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Carterville Grandview South Rivergrove

Grandview North Riverbottoms Riverside

The Northwest Area Neighborhood Council consists of six neighborhoods: Carterville, Grandview North, Grandview South, Riverbottoms, Rivergrove, and Riverside. Key policies for the Northwest Area Council are listed below. Policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Northwest Area neighborhoods, are followed by policies of specific importance, by neighborhood.

Northwest Area Guiding Principles, Policies and Goals

The following policies and goals are shared, to some degree, by all of the Northwest Area Neighborhoods, and they apply in addition to the policies listed for each individual neighborhood:

1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures within areas designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 26 of 50

2. Maintain the Residential (R) General Plan designation with one-family residential development.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Northwest Area Neighborhood Council are listed below by neighborhood:

Carterville Neighborhood

1. Property designated as Mixed-Use (M) on the General Plan Map should not develop under mixed- use guidelines until an area master plan has been established. The area master plan should specifically address how development interacts with the Provo River frontage. Policies that encourage a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use Riverwalk area are highly encouraged.

Grandview North Neighborhood

1. This neighborhood is well established and expected to remain consistent in its uses and continue to meet the guiding principles for the Northwest Area.

Grandview South Neighborhood

1. This neighborhood is well established and expected to remain consistent in its uses and continue to meet the guiding principles for the Northwest Area.

2. Plan, adopt, and implement a landscaping plan for property adjacent to the 1375 West corridor in order to beautify the area and mitigate safety hazards created by vegetative overgrowth into the sidewalk and right-of-way.

Riverbottoms Neighborhood

1. Maintain the Residential (R) General Plan designation with one-family residential development, except as otherwise provided. All new residential developments along University Avenue should be one-family residential development.

2. Any properties north of 4800 North and west of University Avenue that consist of 20 acres or more in size may develop as independent research and business park. Land assembly may be required for smaller parcels. Individual lots along 50 West or Edgewood Drive should be redeveloped for research and business park uses. The entire residential uses that are currently zoned A1.1 should be redeveloped, or none of it should. It is an already isolated residential enclave, and should not be further encroached upon, making it more difficult and costly to redevelop as research and business park. This area should be developed to the same standards as those required in the Riverwoods Research and Business Park.

3. Designate the property located at approximately 5600 North, east of University Avenue and Canyon Road, as Residential (R). Approximately two acres of the site are flat and developable if adequate access can be provided, subject to the Sensitive Lands ordinance as it may apply to property proposed for development or access. The remaining four acres are too steep to develop, and are in the middle of a natural drainage channel.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 27 of 50

4. The northeast corner of 4800 North University Avenue (4878 N. University Ave.), containing approximately two acres, to be developed with a Commercial use.

5. The proposed design corridor along 4800 North should be extended to Canyon Road.

See Village at Riverwoods Specific Development Plan for documents.

Rivergrove Neighborhood

1. Provide alternative land use designations for the mobile home park at Columbia Lane and Grandview Lane as Commercial (C), Residential (R), or Mixed-Use (MU). Any of these designations could be appropriate in this location, and would facilitate the redevelopment of that parcel. Whatever is approved on this site should have landscaping along the street frontage consistent with the residential developments on the northeast and southwest corners, and commercial buildings should be designed to fit in with the residential character.

2. Encourage the commercial redevelopment of Columbia Lane from State Street to the residential development just south of Grandview Lane. Sidewalk, curb, and gutter should be installed for safety and to prohibit parking backing out onto Columbia Lane. Land uses should be better screened in the future or promote retail rather than automotive-related uses. The Council may consider a design corridor for this area. Bike lane planning should be included in the development of a design corridor plan and ordinance.

3. Encourage the improvement of the neighborhoods by supporting policies and ordinances that attract a mix of family types, including retirees and singles, increasing owner occupancy, encouraging neighborhood activities, requiring the proper maintenance of homes, and landscaping.

4. Work with law enforcement programs, such as Community Oriented Policing (COP), to decrease illegal activities within the neighborhood.

5. Work to develop and implement an infrastructure improvement plan to install sidewalks in areas that do not have them.

6. Preserve and maintain park and open space by working with the Parks Department to repair, maintain, improve and increase recreational facilities within the neighborhood.

7. Commercial uses should not encroach into established residential areas.

Riverside Neighborhood

1. All undeveloped land along the University Avenue corridor, lying between 50 West and 100 East, may be developed for professional offices within the Commercial designation, while any land west of 50 West and any land east of 100 East should be one-family detached homes. This presents a consistent University Avenue business corridor, while providing high-quality, low-density housing for Provo residents, and supports Provo’s goal to encourage new neighborhoods of one-family detached homes.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 28 of 50

2. All undeveloped land lying between 3300 North and 3080 North, and east of 100 East, may be developed for professional offices within the Commercial designation.

3. All new professional office use must be consistent in architecture and style to existing office buildings to provide a planned presentation.

4. All efforts must be made to preserve the natural trees, foliage and land topography in order to maintain a mature, natural look and feel to the Riverside area.

5. In order to prevent excessive traffic in residential areas, direct and indirect access should not be permitted or accommodated between University Avenue and 3700 North through residential neighborhoods.

6. The Mixed-Use (M) designation should not develop under mixed-use guidelines until an area master plan is established. The area master plan should specifically address how development interacts with the Provo River frontage. Policies that encourage a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use river walk area are highly encouraged.

Map 1.7 - Southeast Area Neighborhood Council Map (PDF)

SOUTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Foothills Provost University

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 29 of 50

SOUTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Oak Hills Provost South Wasatch

Pleasant View Spring Creek

The Southeast Area Neighborhood Council consists of eight neighborhoods: Foothills, Oak Hills, Pleasant View, Provost, Provost South, Spring Creek, University, and Wasatch. Key policies for the Southeast Area Neighborhood Council are listed below by neighborhood. Key policies for the Southeast Area Council are listed below, with policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Southeast Area neighborhoods, followed by policies of specific importance, by neighborhood.

Southeast Area Guiding Principles, Policies, and Goals

The following policies and goals are shared, to some degree, by all of the Southeast Area Neighborhoods, and they apply in addition to the policies listed for each individual neighborhood:

1. Viable, significant areas of one-family structures within the Residential (R) should be protected for continued one-family use.

2. Maintain the Residential (R) General Plan designation with one-family residential development, except where specified otherwise.

3. Any proposed development within Developmentally Sensitive areas will be subject to studies of potential wetlands, floodplains or other conditions, as required by the City Engineer or by any State or Federal regulatory agency with jurisdiction to ensure that sensitive lands are appropriately developed or, where necessary to protect people, property or significant natural features, withheld from development.

4. Establish policies and ordinances that protect and enhance Slate Canyon.

South State Street Corridor Development Policies

South State Street is the main entrance into southeast Provo City and traverses from the intersection of State Road (SR) 75 (Springville City Limits) to 300 South. From approximately 900 South to the city limits, State Street divides the Provost South and Spring Creek Neighborhoods from each other.

The intent of this policy is to create a mixed-use corridor with uniform public and private property design and development standards that are conducive to both of the adjacent neighborhoods and that will enhance the character of South State Street. The policy encompasses all properties located between the existing railroad tracks west of State Street and all properties adjacent to State Street on the east side.

Due to the length and character of South State Street, the corridor is divided into two large areas for discussion of land use policy. These areas are described as Area A (North of 1860 South) and Area B (South of 1860 South). The Public Way Design Standards are for the entire length of South State Street.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 30 of 50

Public Way Policies

Policies should address uniform public way improvements for the entire corridor including the following:

1. All new and existing utilities should be placed underground when development occurs where feasible.

2. The street design (acceptable to UDOT and Provo City by mutual agreement) should include, but not be limited to: uniform curb, gutter, sidewalks, street width, street lighting, landscaping, street signage, etc. and provide for efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Southeast Area Neighborhood Council are listed, below, by neighborhood:

Foothills Neighborhood

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the Foothills Neighborhood

Over time, the Foothills neighborhood has become a diverse neighborhood including homes ranging in size from small, post-war starter homes to large luxury homes. The neighborhood includes a small but distinct commercial zone and a strip of high-density student housing. This mix of uses creates advantages and challenges for the neighborhood.

Foothills is an ideal place for young couples just starting out to rent or even own a small home, duplex, or basement apartment as they transition toward permanent housing. At the same time, there is a significant number of families that have lived in the neighborhood for decades. New, larger homes on the east side of the neighborhood are also very attractive to established families that are looking for a place to sink roots.

Additionally, baching singles rent student housing along 450 North.

The vision for this neighborhood is to maintain the current delicate balance of residents and uses in a way that is sustainable economically and socially. Some of the keys to making this viable:

1. Attracting permanent residents to the neighborhood is a critical focus. Having permanent residents provides community stability and support for those who are just starting out.

2. Encourage policies that prompt baching singles to reside in the South Campus Planning Area and reclaim dwellings for one-family occupancy.

3. Ensure that all property owners are aware of the neighborhood rules and municipal regulations.

4. Enforce occupancy and Rental Dwelling Licensing rules.

Past efforts to maintain this balance have focused on stricter enforcement of zoning requirements, modification of parking requirements and zones, and the implementation of

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 31 of 50

restrictive covenants in new developments. The intent of these efforts has been to make housing pleasant and attractive to families appropriate to the size of the home as well as to providing adequate, usable, and attractive housing in areas designated for baching singles.

It is the goal of the neighborhood to work with owners of condominium complexes in the heart of the neighborhood to encourage the unit owners to abide by occupancy limitations and other noise, nuisance, and parking issues as regulated by Provo City Code.

The City-owned property near 1480 North may be developed as a park in the future.

Goals of the Foothills Neighborhood

1. Increase owner occupancy within the neighborhood.

2. Attract longer-term residents to increase neighborhood stability.

3. Foster a sense of community.

4. Find a permanent resolution to the occupancy violations and concerns within the condominium complexes.

5. Ensure that existing designated student housing remains an attractive option for baching singles.

New residential developments should focus on creating housing that will encourage permanent residents.

1. Promote owner occupancy throughout the neighborhood by limiting new development to detached, one-family dwellings.

2. Maintain all existing one-family residential areas of the neighborhood as one-family detached housing. Higher-density residential housing, such as duplexes, twin homes, condominiums, and apartments, is not compatible with the goals for this neighborhood.

3. It is the intent of Council that a boundary between the higher-density uses of Brigham Young University (BYU) on the west side of 900 East and the one-family residential uses of the Foothills neighborhood be maintained. This plan designates 900 East as the boundary that best respects existing uses and protects both uses from the incompatibility of having high-density residential or commercial uses next to one-family residential uses. Because 900 East provides the most logical buffer between these two incompatible uses, this plan designates that residential properties on 900 East, where currently zoned and used for one-family detached homes, should be maintained as one-family detached housing. Higher-density residential housing, such as duplexes, twin homes, condominiums, and apartments, is not compatible with the goals for this area.

4. Commercial and other nonresidential development not be allowed to expand.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 32 of 50

5. Residential project plans for property under the Residential (R) General Plan Map designation east of the Seven Peaks Water Park Resort may develop with a variety of housing types, including one-family detached, one-family semi-detached (twin homes), or one-family attached (townhomes or condominiums not stacked above or below each other). Multiple-family configurations incorporating stacked units may be suitable if designed with dispersed massing (not centrally located in a few buildings). Any project should be designed with sensitivity to the adjacent hillside and should integrate with existing residential development to the north. The project design should not draw attention to itself but rather seek to blend the new residential use with the surrounding land uses.

Oak Hills Neighborhood

1. Limit development east of 1550 East to one row of homes one lot in depth, with no flag or panhandle lots.

Pleasant View Neighborhood

The Pleasant View neighborhood has long been a desirable area to live in Provo due to its excellent location, peaceful streets and varied architectural history. The location is both a benefit and a challenge due to the immediate proximity of Brigham Young University, major arterial roads, and significant public transportation nodes.

Residential

1. Single-Family Homes

Maintain, protect and allow the turnover that naturally occurs in the viable and significant areas of one-family structures in the neighborhood. These areas are designated as single- family residential (R1) on the General Plan Map. Promote owner occupancy throughout the single-family home areas of the neighborhood. Restrict the Supplementary Residential and Accessory overlay zones from expanding beyond the current boundaries. Continue enforcement of zoning laws to ensure public safety and the quality of residential properties. Nonresidential uses such as commercial, public facilities, and professional office must not be allowed within the residential area on the north side of University Parkway between 450 East and 650 East. The single-family residential area between University Avenue and North Canyon Road south of 2200 North and north of Stadium Avenue must be maintained without loss of any property to higher-density residential or nonresidential development.

2. Condominiums, Apartments, and Performance Developments

The higher-density residential housing, such as condominiums, apartments, and performance developments, in the neighborhood provide a mix of housing opportunities. This housing is located in existing R2, RC, R3 and R4 zones. The expansion of these types of higher-density housing may occur into adjacent properties zoned General Commercial (GC) or Public Facility (PF) but not into property with a single-family (R1) use.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 33 of 50

3. Commercial and Public Facility

Existing commercial and public facility developments should not be allowed to expand into the Residential areas (R) identified on the General Plan. Conversion of land designated Public Facility use to a Professional Office (PO) or Commercial (GC) use is not consistent with the long-term growth and sense of community in this neighborhood.

4. Traffic

Reduce cut-through traffic on local (residential) streets, provide appropriate speed limit controls and enforcement on local, collector and arterial streets, and improve pedestrian and bicycling access.

5. Maintain the current boundary between the higher-density uses such as Brigham Young University (BYU) in existing Public Facility zones and the single-family residential uses of the Pleasant View neighborhood. These boundaries best respect existing uses and protect both uses from the incompatibility of having high-density residential or commercial uses next to single-family residential uses.

Provost Neighborhood

1. Maintain the Public Facility (PF) General Plan designation for the detention basins along Slate Canyon Drive.

2. Maintain the one-family character of the neighborhood by:

a. Limiting development in the R designation to detached, one-family dwellings;

b. Enforcing relevant zoning laws to resist conversion of owner-occupied, one-family homes into two-family dwellings;

c. Being included in neighborhood revitalization initiatives.

3. Property in the Developmentally Sensitive designation is of notable concern for protection from inappropriate development.

4. Continue implementation of the South State Street Design Corridor.

Provost South Neighborhood

1. New, quality, one-family homes should be developed to provide adequate living space for growing families that wish to relocate to or remain within the Provost South neighborhood, including detached homes. Focus for new development for mixed housing types suitable for owner occupancy should develop using appropriate rezoning tools and provide adequate open space, amenities, buffering from nonresidential uses, and such architectural styles and orientation as to not give the appearance of multiple-family housing.

2. Encourage and/or maintain owner occupancy.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 34 of 50

3. Evaluate the impacts of road designations to existing residents, especially collector designations. Evaluate the impacts of new development on street parking in constrained areas such as the east bench and implement traffic-calming measures and parking restrictions as determined appropriate.

4. Provide and upgrade infrastructure, including appropriately designed and located public recreational space.

5. Continue to implement the South State Street Design Corridor from the south City limits to 300 South for new development and redevelopment. Properties along the South State Street corridor should develop for quality businesses that are compatible with adjoining and nearby residential development, with focus on retail commercial and shopping center uses within a planned, well designed configuration.

6. The Slate Canyon Area Master Plan has been adopted as Key Land Use Policy for the area of the Provost South Neighborhood encompassed by the Plan.

Spring Creek Neighborhood

1. Ironton should be developed as an upscale business park, with industrial and commercial uses in a park-like atmosphere. Ironton Boulevard should connect to Larsen Parkway with adequate traffic control for the area.

2. Mixed-use development should be considered for the property along the west side of South State Street (US 89), between 900 South and 1860 South, after an area master plan has been completed. Multi-family housing may be developed within this area with or without the commercial elements if developed as part of a project redevelopment option (PRO), performance development (PD), or specific development plan (SDP) zone.

a. Flexibility in interpretation of these use boundaries and careful planning in establishing uses within the corridor, based on need and the desire to “soften” the frontage with limited areas of residential, are encouraged.

b. Mixed-use neighborhood centers should be focused near the intersections of 1320 South State and 1860 South State. The highest vertical mixed-use intensities should be closest to these mixed-use neighborhood centers with residential density and commercial intensities tapering off between the general centers.

c. Exceptions to this policy should be made for existing businesses, developed within the M-1 zone, that have made significant investment in the area and have upgraded their properties to comply more closely with the expectations of the adopted design corridor through enhanced landscaping, architectural improvements, and other standards.

3. Continue to implement the South State Street Design Corridor from the south City limits to 300 South for new development and redevelopment.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 35 of 50

4. Properties along the South State Street corridor should develop for quality businesses that are compatible with adjoining and nearby residential development.

5. Provide public recreational space to service the residents of this neighborhood.

6. Evaluate the process by which CDBG eligible neighborhoods may effectively utilize revitalization initiatives.

University Neighborhood

1. The University is an exception to the guiding principles of the Southeast Area Neighborhood Council as there are no significant areas of one-family housing within its boundaries.

2. Due to its magnitude and unique characteristics, Brigham Young University (BYU) is significantly different from other public facility land uses. In particular, BYU-owned properties that lie within or in proximity to the boundaries of the adjoining Joaquin Neighborhood South Campus Planning Area should be reviewed for compatibility with key land use policies for campus-oriented student housing, mixed-use development, and ancillary services in the areas south and west of the BYU campus.

Wasatch Neighborhood

1. The Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone should not expand beyond its current boundaries.

2. Promote owner occupancy throughout the neighborhood.

3. Maintain all existing one-family residential areas of the neighborhood as one-family detached housing. Duplexes, twin homes, condominiums, and apartments are not compatible with the goals for this neighborhood.

4. A boundary between the higher-density uses of Brigham Young University (BYU) on the west side of 900 East and the one-family residential uses of the Wasatch neighborhood should be maintained. This plan designates 900 East as the boundary that best respects existing uses and protects both uses from the incompatibility of having high-density residential or commercial uses next to one-family residential uses.

5. Existing commercial development should not be allowed to expand to the degree that it encroaches into the Residential (R) General Plan designation.

6. Nonresidential uses such as commercial, public facilities, and professional office should not be allowed within the residential area on 900 East between Cedar Avenue and the Public Facilities (PF) Zone.

Map 1.8 - Southwest Area Neighborhood Council Map (PDF)

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 36 of 50

SOUTHWEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Fort Utah Lakewood

Lakeview North Provo Bay

Lakeview South Sunset

The Southwest Area Neighborhood Council consists of six neighborhoods: Fort Utah, Lakeview North, Lakeview South, Lakewood, Provo Bay, and Sunset. Key policies for the Southwest Area Neighborhood Council are listed below by neighborhood. Key policies for the Southwest Area Council are listed below, with policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Southwest Area neighborhoods, followed by policies of specific importance, by neighborhood.

Southwest Area Guiding Principles, Policies and Goals

Purpose

The purpose of these policies is to guide development in southwest Provo in order to promote a smart, sustainable, vibrant community that offers a high quality of life for current and future residents while respecting Provo’s agricultural heritage.

Policies

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 37 of 50

1. Preserve Provo’s agricultural heritage and support agriculture for as long as farmers choose to farm:

a. Approve the creation of a Provo Agricultural Commission to support local commercial and noncommercial agriculture.

b. Request that the Provo Agricultural Commission identify obstacles to the success of current and prospective farmers, including nontraditional farmers, and recommend ways to remove these obstacles.

c. Request that the Provo Agricultural Commission explore tools for agricultural preservation. These tools may include: conservation easements, transfers of development rights, community land trusts, a privately funded farmland trust fund, and Utah’s “Agricultural Protection” Program.

d. Encourage the Provo Agricultural Commission to improve the productive use of agricultural land.

e. Encourage Development-Supported Agriculture and Agritourism to help preserve Provo’s agricultural heritage.

f. Encourage our state lawmakers to increase funding for the LeRay McAllister Fund.

g. Protect agricultural operations from the impact of residential encroachment.

h. Identify agricultural land owners, have their properties listed on developmental maps to better avoid encroachment onto agricultural lands.

2. Preserve and Create Quality Usable Open Space

a. Update and utilize the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to provide developed parks and open space that satisfy a range of leisure and recreational needs.

b. Preserve and develop natural amenities for sustained enjoyment by the community. Examples include the Provo River and banks, the Provo River Delta, Utah Lake shoreline, and wetlands.

c. Provide parks and trails of different uses and sizes.

d. Encourage agritourism as a means to provide agriculturally themed open space.

e. Useable neighborhood open space should be an integral part of neighborhood design or combined to serve larger areas than the immediate development.

3. Encourage Sustainable Residential Development Patterns

a. Establish ordinances to require a mix of housing types, lot sizes, and designs to accommodate various stages of life.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 38 of 50

b. Detached single-family homes should be the predominant housing type and the use of other types should augment and not detract from the single-family feel of the area.

c. Housing types should be mixed without barriers separating types or densities.

d. The scale and style of residences should enhance the surrounding area, regardless of housing type.

e. Create design standards for important road corridors in southwest Provo.

f. The overall density of the area should average four units to the acre.

4. Promote Development of Commercial Amenities and Employment Opportunities in Appropriate Locations

a. Regional commercial uses may be located adjacent to I-15 or within the Airport Related Activities district.

b. Neighborhood and Community Shopping zones may be located at or adjacent to arterial or collector streets.

c. Design, scale and intensity of commercial zones or properties should transition to adjacent residential uses to minimize impact on the residential use.

5. Create a Robust Transportation Network

a. Update the Transportation Master Plan to accommodate the changing needs of southwest Provo.

b. The planned collector road network should be built as development occurs. No development should interrupt the collector road network.

c. Update the Provo City Major and Local Street Plan to include a network of proposed local streets to ensure connectivity in the land between collector and arterial roads.

d. Utilize Complete Streets Policies to ensure all modes of transportation are considered.

e. Utilize the Transportation Master Plan to identify corridors that should have sufficient right-of-way to accommodate public transit.

f. Lakeview Parkway is to be maintained as an arterial roadway with limited access.

6. Require Proper Integration and Sequencing of Development

a. The full block should be considered when rezoning away from agricultural uses.

b. Conceptual Integrated Development Plan for the entire block should be required for zone change applications.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 39 of 50

c. Discourage rezoning of land that is surrounded by agricultural zoning.

d. Development may be limited or deferred depending on the availability of adequate municipal infrastructure (such as sewer, storm drainage, water, etc.).

7. Restrict Development in Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas

a. Land south and west of the Lakeview Parkway up to Center Street (excepting the airport protection area) should be preserved for open space and agricultural uses.

b. No development should occur in flood-prone areas unless the risks can be mitigated. Plans for mitigation should be reviewed for adequacy by the Provo City Engineer and any State or Federal regulatory agency with jurisdiction to ensure that sensitive lands are appropriately developed to protect people, property or significant natural features. Mitigation plans should not adversely affect adjacent properties.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Southwest Area Council are listed, below, by neighborhood:

Fort Utah Neighborhood

1. Encourage 100 feet of public open space along the south side of the Provo River with the development of each property.

2. Center Street, between Geneva Road and Interstate 15, should be studied to capitalize on the Interstate 15 Center Street interchange. An analysis of appropriate mixed-use and commercial land uses, densities and other factors should guide the development of any zoning ordinances regulating this area.

Lakeview North Neighborhood

1. The property west and parallel of Geneva Road from Lakeshore Drive to 2000 North should be developed for uses compatible with the Residential (R) land use designation.

2. Property within and to the west of land located within the “AE” flood zone of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) should receive the Provo City General Plan Map designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS) and be subject to the same provisions as defined under the guiding principles for the SW Area.

3. Infrastructure needs should continue to be evaluated in order to resolve issues for existing and future residents, particularly where road conditions may be hazardous.

4. Continue to review for appropriately siting the airport access road and consider potential impacts to current residents along Lakeshore Drive.

5. The area between 1680 North and 2000 North, and between Geneva Road and I-15, which is zoned R1-20, should be developed as the current zoning allows or as a Specific Development Plan

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 40 of 50

comprised primarily of single-family residential dwellings with a mix of housing types not to exceed the allowed density for the Southwest Area. No commercial uses should be permitted between Geneva Road and the Frontrunner Railroad Line.

Lakeview South Neighborhood

1. An infrastructure improvement plan should be considered for improvements to sidewalks, drainage, parks, landscaping, and traffic conditions.

2. All development within the Residential (R) designation should develop as one-family detached homes with lot sizes of one-half acre or greater, and may include limited animal rights unless a proposed subdivision is designed as a “cluster” type development, wherein smaller lots enable the developer to provide a significant amount of common open space.

3. Retail development should be discouraged within the Lakeview South Neighborhood.

4. The neighborhood supports the mobile home park known as Leisure Village to redevelop to consist of one-family detached, one-family semidetached (twin homes), and/or one-family attached (townhomes).

Lakewood Neighborhood

1. Continue to evaluate airport access and the potential impacts or benefits to existing residents resulting from planned road connections to the airport access road.

a. The need for northbound and southbound access on I-15 into the neighborhood should be evaluated and implemented if warranted.

b. The collector road system should seek to make minimal impacts on existing farming/ agricultural properties.

c. 500 West should be carefully evaluated as a collector road and appropriate design measures should be incorporated into the design to mitigate detriments to the neighborhood.

2. Continue to work toward infrastructure improvements to serve existing residents and to ensure that infrastructure is in place prior to new development, to provide adequate storm drainage, street connections and appropriately designed and located public park space.

3. New development should be appropriately incorporated to respect the rural feel of the Lakewood area, to complement and enhance the neighborhood, and to provide adequate living space for growing families that wish to relocate to or remain within the Lakewood neighborhood.

4. Provide sidewalks where they currently do not exist.

5. Evaluate environmental impacts prior to approving any new development in the Lakewood Neighborhood.

6. The Lakewood Park expansion should be implemented when resources allow.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 41 of 50

7. Mitigate traffic and on-street parking impacts from Footprinters Park.

Provo Bay Neighborhood

Goals of the Provo Bay Neighborhood

1. Preserve the current open feel of the neighborhood.

2. Achieve a balance of sizes and styles when new one-family homes are developed.

3. Provide better recreational opportunities and take advantage of recreational opportunities afforded by Utah Lake.

4. Evaluate and encourage retail development in appropriate areas that would provide needed neighborhood services.

5. Evaluate the feasibility of locating new arterial roads in locations that are not adjacent to current residential development.

Key Land Use Policies – Provo Bay Neighborhood

1. Discourage residential development west of 3110 West to avoid airport flight paths and the airport protection area, as identified in the Airport Master Plan.

2. Achieve a balance of sizes and types of one-family residential development. New developments should complement and enhance the neighborhood, providing adequate living space for growing families that wish to relocate to or remain within the Provo Bay Neighborhood.

3. Enhance recreational opportunities and take advantage of the proximity to Utah Lake. These include but are not limited to developing recreation access to Provo Bay and trails along Lakeview Parkway. The purchase of Utah Lake State Park from the State should be evaluated and considered. Access from the proposed West Side Connector to Provo Bay for canoeing, bird watching, and fishing, along with a paved trail system to provide residents with biking, walking and other activities along the Provo Bay shoreline should be considered.

4. Retail development should be encouraged at proper locations within the neighborhood, such as along Center Street and Lakeview Parkway. Retail should include but not be limited to grocery and banking services.

5. The area west of 1600 West and South of 600 South that borders the proposed West Side Connector road should be developed as a Specific Development Plan consisting of commercial, retail and residential use. This Specific Development Plan should be initiated by the City and not left entirely up to developers and landowners. This property, if properly planned, could have a combination of retail and residential uses.

6. Study the feasibility of maintaining 3110 West as a residential arterial road and align Lakeview Parkway to the edge of the airport development area as it proceeds north.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 42 of 50

7. Conduct a study to identify appropriate land uses within the Airport Related Activities designation.

Sunset Neighborhood

1. The area between 600 South and 1150 South from 1100 West to 1600 West should be developed with uses compatible with the Residential (R) land use designation. The following guidelines should be considered in the development of this area:

a. The area should be developed (allowably in phases under multiple ownerships) as a whole and integrated plan using the SDP process as described in the SW Area Guiding Principles and Goals.

b. Those currently wishing to maintain animal rights should do so through the application of a Residential Agricultural (RA) zone on their property.

c. The area should develop with a rural character in mind and should incorporate a balanced distribution of lot sizes, which should be interspersed amongst each other and should not exceed density limitations expressed in the SW Area Guiding Principles and Goals.

d. Equestrian-based facilities and trail systems are highly encouraged.

e. Footprinters Park should be expanded to add additional neighborhood recreational facilities.

f. Commercial and nonrecreational public facilities are currently not encouraged but may be considered if designed as part of the SDP process and demonstrated that they will be an asset to the development and surrounding neighborhood.

g. Road connectivity is encouraged in the design of the SDP. Cul-de-sacs will be highly discouraged unless it is demonstrated that alternatives do not exist.

2. Evaluate opportunities to expand public park services to better serve the Sunset Neighborhood and to resolve traffic, parking and light pollution impacts to neighborhoods in the vicinity of the ball park.

3. An infrastructure improvement plan should be considered for improvements to sidewalks, drainage, parks, landscaping, and traffic conditions.

1.2.10 Additional Tools for Urban Growth and Land Use Annexation Policy Plan

Provo City’s Annexation Policy Plan was brought to the Planning Commission for a public hearing in 2002 and was approved by Resolution 2003-15 of the Municipal Council on February 4, 2003. This plan has received subsequent review through public hearings of the Planning Commission and Municipal Council in association with the Comprehensive Update to the 1997 General Plan, initiated in 2002 and approved in 2004. As the changes effected

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 43 of 50 through recent annexations reflect policies of the Municipal Council and elements of agreements with Utah County, Springville City, Orem City, and the U.S. Forest Service, the plan incorporated herein as part of the Provo City General Plan retains the 2003 Annexation Policy Plan, but notes which annexations have been completed at the time of adoption of the update to the General Plan in Fall 2009.

Need for an Annexation Policy Plan

It is necessary that the City maintain an annexation policy plan to assure orderly growth and development of the community. An annexation policy will also protect the general interests of the taxpaying public, as well as those individual property owners who wish to annex to the City. There must be specific policy guidelines by which a proposed annexation is evaluated. The following constitutes the guidelines established for the Provo City annexation policy plan:

Annexation Policy Plan Guidelines

Each annexation under consideration should be expanded to include the greatest amount of property possible, within the limits shown on the attached map, to assure that:

1. Public reaction in and around the annexation area is appropriately balanced with the needs of the community;

2. Duplication of services is eliminated;

3. City standards related to improvements are maintained consistently on a contiguous block face and on adjoining properties to the greatest extent possible;

4. No piecemeal annexation of individual small properties which would diminish the potential for later annexation of small pockets or “islands” of opposing unincorporated area;

5. Expansion of City boundaries will include some unimproved land which will provide an inventory for future development;

6. The circulation system of streets and highways is enhanced by placing a system in one jurisdiction to eliminate maintenance confusion;

7. There is an increased ability to plan for orderly community and area wide development;

8. Fire, police, and other safety-oriented service systems are more controlled with logical political boundaries;

9. Utilities and other public services have more systematic city boundaries;

10. The City’s self-determination and local home rule is enhanced through the resulting city boundaries;

11. The City is able to exercise greater regulation over improper and undesirable land uses and development in the fringe areas.

The Character of the Community

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 44 of 50

Annexation proposals should be evaluated based upon the compatibility of the proposed land uses with the character of the overall surrounding neighborhood and City.

The Need for Municipal Services in Developed and Undeveloped Unincorporated Areas

Provo City utility services shall not be provided to unincorporated areas, but shall only be made available to those areas which are annexed to Provo City. The only exception shall be those extensions made to other units of government under the Interlocal Government Cooperation Act, as deemed appropriate by the Municipal Council.

The Municipality’s Plans for Extension of Municipal Services

City services should be extended to annexed areas as soon as practicable after annexation. The requirements for extension of such utilities are set forth on an area-by-area basis described in “Areas Proposed for Future Annexation,” below.

The City feels the responsibility of developing the backbone of the various utility distribution and collection systems in newly developing areas. This work includes the development of new water wells, reservoirs, and utility trunk lines. However, specific commitments and the construction period for such utilities will be dependent upon development demand and sufficient capital budgets. Such commitments and time frames will be determined when annexation occurs and will be a part of the impact report required by the Provo City Code.

How Services Will Be Funded

Provo City’s policy is to participate with developers in the cost of improvements which benefit the City as a whole. For instance, when utility mainlines are required to be a certain size to serve an entire area, but that size is larger than that required to service a given subdivision, the City will fund the difference in the cost of providing the larger size. The City’s share is financed by the general fund, gas tax, road funds, and connection and user fees.

An Estimate of the Tax Consequences to Residents Both Currently within the Municipal Boundaries and in the Expansion Area

Tax consequences and interests of affected entities, relative to a proposed annexation, should be considered. Present mil levies in Provo City are comparable to adjacent County areas, including Utah County residents in the Nebo and Alpine School Districts. Utility costs, particularly for electricity, are less expensive in the City than in the County. Thus, many times it is economically beneficial for property owners to annex to Provo City.

Additionally, such property owners receive many benefits in return for higher tax assessments. These include snow removal, increased police and fire protection, and other City services.

The Interests of All Affected Entities

Areas proposed for annexation are logical expansions of Provo City’s corporate limits and will not unduly affect the tax revenues of adjacent entities. Utah County, the City of Springville, and the City of Orem may also be impacted by land annexed into and developed in Provo City. Noticing and coordination with these jurisdictions, along with noticing and coordination with special improvement or service districts and school districts, should also occur.

Areas Proposed for Annexation:

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 45 of 50

Map 1.9 - Annexation Policy Map (PDF)

Area One

Area One is bounded by existing Provo City limits on the north and west. No serious water or sewer constraints exist in this area. There are gravity flow sewers in the immediate vicinity, and the culinary water supply to the area was extended with the East Mountain development. The General Plan calls for Residential (R) and Commercial (C) development in this area. However, a portion of this area is currently being used for a sand and gravel mining operation with permits issued in the county. Any significant development here would first require the reclamation of the sand and gravel operation. There is also an auto salvage operation just south of the East Mountain development and Utah County’s Public Works buildings. Since South State Street is one of the major entries to the city, having this property in the City gives Provo some control over how it develops, and the image created as one enters Provo. South State Street is an adopted design corridor.

Annexation Ordinance 2006-1, annexing approximately 1.25 acres of real property, located generally at 2400 S. Alaska Avenue, Provost South Neighborhood, was approved by the Municipal Council on May 6, 2009. 08-0001(A).

Area Two

Area Two is bounded by I-15 on the west, existing Provo City limits on the north and east, and the Provo/ Springville City Boundary Agreement Line on the south. The General Plan calls for a combination of light and heavy industry (I) in this area, between the railroad tracks and between Kuhni Road and I-15. Provo City has electrical lines in this area and has extended sewer lines as far south as the Kuhni rendering plant. Water and

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 46 of 50

sewer line extensions would be required to continue annexation south of the rendering plant and east of the railroad tracks.

Area Three

Area Four

Area Four is bounded by existing Provo City limits on the south and east, Utah Lake on the west, and 2000 North on the north. The development of this area will require additional water system distribution capacity as well as the construction of wastewater lift stations. Present land uses in this area are agricultural and residential types. A large conservation easement, wetlands, and other environmental factors in this area will need substantial consideration in the annexation and development process.

Annexation Ordinance 2004-1, annexing approximately 139 acres of real property, located generally between 1552 North, 2000 North, Geneva Road and I-15, Lakeview Neighborhood, was approved by the Municipal Council February 3, 2004. 03-0002(A). This represents the northeast portion of the Area Four proposed annexation.

Annexation Ordinance 2009-2, annexing approximately 346.72 acres of real property, located generally between 1300 North and 2000 North from Geneva Road to the Utah Lake 100 Year Flood Plain Meander Line, Lakeview North Neighborhood, was approved by the Municipal Council on October 8, 2009. 08-0001(A).

Area Five

Area Five is bounded on the west and south by existing Provo City limits, and on the east by the Uinta National Forest boundary. Existing water pressure zones can serve this area to an elevation of approximately 4,876 feet. Area Five can be served by gravity wastewater systems, but main lines would have to be extended into the area from existing lines several thousand feet away. Development in most of this area (over 10% slope) would be controlled by the Hillside Development Standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. The General Plan Map calls for residential development in a portion of this area; however, any property identified as “agricultural” on the map should be included in the Open Space, Preservation, and Recreation (OSPR) zone upon being annexed. Any future development project requiring a rezone from the OSPR zone would be required to demonstrate a substantial benefit to the City and would be subject to the requirements of the Critical Hillside Overlay Zone.

Additionally, Area Five should be expanded to include any properties in Area Six that are privately held.

A petition to annex 4.6 acres, known as the Loveless Annexation, within Area Five, generally located at 5001 N. Canyon Road, between Canyon Road and University Avenue, application 04-0002(A), was approved in 2004. [Approved 11/9/2004, Annexation Ordinance 2004-2.]

An annexation of 1.18 acres, known as the Gillespie Annexation, within Area Five, generally located at 5290 N. Canyon Road, application 05-0001(A), was approved by action of the Municipal Council on 10/18/2005, Annexation Ordinance 2005-1, in response to a petition to annex 0.93 acre.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 47 of 50

An annexation of 9.04 acres, known as the Budge Annexation, within Area Five, generally located at 5240 N. Canyon Road, application 09-0001(A), was approved by action of the Municipal Council on August 8, 2009, Annexation Ordinance 2009-01.

Area Six

Area Six is bounded on the west, south, and north by Provo City limits and on the east by Utah County. The area encompasses the Forest Service land east and north of Sherwood Hills and north of Little Rock Canyon. Even though this area contains steep slopes that would limit development, it would be annexed into Provo to preserve the hillsides from future mining uses. Upon annexation, properties in this area should be included the OSPR zone. Any future development project requiring a rezone from the OSPR zone would be required to demonstrate a substantial benefit to the City and would be subject to the requirements of the Critical Hillside Overlay Zone. Area Six should consist of property that is owned by government entities.

Area Seven

Area Seven is located between 4400 North and 4600 North from University Avenue to Canyon Road. This property is an island of Utah County, which is completely surrounded by Provo City limits. Most of these properties receive Provo City municipal services.

A City-initiated petition in 2003 to annex 26 acres within Area Seven for the purpose of street improvements did not meet the requirements of annexation due to protest by more than 50 percent of the property owners living in the area. The petition to annex was withdrawn. 03-0001(A). Based on the intended use stated by the property owners, the land has been designated on the General Plan Map as A – Agricultural rather than its previous designation of R – Residential.

Areas Proposed for Municipal Boundary Adjustment:

Map 1.10 - Municipal Boundary Adjustment Map (PDF)

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 48 of 50

Area One

Area One is located along 1700 North 2100 West and should be adjusted with the City of Orem to allow for the Ercanbrack property to be developed in Orem. The railroad right-of-way that Provo City owns should be purchased by the Ercanbracks and should also be adjusted to Orem’s boundary.

Area One has been accomplished by agreement with the City of Orem.

Area Two

Area Two is located in Provo just before the Carterville Road bridge northeast of University Parkway. The City of Orem owns a lift station on this property, which is located in Provo City, and should be adjusted to Orem’s boundary.

Area Three

Area Three is located in Orem just north of 3700 North and just east of the Provo River. Provo City owns a deep well on this property, which is located in the City of Orem and should be adjusted to Provo’s boundary.

Area Four

Area Four is located in Orem east of the Provo River at the entrance of Provo Canyon and should be adjusted to Provo’s boundary. The property is very steep and probably will not be developed, but it should be in Provo to establish U.S. Route 189 as the common boundary between Provo and Orem in Provo Canyon.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 49 of 50

Areas Proposed for Municipal Disconnection:

Map 1.11 - Municipal Disconnection Adjustment Map (PDF)

Area One

Area One is the Heritage Mountain Ski Area Annexation and was annexed into Provo City in 1978 to construct a world-class ski resort. After review of the Environmental Impact Statement, the U.S. Forest Service denied the permit, and the facility was never built. Therefore, Provo is proposing a disconnection of 7,035 acres, which is most of the 7,515 acres of the Heritage Mountain Ski Area Annexation.

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Art. 1.2 Background | Provo City General Plan Page 50 of 50

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020.

Disclaimer: The city recorder has the official version of the Provo City General Plan. Users should contact the city recorder for resolutions passed subsequent to the resolution cited above.

Note: This site does not support Internet Explorer. To view this site, Code Publishing Company recommends using one of the following browsers: Google Chrome, Firefox, or Safari.

City Website: www.provo.org City Telephone: (801) 852-6000 Code Publishing Company

The Provo City General Plan is current through Ordinance 2020-61, passed December 1, 2020. Southwest Area

Trailhead Future Land Use Park Land Use (Proposed) Acres Agricultural/Open Space 304 ac (5 ac) Park Provo River Trail Airport Support Businesses 385 ac Trailhead (4 ac) Commercial 78 ac Lakeview Pkwy Residential (~4,006 new units) 816 ac Future TH RES Exist. Park MDR - 36 ac (729) (15 ac) (13 ac) LDR - 112 ac (1512) RES 1 MDR R1 @ net - 579 ac (1621) (14 ac) (36 ac) RA - 89 ac (144) RES Exist. RES -243 ex. units (32 ac) (8 ac) Village Center Total 1,583 ac RA Center Street Comm/MU Neighborhood **Existing Policy Analysis** (22 ac) Mixed Use 1,583 ac - 587 (non-dev) = 996 remaining Allowed AR RES 996 ac x 4 u/a = 3,984 units AR (13 ac) (9 ac) (20 ac) 1 Mixed Use Village Center RA - Area listed as MDR to be required to have a (52 ac) mix of 4-5 housing types. Airport Compatible - Appropriate transition buer to park. Industrial/Comm. - Commercial center to include additional Exist. School RES residential component.

(152 ac) 2530 West (10 ac) (45 ac) - Design standards to create a cohesive A1.10 In ll (70 ac) 4 ac community center. (12 units) Park Neighborhood Gateway

1600 West 4 u/a Exist. Park (3 ac) 2 - LDR density with twinhome or bungalow A1.10 (14 ac) court transitional density buer at edges (68 ac) adjacent to R1.

2050 West / Geneva RoadWest 2050 RES Exist. - Highly encouraged Neighborhood MU (8 ac) School 3 LDR Node (13 ac) - Min. 3 housing types required, dispersed Neighborhood 600 South throughout the development. Mixed Use - Dry Creek required to be amenitized. Airport Allowed Airport Airport Airport Overlay Ind./Comm. Ind./Comm. Ind./Comm. (27 ac) (38 ac) (44 ac) 100 Year Flood Area RES RES (56 ac) (60 ac) RES (80 ac) Neighborhood In ll Mixed Use 890 South Airport Regional Allowed 12 ac

Ind./Comm. RES 1100 West (36 units) Park 4 u/a (55 ac) RES (38 ac) (100 ac) (27 ac) LDR RA LDR (10 ac) (17 ac) Exist. Park (10 ac) (21 ac) LDR 2 (18 ac) Neighborhood LDR Mixed Use 1150 South Airport Trailhead Allowed (7 ac) RES RA RES (10 ac) Ind./Comm. (29 ac) (22 ac) (36 ac) In ll Exist. Park RA 8 ac (3 ac) (10 ac) 3 Dry Creek (24 units) LDR 4 u/a (24 ac) RES (79 ac) Park TrailheadNeighborhood (3 ac)

Mixed Use 500 West Allowed LDR (12 ac) Neighborhood RES Mixed Use (33 ac) Lakeview PkwyAllowed

LDR (10 ac)

LDR COMM. (21 ac) (26 ac)

Trailhead COMM. (30 ac) Future Land Use Intent Statement for the Southwest Area of Provo

The Municipal Council of the City of Provo, Utah reaffirms our intent to implement the previously adopted Westside Development Policies and the Southwest Area Future Land Use Map, and adopts this statement to provide additional clarity as to our intent.

● We request the assistance of the Planning Division in drafting ordinances, and in particular zoning, to accomplish Development Policy 3.a. ● The overall density of the Southwest Area should be four units to the g ross area. Each development in areas designated as “RES” should be kept below four units to the gross area. ● The sub-policies 3.a through 3.d should apply to all residential developments, as much as practicable, outside of the area designated as Mixed Use Village Center and infill developments (less than 1 acre). We do not intend to approve rezone requests without sufficient assurance that these policies will be followed within each development. ○ In areas designated by “RES,” these policies could be satisfied in the following ways: ■ A small, four-unit development might have two regular-sized lots, one smaller lot, and one larger lot. ■ A six-unit development might include a single twin home or duplex on a corner lot. ■ An eight-unit development might be configured as a pocket neighborhood, with plenty of green-space to stay under the density limit. ■ A ten-unit development might include four “clustered” homes with a shared driveway and two lots with oversized garden areas. ■ A twelve-unit development might include a four-unit mansion house, designed to blend in with the surrounding single-family detached homes. ■ Larger developments may include a combination of the above ideas. ○ In areas designated “LDR” on the Southwest Area Future Land Use Map ■ Single-family detached housing should still be the predominant type. The higher density allowed in these areas can be achieved through clustering and smaller yards. ■ Ample use of single-family attached housing may help maintain the “single-family feel.” ■ Multi-family buildings are encouraged, to provide dispersed rental opportunities, but must be done in a way to “augment” and “enhance,” as called for in the Development Policies. ■ The “Diversity within the block” graphic, shown below, is one example of how a development might look. Excerpt from the Westside Development Policies

3. Encourage Sustainable Residential Development Patterns a. Establish ordinances to require a mix of housing types, lot sizes, and designs to accommodate various stages of life. b. Detached single-family homes should be the predominant housing type and the use of other types should augment and not detract from the single-family feel of the area. c. Housing types should be mixed without barriers separating types or densities. d. The scale and style of residences should enhance the surrounding area, regardless of housing type. e. Create design standards for important road corridors in southwest Provo. f. The overall density of the area should average four units to the acre.

A slightly out-of-date version of the Southwest Area Future Land Use Map