Council Meetings - 31 March 2020

These are some strange times we are living through. I hope you all are staying safe and healthy.

I've read about confusing being caused by elected officials sending out conflicting information regarding the current pandemic. I'm not a medical doctor nor a public health expert, so I won't even try. I fully support the guidelines being released by our federal, State, and County officials, and I fully support the City's 4 STEP COMMUNITY SAFETY PLAN.

I've seen some false information circulating social media, so please be careful of the sources of the information you consume. One site that I have been looking at recently is by a global health research center at the University of Washington. It uses a model to predict the peak day of the outbreak for each U.S. state and the Country, and projects the kind of hospital bed and ventilator shortages we are facing. It predicts the peak of the outbreak in the U.S. will be in two weeks. Currently, the death toll in the U.S. is 2,405. The model predicts this will be about the daily death rate at the peak. That sounds crazy, but the total number of deaths, country-wide, is predicted to level off midsummer around 82,000 (ranging between 40k and 140k). This is similar to the numbers our President was talking yesterday when he said we will have done a good job if we keep that number below 100,000.

The prediction for Utah is better, but still dire. It forecasts our peak to be on the 27th of April with 16 deaths per day. The bad news is that we may be asked to "Stay Safe, Stay Home" for another month. The good news is that we still have time to bend the infection curve down even more to beat the predictions.

Well, on a lighter note, we have a full day of Council meetings tomorrow. In keeping with the health guidance, the meeting will be held virtually. Here are all the details if you would like to participate. I actually don't see anything too juicy being discussed. The Alcohol Licensing Committee will give a status update and look for some direction from the Council, but nothing will be voted on until our next meeting in two weeks. Joaquin Parking will be discussed, but again, it's more of a status update. Finally, there is a rather large appropriation, but it is a long-term investment into our Airport, similar to several that have been made over the years that have turned out to be wise.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 31, 2020

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

Business

1. A presentation on Provo City's Vehicle Replacement 5 Year Plan. (20-007)
   The Vehicle Replacement Fund is utilized as an internal service funding mechanism for the purchase of vehicles for all City Departments. Purchases of General Fund vehicles have historically been repaid as 5 year loans back to the bank. The Fleet Advisory Committee with representatives from several departments have met and vetted each General Fund departments' priorities for replacements for the next 5 years. These priorities and associated additional funding requirements will be explained to the Council. "The bank" here is an internal fund. The City self-finances for our smaller, routine vehicle purchases. I think this is a wise way to safeguard tax dollars. It sounds like there will be a request to set aside more money for this fund. The cost of vehicles continue to go up. I will be interested to see what the Administration thinks about trying to get to the point that even our larger, non-routine purchases, like fire fighting apparatus, can be self-financed. A motion to decide as a Council to do as Mr. Harding has suggested and bring to the next Work Meeting a proposed paragraph regarding the policy direction for alternative fuel vehicles to discuss, amend to their satisfaction, and send forward was approved 7:0. The characterization of that motion is a little weird, but yes, we will be bringing a proposed city policy to the next meeting which would direct the City to purchase electric or other alternative fuel vehicles when retiring and replacing vehicles in our fleet, unless it is imprudent to do so.
2. A presentation to the Municipal Council in order to provide information regarding Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs). (20-063)
   The developers of the medical school and medical school housing at the golf course will be building a public road as a part of the access off of Lakeview Parkway. A significant portion of this new road, which will also include several utility lines, will pass through the former golf course, which is also a former landfill. It has been determined that all former landfill material within the road right of way profile will be required to be removed and hauled away. It is estimated this will cost upwards of $10 Million. The developer is looking for ways to pay for this large cost item and spread the payment of this work over time. Utah Senate Bill 228 (Public Infrastructure Districts Act) became effective May 14, 2019. This legislation created a funding mechanism for land developers to fund public infrastructure and attach the cost of said improvement to the property tax assessment through the creation of an independent taxing entity. The purpose of this item is to inform the Municipal Council of the implication and issues revolving around this funding mechanism. This is a new tool that the State has authorized to help finance infrastructure that is necessary for a development to go forward. This infrastructure needs to be paid for by the developer and using this tool doesn't change this. It needs local approval, but it doesn't affect the credit of the local entity. Presentation only. I do have some worry about how this new tool will fit into our established practices of paying for new public infrastructure, particularly with our use of impact fees. This application, though, where the medical school will be building, owning, and operating the apartments, makes total sense for this tool.
3. A discussion regarding licensing for restaurants with ancillary breweries. (20-057)
   In the Work Meeting on March 10, the Council created the Alcohol Licensing Committee. The committee has reviewed best practices, state requirements, Provo City Code, and other cities' policies regarding beer licensing. The committee is now ready to bring their proposals for a new Class "F" Beer License and other potential code amendments to the Council and receive feedback as they prepare their proposals for the Council Meetings in April.
   The sub-committee has made a lot of progress and is looking to get a feel for the Council's preferences on how we move forward with refining our proposal. A motion to instruct the Alcohol Licensing subcommittee to create a proposal for a class F brewpub license before April 14; and after April 14, to create a proposal that would conform the Class B and C licenses to state code and address any other necessary or desired updates before October 1, failed 3:4, with George Handley, David Harding, William Fillmore, and David Sewell opposed. A motion that the Council direct the Alcohol Licensing subcommittee to come forward by April 14 with a proposal that would create a class F license to address brewpubs and to align and streamline city code to more closely match the state code was approved 6:1, with William Fillmore opposed. My preference was to create a new class of beer license for brewpubs at the same time as looking at the way we give local consent to all types of beer licenses to consider if we should follow the CDC recommendations to reduce the risk of excessive alcohol consumption in communities. Instead, it looks like we will create the new license and perform some code clean up in the licensing section and will continue to work on the other aspects afterward.
4. A presentation from the Joaquin Parking Committee. (20-074)
   The Joaquin Neighborhood Parking Steering Committee approached the Council to address parking in Joaquin – one of the most diverse and densely populated neighborhoods in Provo. Since then, the Joaquin Parking Committee has put out a public survey, researched how other university towns manage their parking, held several focus groups, and talked with students, landlords, residents, business owners, and representatives from BYU. The committee has drafted a comprehensive parking management program that includes permit parking, paid visitor parking, and additional parking spaces. The program does have some startup costs, which will be addressed in the budget requests for the Community and Neighborhood Services Department. Ongoing costs will be covered by revenue from the program, with any remaining funds reinvested in neighborhood improvements. The program has been reviewed with Parking Enforcement and the Joaquin Neighborhood Chair. The next steps for the committee are to meet with department heads and present the program at a neighborhood meeting. This effort stalled a bit with the change of the Council. I am hopeful that we can get this across the finish line. Presentation only. We are getting close to being ready to begin the broad public outreach on this one.
5. A discussion regarding updating the General Plan. (20-068)
   The long-range planners have requested to attend a Work Session and update the Council on the General Plan. They have also requested high-level direction as they begin strategizing about how best to approach updating and revising the General Plan. I recognize the need for a "substantive" update to the General Plan. I support the proposal to streamline the document. Presentation only. This will be a major project for the end of this year and into the next.
6. A resolution appropriating $4,900,526 in the Airport Fund for the acquisition of land near the airport, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. (20-067)
   The Administration is recommending the purchase of 29.64 acres of property adjacent to the airport. The property is located immediately east of Duncan Aviation and shares the property line with the Airport on the east, west, and south. The purchase price for the property is $165,000 per acre (appraised value) with a total purchase price (including closing costs) of $4,900,526 to be appropriated in the Airport Fund. The funding will come from a transfer from the General Fund. The current owner of the property has a number of agricultural leases on the property and suspects that there are people living on the property. There have been reports of illegal activities occurring on the property including actions that violate the standards of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The proposed purchase of the property will qualify to be used as a match for future FAA airport projects. The land currently owned by the City that is available to be used as a match for future projects is $400,000, and it is expected it would be used very quickly with the terminal and other airport expansion projects on the horizon. If the proposed property purchase is not approved, the City would need to provide a cash match for future FAA airport projects once the $400,000 is used. This is an important opportunity to invest in our airport and will pay direct dividends for a decade. There are so many good reasons to do this. The only thing that makes me nervous is the uncertainty of local finances as we deal with the raging pandemic. A motion to request that staff bring back a proposal for an inter-fund loan from the Energy Department to fund this land purchase and that the Council consider it in an upcoming meeting was approved 7:0. This is the other item that we are looking to borrow from the Energy Fund. I think we are getting close to what I think should be the limit for this fund.
7. An update on the City Center Project. (20-013)
   Scott Henderson will update the Council about the designs for the new City Center Building, the proposed budget, location of the fire station, and the redevelopment of the current City Hall site. Construction will begin soon. Presentation only. I worry a bit that the main hallway -- the main area when you first enter the building before heading off in whatever direction you need to go, is too cramped. I've brought this up a couple of times now, so I know it's on the Administration and architect's radar.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

8. A brief explanation and overview for the Municipal Council on the Central Corridor Transit Study. The Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee is also invited to participate with the Council. (20-065)
   Region 3 Utah Department of Transportation has commenced an evaluation process to study the purpose and needs of a central corridor to connect Provo to Lehi and all cities in between via a potential mass transit mechanism. This evaluation process is in collaboration with the Utah Transit Authority, Horrocks Engineering, and Parametrix Consultants. Lehi, American Fork, Pleasant Grove, Lindon, Vineyard, Provo, and Orem are all participating in this process. Up to this point there is a technical committee consisting of both engineers and planners from the respective cities and an elected officials committee made of city mayors and/or administrators. The effort has mostly consisted of determining a purpose and need to move people from Provo to Lehi in the most effective and efficient manner, not necessarily using cars or I-15. This sounds a lot like BRT, but connecting Provo to Lehi. I support developing sensible and attractive transportation alternatives to give our community members more transportation options. Presentation only. These projects take a lot of time and resources. I'm glad we are starting to plan early.
9. An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan relating to The Transportation Master Plan. Citywide Application. (PLGPA20200038)
   Continued from the meetings on March 10, 2020. The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is an appendix to the General Plan and provides guidance on future transportation needs within the City. The TMP provides information on current and future transportation conditions to be taken into consideration when reviewing future development projects and capital improvements. The Public Works Department has contracted with Parametrix to revise and update the TMP, which was adopted in 2011, to reflect existing and future conditions. There have been a lot of good discussions since we continued the item. Part of the deliberations is about what to include now and what to include after we have completed the General Plan update. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to a future Council Meeting. It's been great working with our engineers to address the policy concerns that the councilors brought up in the March 10th meeting. I believe the TMP that we pass will be much better for the extra effort.



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. None requested.

Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. 2020 Census Complete Count presentation. (20-028)
   Every household should respond. Check out https://2020census.gov/ Presentation only. As I'm writing this, Provo's response rate is at 51.9%, just a hair below the State average. But Orem's response rate is 55.6%. We need to step up our game! (data)



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

2. A resolution to amend the Planning Commission bylaws to permit electronic public hearings. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200095)
   
This bylaw is to permit the Planning Commission to hold electronic public meetings in accordance with Utah State Law. The Commission itself changes its by-laws. But the Council has to ratify them. Approved 7:0.
3. A resolution appropriating $2,184,800 in the general CIP fund for the implementation of a Human Capital Management System and authorizing an interfund loan from the Energy Fund to the ERP Debt Service Fund as a funding source. (20-062)
   
The Administration is recommending the appropriation of $2,184,800 in the General CIP fund for the implementation of a HCMS and the approval of a 5-year interfund loan from Energy to the ERP Debt Service Fund to provide the funding. The interest rate on the interfund loan will be 2 ½ percent and an annual transfer from the specific funds will provide the annual funding. I believe this is the last component in the multi-year revamp of the core software suite used by the City. Approved 7:0. This component of our software system is definitely needed. By borrowing from the Energy Fund, we pay ourselves the interest and keep a healthy General Fund balance. We do need to take care not to over-use the Energy Fund.
4. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.34 acres of real property, generally located at 164 s 400 w, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200041)
   
Rob Slater is requesting a zone change from the RC zone to the LDR zone for his property at 164 South 400 West. The proposal conceives of demolishing the existing home and building three single-family homes on the site. The current zoning would allow the applicant one unit while approval of an LDR zone would allow up to five units. The single-family home that is currently on the property was built in 1885. Two conditions exist on this property. First, the size of the property, at 14, 810 square feet, is larger than most in the area. Second, the home on the property is in disrepair and would be very costly to try to rehabilitate. The restrictions of the RC zone would limit redevelopment to the single-family home. The location of the property is on the edge of the Franklin Neighborhood and a half block away from the Downtown Neighborhood. The related concept plan shows a front facing home on 400 West with a driveway on the north side to access two other detached single-family homes. The total project shows ten off-street parking spaces and over six thousand square feet of open space. Planning Commission recommended approval. There are many aspects that I like about this proposal. My main concern is that it doesn't appear to me to be consistent with the recently passed Franklin Neighborhood Master Plan. Continued by Council rule to the Council Meeting on April 14, 2020. Four years ago I voted against the adoption of the Franklin Neighborhood Plan because the Planners had changed the Future Land Use map to show R1.6(A) (small-lot single-family detached with accessory apartments) zoning immediately south of 100 S instead of LDR (low-density residential). Their original recommendation was for LDR and I felt that this was more appropriate for the area immediately south of our downtown. They changed their recommendation based on neighbors' concerns about a change in the housing type on these blocks. Well now, four years later, the Council has received its first request for a rezone in the area. The request, with Staff recommendation, is to rezone a property to LDR and not R1.6(A).

While I was for LDR to be on the future land use map in the neighborhood plan, I don't think it is right to go against the adopted plan.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow for permeable driveways and parking lot surfaces. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190411)
   
Provo City Code 6 (Business Licenses and Regulations), 14 (Zoning), and 15 (Development Landscaping Requirements) detail parking surface material standards required for new developments. However, concrete and asphalt do not allow storm water to penetrate the surface and be absorbed into the ground. The proposed amendment would allow parking lots and driveways to be built out of brick pavers, permeable pavements, grasscrete, and stabilized gravel to allow natural storm water infiltration. This storm water infiltration should naturally help recharge aquifers and help the sinking water table. Expanding the list of permitted parking surface option will also add less expensive material choices for builders. Gravel from driveways could get tracked into the street by cars. The proposed amendment requires a large diameter of rock and certain methods of stabilizing gravel to mitigate this concern. Planning Commission recommended approval. I think this is a positive change that gives people more options, reduces the demand on our stormwater system, and improves the water quality in our streams, river, and lake. I still need a little more reassuring that the gravel option won't cause problems, though. Approved 7:0. I had my gravel questions answered. It is not an option for any required accessibility parking.
6. ***CONTINUED*** Daniel LaFontaine requests a Zone Change from R1.10 to Low Density Residential for 1.07 acres for a townhome development, located at 50 E 3900 N. Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190265)
   
This was not ready to be heard
7. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan relating to The Transportation Master Plan. Citywide Application. (PLGPA20200038)
   
This was not ready to be heard
8. ***CONTINUED*** Comm. & Nbhd. Services Dept. requests ord. amend. to City Code 15.20.090--Parking Lot Landscaping. Request seeks to increase the min. canopy coverage & landscaping arrangement within new parking areas. Citywide appl. (PLOTA20190433)
   
This was not ready to be heard
9. ***CONTINUED*** A resolution appropriating $4,900,526 in the Airport Fund for the acquisition of land near the airport, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. (20-067)
   
This not ready to be heard


Adjournment