Council Meetings - 14 April 2020

I hope everyone is staying safe. There have been ongoing discussions about what is the right course of action regarding government directives, orders, encouragement, and information. People are passionate on both sides of the argument about whether a stay-at-home order is needed or if it would do more harm than good. There is still so much that isn't exactly known about how the novel coronavirus spreads. There is evidence that the virus is being spread by asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic persons. There are concerns that it might be spread by aerosols and not just droplets. The CDC is updating its recommendations -- cloth facemasks are now recommended.

Here is how I approach it: If I have to go out, I act as if I am infected and have the potential to spread the virus. I also assume that anyone I encounter, whether passing on the trail or in the supermarket aisle, is infected and if I don't take the right precautions then I will take the virus back home to my family. This helps me to stay vigilant, and hopefully safe.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 pm, Tuesday, April 14, 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 from Provo Power regarding their 5-year Strategic Plan and their Action Plans. (20-066)
   Provo Power recognizes that in order to serve the community successfully far into the future, they must invest in new technologies, promote renewable energy resources, maintain a qualified workforce, and develop the flexibility and vision to adapt to a fast-changing electric utility marketplace. During the Summer of 2019, Provo Power developed its 2020-2025 Strategic Plan and defined Strategic Priorities which the organization must address in order to reach defined goals and achieve its vision: "Provo Power shall be at the forefront in providing reliable energy services to enhance the quality of life for our community." Travis Ball, the Director of Provo Power, will review their Strategic Priorities, Goals, and Action Plans. Having Provo Power, a community-owned electrical service provider, has been a major benefit for the City. This 5-year Strategic plan is a good example of how well managed the department is. I think this document is a better summary than the one linked in the title. Presentation only. We spent a good portion of the time discussing a "clean energy" goal for the City. The consensus was that a goal to reach 60% clean energy by 2030 was a good balance between realistic and aggressive. It will take continued effort and focus like Provo Power and UMPA have given over the past decade. Note that this goal isn't for the energy used by the city government, but for all the power provided by Provo power to all our users. This is significantly larger than what some communities are targeting.
2. A presentation regarding the adoption of policies allowing for the use and establishment of 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 land fill. It has been determined that all former land fill 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) took effect on May 14, 2019. This legislation created a funding mechanism for land developers to fund public infrastructure and attach the cost of the 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. It looks like we have been given the same documents as we were before the first discussion of this item two weeks ago. I feel the Council was interested in pursuing this for the medical school project, but we need to get the policy in place first. Presentation only. The comparison was made to the TIF (tax increment financing) tool that we sometimes use. We don't have a defined policy and make individual decisions on each proposal that is made. It was suggested that we don't need to establish broad policies on PIDs, at least not yet. This got me thinking. I actually think we would make better decisions and would be more predictable for our residents and businesses in the community if we had defined, broad policies on both TIF and these new PIDs.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200077)
   Following discussions after complications with the gravel pit, the Foothills Protection Committee and Planning staff prepared a proposed set of hillside requirements and development standards to help protect hillside areas of Provo City. Staff felt that an overlay zone approach was best for adding hillside requirements. The proposed requirements and standards would overlay the existing zoning of a property; in other words, this proposal would add additional zoning requirements for a given parcel in addition to the requirements of the underlying zone. Feedback from multiple City departments was considered in the drafting of this proposal. The proposal includes, among other things, requirements related to limits of disturbance or LOD (identification of the limited area of a lot that can be encroached upon by development activity), slope protection and stability, detention basin design, ridgelines, trails, streets and access, fences, vegetation protection, stream corridor and wetlands protection, design standards, and development clustering. Multiple graphical illustrations of requirements are included in the proposal for the sake of facilitating comprehension of the requirements. Further, this proposal has a companion zone map amendment application. With the zone map amendment application, staff has proposed the inclusion of certain properties in the CH Zone. Included in the proposal is an amendment to Chapter 14.01, Provo City Code, to limit development east of the proposed CH Zone. Planning Commission recommended approval A lot of work has been put into this effort over the past several months. Overall I'm supportive of the provisions in the proposal. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on April 14, 2020. I expressed some concerns about the "clustering" provisions. We will bring this back to our next meeting (in just ONE week!) so the committee will look at making some adjustments on this and a few other questions that were raised.
4. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of multiple East Bench properties to include them in the Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLRZ20200078)
   Following the proposed creation of the Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone, the zone must be applied to the appropriate areas. Those parcels proposed to be included in the CH Zone are those lying on the east bench of the city between a line that follows the Elevation 4875 and a line that generally divides private and public land. A few private parcels lie east of the land proposed to be included in the CH Zone. Planning staff propose using a line that follows Elevation 4875 because it is a key elevation related to the City’s ability to deliver to water. It should be noted that the CH Zone ordinance text amendment proposes an amendment to Chapter 14.01 that would limit the uses of parcels lying east of the CH Zone. Further, at least one parcel owned by Provo City was included in the proposed boundaries of the CH Zone because the City anticipates that the property will be developed in the future. The Elevation 4750 was also used in the proposed boundaries (instead of the line between private and public land) to cut through the parcel upon which the Utah State Hospital lies (this parcel extends quite far up the mountainside). Planning Commission recommended approval. This shows the proposed map for the overlay. I can't say that I fully understand it, but I'm sure between the presentation tomorrow and our opportunity to ask questions I'll understand it before we are asked to vote on it in the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on April 14, 2020. There were several versions of the map in our document packet. The latest (actual) proposed map made far more sense than the earlier versions.
5. An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan relating to the Transportation Master Plan. Citywide application. (PLGPA20200038)
   This item was continued from the March 10 Council meeting. Changes made to the plan can be seen in the staff report. I have been really impressed with the Engineering Department's willingness and ability to incorporate feedback from the public and Council in such short order. I'm not completely happy with how they responded to the concern about addressing connectivity at 600 W just east of the freeway -- I would like to see a dotted line on the map -- but it is probably good enough for me to vote for it. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on April 14, 2020. The end result was a good compromise between defining the best expectation of what we will be working on over then next 5+ years and expressing areas that will need additional study to confirm the best solution.



Business

6. A discussion regarding a policy statement asking the Administration to pursue alternate fuel vehicles where possible when purchasing new vehicles for the city’s fleet. (20-075)
   In the Work Meeting on March 31, 2020, members of the Provo Municipal Council expressed a desire to create a policy statement as part of the Budget Document "Principles of Financial Management" regarding the purchasing alternative fuel vehicles for the Provo City Fleet. Chair Handley and I worked on a draft statement to be discussed and hopefully improved on during this work meeting. A motion to adopt the policy statement as presented was approved 7:0. It was a pleasure to work with Chair Handley, Council staff and the Administration on this one. Unless it is "imprudent", the City will replace retiring vehicles in the fleet with electric vehicles. The Administration will report each year during the budget presentations on vehicle purchases and how the decisions were made.
7. Ordinances amending Provo City Code regarding beer regulations to streamline it and bring it into alignment with state regulations (20-076) and amending Provo City Code regarding beer licenses and regulations to create a Class "F" license. (20-057)
   In the Council Meeting on February 18, 2020, the Council amended Provo City Code to permit restaurants with ancillary microbreweries as a permitted use in General Downtown (DT1), Downtown Core (DT2), and Regional Shopping Center zones. The ordinance included a sunrise clause which specified that the ordinance would not take effect until the Council authorized the issuance of a beer license for such restaurants.
   
   In the Work Meeting on March 10, the Council created the Alcohol Licensing Committee "to review current city policy regarding beer licenses, study best practices and options for regulation, recommend city policy and regulations for beer licenses to the council, and make a recommendation or an update by the 21st of April." The committee also compared Provo's beer regulations (Provo City Code 6.14 ) against the state's and found 11 discrepancies, most of which were fairly minor (e.g., volume measurements, outdated definitions, duration of special event permits, etc.). The rule of thumb is that city codes may be more strict than the state, but not less strict.
   
   The committee is now bringing two proposals to the Council:
   
   • 1. changes to streamline Provo City Code 6.14 and bring it into alignment with state regulations on points where the two differ (such as definitions of beer and the state's more strict ratio of revenue from alcohol sales, which will be addressed in a separate ordinance)
   • 2. the creation of a Class "F" beer license for restaurants with ancillary breweries.
   
   
   The creation of the brewpub license does not introduce any greater restrictions than are currently found in city code. While additional regulation could be addressed in the future, the proposed amendment is sufficient to create a new license. Because it will take some time for staff to actually make the license available, there is very little chance that a brewpub would apply for a license before these other regulations have been reviewed by the Council. The committee will continue to meet to discuss other potential regulations for brewpubs and other outlets that serve a I don't think the first proposal will be controversial. It makes our beer license section much shorter, clearer, and easier to understand what additional regulations exist beyond what is imposed by the State and the County. This should make it easier for licensees to be able to understand and follow the regulations.
   
   I understand that some in our community will not be happy that the second proposal will clear the way for brewpubs to begin operating without any additional licensing regulations. With our last action, we saw that there are some residents of Provo who feel that these changes should be voted on by the people of Provo directly. I respect that. Tuesday is the last day that our actions can be referred to this November's ballot. After that, any referendum would have to be put on the 2021 ballot. I don't think it is in the public's interest to drag this issue out that long. We are bringing this part of the licensing forward now to meet that deadline, and the committee will continue to consider recommendations from the CDC to protect the public health. A motion that the Council instruct Alcohol Licensing Committee to explore regulation of alcohol outlet density and come back with a recommendation was approved 4:3, with Councilors David Shipley, Shannon Ellsworth, and Travis Hoban opposed. The State requires "local consent" before issuing alcohol licenses. At some point in the past, well before my time, the Council delegated this authority to the Administration. I felt that, while we were being asked to consider changing our regulations to allow for brewpubs in Provo, it would be a good time to also consider our policy and practice around granting that local consent.
   
   The CDC recommends that communities use zoning and licensing authority to regulate the density of alcohol outlets. Provo does not currently do this, but could consider the alcohol outlet density that a new establishment is proposing to go into before granting the local consent. This policy would not affect current outlets, but could prevent clustering of future outlets.
8. A discussion regarding Council Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. (20-007)
   The Council has the opportunity to identify their budget priorities for FY 2020-2021. Included in this discussion, the Council can address the supplemental requests from other departments. Considering the anticipated decline in revenue, the Council must decide which requests fit with the Council’s budgeting priorities for FY 2020-2021 and how best to make up those lost revenues in a way that fits within their overall budget priorities. This worked so well last year. I feel like the Administration and the Council communicated very well and really tried to understand and support each other. In the end, we had a budget that both branches felt really good about and were able to easily approve. Presentation only. Last year we asked the Mayor to make Police Staffing and Safety, Zoning Compliance, and Parking priorities in the budget. She and the rest of the Administration knocked it out of the park. I was hopeful that the Council and Administration could identify a couple of other pressing needs that we could address in the upcoming budget, but the pandemic response has put so much uncertainty in the budget process that the conversation is completely different this year.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

1. 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)
   
This was previously heard at the March 31 Council meeting. 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. Here is what I wrote in my report of the March 31st meeting: "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 concern 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." A motion to substitute an ordinance approving a development agreement, but removing the rental prohibition from the draft agreement, was approved 5:2, with David Harding and David Sewell opposed. I voted against this because I feel that it is not aligned with the future land use map in the Franklin Neighborhood Plan that was adopted by the Council just four years ago.
2. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200077)
   This was item 3 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 3 in the work meeting. This item was continued by Council rule to the Council Meeting on April 21, 2020. See my report of work meeting agenda item 3.
3. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of multiple Esast Bench properties to include them in the Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLRZ20200078)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 in the work meeting. This item was continued by Council rule to the Council Meeting on April 21, 2020. See my report of work meeting agenda item 3.
4. An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan relating to The Transportation Master Plan. Citywide application. (PLGPA20200038)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 5 in the work meeting. A motion to amend the ordinance to refer to Exhibit A and to attach as Exhibit A the amended master plan as discussed was approved 7:0. The ordinance was then approved 7:0. See my report of work meeting agenda item 5.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding beer licenses and regulations to streamline it and bring it into alignment with state regulations. (20-076)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 7 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. This was part of the work by the Alcohol Licensing Subcommittee. This makes it much easier for beer licensees in the city to understand and comply with local regulations be removing provisions that were redundant or conflicting with state and county regulations.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding beer licenses and regulations to create a Class "F" beer license for restaurants with ancillary breweries. (20-057)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 7 in the work meeting. Approved 4:3, with George Handley, Bill Fillmore, and David Sewell opposed. The Alcohol Licensing Subcommittee is still looking at additional regulation. Some councilors felt that we shouldn't create licenses for brewpubs until this issue is worked out. I understand this perspective, but I really don't think we will get more than one brewpub application and I didn't want to hold it up while we continue to study this issue.
7. ***Continued*** A resolution appropriating $4,900,526 in the Airport Fund for the acquisition of land near the airport and authorizing an interfund loan from the Energy Fund as a funding source, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. (20-067)
   This item was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment