Council Meetings - 1 September 2020

The Council typically meets in our formal meetings once every two weeks. We have had three special meetings in the last two weeks to discuss, pass, and then override the Mayor's veto of an ordinance the requires masks to be worn in public spaces under certain circumstances. I've received more public input, both positive and negative, on this subject than any other during my time on the Council. Our regular meetings will be held tomorrow, with the typical assortment of items, but we will be discussing the "mask mandate" again.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Business

1. A discussion of possible amendments to Chapter 9.25 COVID-19 Response. (20-118)
   The Governor of Utah allows local jurisdictions to decide if mandating masks are warranted requirements to combat COVID 19. On August 25, 2020, the Provo Municipal Council passed an ordinance initiating Section 9.25 and amending Section 9.17 of Provo City Code. This was done to address the health issues caused by COVID 19. On August 27, 2020, the Council held a special meeting to override the Mayor’s veto. Since the passage of the ordinance there have been discussions about making some changes to Section 9.25. This is likely the most hotly debated issue that I've been involved with on the Council. We held three special sessions between the last regularly scheduled meeting two weeks ago and our regularly scheduled meeting tomorrow. I don't believe there have been three special sessions in the rest of the six and a half years that I have served. This agenda item will allow us to discuss and tweaks or changes that we might want to make to the "Mask or Socially Distancing" mandate.
   

   Administration

2. A presentation regarding the Fiscal 2020 3rd Quarter Financial Report. (20-220)
   John Borget will give an overview of the Quarterly Report for the 3rd quarter ending March 31, 2020. If I'm reading the charts and tables correctly, at the end of the 3rd quarter (March 31st, 2020), the City revenues and most of the expenditures were very similar to the year-to-date figures from the previous year. But the end of March was still early in the pandemic, so Q4 totals may still be deeply affected. Presentation only. The City is doing remarkably well, considering all that is going on during the pandemic. There are definite challenges, but prudent decisions over the decades have put us in a resilient spot.
3. A presentation regarding an update on the Provo City Center Project and Redevelopment. (20-013)
   The Provo City Center project is hitting some key milestones in the next few weeks, both in the construction as well as in narrowing the field of potential development partners for the redevelopment of the existing site. Project manager Scott Henderson and David Walter from the Provo Redevelopment Agency will both provide updates on these aspects of the project. So much of the work I've engaged in on the Council has been about compromise. Perhaps no other project embodies the thrills and the resignation of compromise more than the new city office project. Presentation only. There were no big announcements, just a progress report. Things are progressing, but they found more buried "treasures" than expected, which has slowed things down.
4. A resolution approving the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Report for 2019 in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Report. (20-119)
   Each year, the City must update a self-assessment regarding the sewer collection and treatment system for submission to the State as part of our sewer discharge permit. This is the sixth year I have read the report. As far as reportable incidents, I believe this is the first year that there have been zero, even minor incidents. I am a little concerned about the "no"s in the first section about whether we are sustainably funding our sewer system. We've been adjusting sewer rates slowly over the past few years. Is the plan we are following still insufficient to address all of the needs? In a related theme, is it time to start a CAP (customer assistance program)? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 1, 2020. The report reinforces that our waste-water team is going a great job with the resources that we have given them, but we need to continue to raise sewer rates until we get to a sustainable level.
5. A presentation from the Utah Transit Authority regarding the impact COVID-19 has had on their services. (20-221)
   COVID-19 has had an impact on ridership on UTA trains. The UTA has evaluated their services and adjusted accordingly. They are informing jurisdictions that are serviced by their trains about these new plans to address ridership. Will there be an additional reduction in service for UVX? Presentation only. The "new plans" were already implemented months ago. There are no plans to reduce the frequency of service on UVX any more.
6. A resolution to place a 0.207 acre parcel of vacant land at 1320 South and East of 1080 East on the Surplus Property List and to approve a Real Estate Purchase Contract for the sale of city property for a residential development. (20-221)
   The Municipal Council approved a resolution to surplus the property at 1320 South 1080 East in the Council Meeting on August 4, 2020. That resolution required that the terms of the Real Estate Purchase Contract would need to be approved by the Municipal Council. Staff has been able to negotiate a sale for the previously surplused property, but they would also like to include an additional strip of property located to the south of the existing substation and immediately adjacent to the proposed residential development. This is property that will not be used as part of any future expansion of the substation and can be included to enhance the approach to the proposed development. This resolution, if approved, would place this small parcel of property on the Surplus Property List and also approve the terms of the Real Estate Purchase Contract. It makes sense to include this strip of land in with the development to be landscaped and maintained by the development rather than having an isolated strip of land being maintained by the City. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 1, 2020. This should be an excellent project for the long-term health of this area and the City.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

7. An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan map designation from commercial to residential for real property located at 1555 N Canyon Road. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLGPA20200062)
   Paul Washburn, an agent for the property owner, is requesting a General Plan map amendment from commercial to residential for the conversion of a motel to residential units at 1555 N Canyon Road. This request has an associated project plan proposal and a zone map amendment from CG to CMU. The proposal shows converting the motel rooms to residential units, with 95 studio units and one two bedroom unit. This conversion would increase the parking demand for the site from the proposed 111 parking stalls to 145 parking stalls. In addition to a change in parking, the landscaping would need to be updated and added-to to meet current codes of the proposed CMU zone. In addition to the parking and landscaping demands the project would have, there are design standards in the CMU zone that the current building does not meet, and the proposal does not show addressing. The “findings of fact” section notes all of the code deficiencies described in these paragraphs. Lastly, the provided TDM plan refers to a number of parking stalls between 107 and 111 for 96 residential units. These numbers are what would be provided without providing any parking lot landscaping, failing to address code standards of 15.20.090, Provo City Code. Planning Commission recommended denial. Both the Staff and the Planning Commission recommends denial. I tend to agree with their assessment. This item was continued. This item was continued.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 1.91 acres of real property, generally located at 1555 N Canyon Road, from General Commercial (CG) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200085)
   Same information as previous item. Planning Commission recommended denial. Related to the previous item. This item was continued. This item was continued.
9. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 3.75 acres of real property, generally located at 1487 W 990 S, from Agricultural (A1) to One-Family (R1.10). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200209)
   Robert Steele is requesting a zone change from the Agricultural (A1) zone to the One-Family (R1.10) zone for four parcels of land around 1487 West 990 South. The proposed zone would require ten thousand square foot residential lots on the 3.76 acres of land. Mr. Steele is proposing this zone to subdivide one single family lot on the northwest of the westernmost parcel. This would be the initial subdivision; another subdivision would come later and could create an additional eight lots as shown on the conceptual layout plan (attachment 3). Since the lot proposed relies on the Kelshaw Lane road and utilities being developed, the subdivision would need to wait on the completion of those improvements. Planning Commission recommended approval. I don't fully understand how many lots will be placed on the 3.76 acres. Otherwise, this seems like a good fit, given the constraints on the property. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 1, 2020. The proposal is to rezone for a single lot, but the proposal also shows how the rest of the property could be used in the future.



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, September 1, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.

Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:

Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.



Action Agenda

1. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council outlining support for the Provo School District General Obligation Bond. (20-115)
   At the joint meeting between the Provo City Council and Provo School District Board, there was a discussion about the need to reconstruct Timpview High School. In order to pay for the reconstruction, the Provo School District Board has placed a General Obligation Bond on the November ballot. This is the least expensive and disruptive of all the options before the school board and for the citizens of Provo. I strongly supported the School District bond six years ago but argued against the bond that was proposed last year because of the timing and what was included. I support this much more limited request for 2020. In our previous joint meeting with the School Board, they asked if the Mayor and Council would be willing to pass a resolution of support. We will consider acting on this request. A motion to continue this item to the September 15, 2020 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. I believe we will pass this on the 15th. Some of the councilors wanted to study the issue more. Some also wanted to look into the historical precedent of passing resolutions of support for other entities.
2. A resolution to place a 0.207 acre parcel of vacant land at 1320 South and East of 1080 East on the Surplus Property List and to approve a Real Estate Purchase Contract for the sale of city property for a residential development. (20-221)
   The Municipal Council approved a resolution to surplus the property at 1320 South 1080 East in the Council Meeting on August 4, 2020. That resolution required that the terms of the Real Estate Purchase Contract would need to be approved by the Municipal Council. Staff has been able to negotiate a sale for the previously surplused property, but they would also like to include an additional strip of property located to the south of the existing substation and immediately adjacent to the proposed residential development. This is property that will not be used as part of any future expansion of the substation and can be included to enhance the approach to the proposed development. This resolution, if approved, would place this small parcel of property on the Surplus Property List and also approve the terms of the Real Estate Purchase Contract. See my preview of item 5 on the earlier agenda. Approved 7:0. This should be an excellent project for the long-term health of this area and the City.
3. A resolution approving the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Report for 2019 in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Report. (20-119)
   Each year, the City must update a self-assessment regarding the sewer collection and treatment system for submission to the State as part of our sewer discharge permit. See my preview of item 4 on the earlier agenda. Approved 7:0. The report reinforces that our waste-water team is going a great job with the resources that we have given them, but we need to continue to raise sewer rates until we get to a sustainable level.
4. An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan map designation from commercial to residential for real property located at 1555 N Canyon Road. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLGPA20200062)
   This was item 7 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 7 on the earlier agenda. Continued.
5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 1.91 acres of real property, generally located at 1555 N Canyon Road, from General Commercial (CG) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200085)
   This was item 8 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 8 on the earlier agenda. Continued.
6. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 3.75 acres of real property, generally located at 1487 W 990 S, from Agricultural (A1) to One-Family (R1.10). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200209)
   This was item 9 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 9 on the earlier agenda. Approved 7:0. The proposal is to rezone a single lot, but the proposal also shows how the rest of the property could be used in the future.
7. An ordinance amending Chapter 9.25 and related Sections of Provo City Code (20-118)
   This was item 1 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 1 on the earlier agenda. Continued.




Adjournment

On Mandates and Public Health

Yesterday the Provo City Council passed an ordinance requiring masks in certain public settings. Tomorrow the Provo City Mayor is expected to veto the ordinance and the Council plans to convene to consider overriding the veto.

If you have any questions about what is or isn't in the "mask mandate", please read this FAQ, published by the Council Office.

Here are four thoughts for the occasion.

i. Time to Walk the Talk

I hear many in our community talk about respecting differences of opinion. It is easy to say that we can disagree with civility and respect. It is harder to actually do so in the midst of heated community debate. Now is the time for us to hold ourselves to the high ideal. We have heard from thousands of you, each with strong opinions on the best course of action for the city. Some feel strongly that any law requiring masks in public is an unconstitutional overreach and an attack on our freedoms. Others feel just as strongly such a mandate is squarely in the Council's role "to provide for the safety and preserve the health...of the city and its inhabitants" and that inaction will lead to needless death. Councilors have pretty thick skin; we can take the criticism. It pains me, though, when I see stewing animosity in the community. I ask everyone to try to be more understanding and give people the benefit of the doubt. People have different perspectives and may come to different conclusions than you. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are evil or bad people. The middle of a debate may be the hardest time to love one another, but it is also when it is needed the most.

ii. For Schools, For the Economy, For Fun

The City has joined with the State and many trusted institutions like Intermountain Healthcare to encourage the public to be vigilant in following the health guidelines to protect ourselves and others during the pandemic.

Much has been said about how following these guidelines give us the best chance to keep our schools and our economy open. It struck me yesterday, during all the talk of gatherings, parties, picnics, and recreating, that these guidelines can also help keep us safe while socializing and give us the best chance to keep these opportunities to socialize. Enjoy the party, but please do so responsibly.

iii. Mask Mandates are like Speed Limits

Many have argued that wearing masks should be an individual decision and that the government should trust people to do what is right. Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone in the community just chose to follow the guidelines given by our federal and state public health officials? Wouldn't it also be wonderful if everyone in the community drove at a safe speed on our roads for their own safety and the safety of those around them? As nice as that would be, we still have speed limits that communicate to drivers the community expectation for speed and provide penalties if they are caught exceeding the lawful limit. Likewise, a mask mandate communicates to people entering our public spaces what the community expectations are for masking and social distancing and provides penalties if they are caught ignoring the law. 

Another complaint that I have heard is that mask mandates take away freedom. And it does in a sense; in the same sense that speed limits take away freedom. People can still choose to follow the mandate just as they can choose whether or not to follow the speed limit. Also, people can choose to not drive on public roads. Likewise, people can choose to not go to public spaces. I understand that this would be difficult (but not impossible). Our public spaces provide so many conveniences and opportunities for us that it would be hard not to use them. But that is exactly why it is so important to set reasonable expectations for behaviors in our public spaces to protect the health of everyone who chooses to use these public spaces.

iv. No, Wait, Mask Mandates are like Seat Belt Laws...Sort Of

One Utah County Commissioner compared mask mandates to seat-belt rules. In some ways, it is an apt comparison. Most safety experts recommend wearing one. Wearing a seatbelt is not particularly comfortable. It is inconvenient and sometimes annoying. And 99.99% of the time (not an actual statistic) you would be perfectly fine not wearing one. You could finish almost every day by looking back and saying, "See? I didn't wear a seatbelt today and I'm perfectly fine, that whole seatbelt craze is just stupid and doesn't work."

I personally have worn a seatbelt my entire adult life and have never "needed" it. Same with my wife...she has never "needed" it except for that one time when she was in a rollover crash. My kids sure are grateful that she was wearing a seatbelt; they wouldn't be here otherwise. It is easy to think, "I never wear a mask and I'm fine." And you will be totally fine not wearing a mask...until that one time when you aren't. For most of us that one time will never come. But for some of us it already has. For some of us it is still coming. For just how many of us depends on how well the community heeds the guidelines.

But seat belt laws are not a perfect analogy. My not wearing a seatbelt is very unlikely to cause injury to others. By not wearing one, I am really only risking my own health. Not wearing a mask, on the other hand, affects those around you. In this way, mask mandates are more similar to restrictions on smoking in public areas. Not wearing your mask does not only risk your safety, but the safety of those around you. But even the example of second-hand smoke does not capture the public health posed by not following COVID guidelines in public. Smoking in a public space does not cause others to start smoking or for them to pass along their second-hand smoke to others who then pick up the habit. But this is what happens with an infectious disease. 

Well, there you have it. A handful of my thoughts and reasoning around my decision to vote in favor of a limited mask mandate.

Stay safe and be kind.

Council Meetings - 18 August 2020

I'm sure the COVID-19 precautions (a.k.a mask) discussion will get the most attention tomorrow. I personally feel that the RCV item will have a greater long-term impact.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Business




Administration

1. A joint discussion with the Planning Commission regarding the process of updating the General Plan. (20-068)
   At the March 5, 2020 Council retreat, Council Members discussed updating the City’s General Plan and talked about setting aside money in the FY 2021 budget to pay for the update to the General Plan. At the March 31, 2020 Work Meeting, the Community and Neighborhood Services Department made a presentation about updating the General Plan. Their presentation included what would go into the updated General Plan. As part of the FY 2021 budget, the Council set aside money to update the General Plan. The Council has discussed getting input for the Planning Commission on what they would like to be included in the General Plan update. The Community and Neighborhood Services Department is currently working on developing an RFP for a General Plan update. According to Utah Code Section 10‐9a‐401, "each municipality shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-range general plan for present and future needs of the municipality; and growth and development of all or any part of the land within the municipality. The general plan may provide for: health, general welfare, safety, energy conservation, transportation, prosperity, civic activities, aesthetics, and recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities; the reduction of the waste of physical, financial, or human resources that result from either excessive congestion or excessive scattering of population; the efficient and economical use, conservation, and production of the supply of food and water; and drainage, sanitary, and other facilities and resources; the use of energy conservation and solar and renewable energy resources; the protection of urban development; the protection or promotion of moderate income housing; the protection and promotion of air quality; historic preservation; identifying future uses of land that are likely to require an expansion or significant modification of services or facilities provided by each affected entity; and an official map...the municipality may determine the comprehensiveness, extent, and format of the general plan."
   
   Our planning department has suggested that we streamline our General Plan and augment it with neighborhood and area-specific master plans. The General Plan would lay out the principles and policies that apply city-wide and coordinate how the various neighborhoods and areas of the city interface. The neighborhood and area-specific master plans give more details about how the principles and policies will be implemented in these areas. I support this approach. Presentation only. I feel like there was more of a consensus about the scope and objectives for the General Plan.
2. A presentation regarding an update from Valley Visioning. (20-111)
   Leota Coyne with Envision Utah will give the Council an update on the Valley Visioning project Envision Utah, in partnership with the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce, has done a good job facilitating the conversation in our community about how we want to grow and what kind of community we want to be in 40 years. I look forward to this update. Presentation only. It was a useful review of past work and an update of the most recent developments.
3. A discussion regarding ranked-choice voting. (20-113)
   In 2018, the Utah State Legislature approved the creation of a ranked choice voting (RCV) pilot program. RCV is an election method where voters rank their preferred candidates. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes in the top ranking, the votes from the candidate in last place move to those voters’ second choices. The process continues until a candidate has received a majority. The program is expected to run through 2026. Six cities initially opted in, but four dropped out. Payson and Vineyard held very successful RCV elections in 2019. The Provo City Council in 2018 determined that there was not enough time to sufficiently educate voters about the new election method but committed to exploring it for the 2021 elections. I am a big proponent of RCV and feel that it can help fix some of what's wrong with our political situation nationwide. I hope that Provo will adopt this form for the 2021 elections. Presentation only. Two municipalities used RCV last year, and it was a definite success for them. I am very optimistic that Provo will get on board for the coming election.
4. A discussion regarding face masks in public with regards to COVID-19. (20-114)
   Some Councilors have asked for a further discussion about what actions the City and/or Council can take to promote the wearing of face masks to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially as BYU and UVU students begin to return to Provo. Community transmission in our county is still high, and our public schools are starting this week. Soon we will have an influx of BYU and UVU students. What can we do to make it more likely that our schools will be able to stay open, and our businesses can get back closer to normal? A motion to schedule a special Council Meeting for Thursday, August 20, 2020, at which the Council would further discuss and possibly vote on final action in the form of a resolution or ordinance regarding masks, and to authorize staff to post on Open City Hall a topic requesting community feedback on the issue, was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. We moved this item to the start of the meeting, and it took up more than half of the meeting. Masks and/or socially distancing are effective in slowing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our public schools are opening, as are two major universities bringing in 50,000 students. If we want to keep our schools open, if we're going to keep our businesses open, if we want to have the best shot at the most normal day-to-day living, we all need to be behaving in a socially responsible manner, which means wearing masks in public when not socially distanced.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct an inconsistency and clarify accessory living spaces as a permitted accessory use in the PRO-R-9 Limited Density Residential (LDR) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200162)
   Section 14.50(09).020(5)(d) of the Provo City Code, related to the PRO-R-9 Zone, lists “accessory living spaces” as a permitted accessory use; however, Section 14.50(9).140(5)(a) states “no accessory apartment or second kitchens shall be permitted in any dwelling unit.” City staff became aware of the inconsistency in the text and submitted an amendment application to correct it. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is a relatively minor change that fixes a discrepancy. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 18, 2020; the presentation was continued to that meeting. See my report for item 4 on the evening agenda.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the minimum lot depth in the Low Density Residential (LDR) and Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zones. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200208)
   The applicant owns the property located 189 S 500 W. This property has an area of 0.25 acres and the applicant would like to obtain the necessary zoning to establish two (2) approximately 5000 SF lots (the minimum lot area in the VLDR and LDR zones for a detached one-family dwelling in 5000 SF). The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the two (2) lots, but the shape of the subject property will not allow him to establish two (2) lots that meet the minimum 90-foot lot depth of the VLDR Zone. The lot depth requirement is the same for the VLDR and LDR zones. For comparison, the R1.10 Zone (10,000 SF lot area minimum) has a minimum lot depth requirement of 90 feet, whereas the R1.6 and R1.7 zones (6000 SF and 7000 SF lot area minimum respectively) have a minimum lot depth requirement of 75 feet. Planning Commission recommended approval. I think it is reasonable that this parcel be split and a new unit developed. I'm not a fan of how the property line has to be bent all around to squeeze enough space to meet the 5000 sqft requirement. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 18, 2020; the presentation was continued to that meeting. See my report for item 5 on the evening agenda.
7. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 14 acres of real property, generally located at 1164 South 1600 West, from Agricultural (A1.5) to Residential (R1.7). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180029)
   The applicant, after working tirelessly to refine their development proposal, is proposing a zone map amendment to rezone approximately 14 acres of land from the A1.5 Zone to the R1.7 Zone. The subject land is located in the Southwest area of the City at approximately 1150 S 1600 W. The applicant has submitted an accompanying concept plan for a 40-lot subdivision. The R1.7 Zone allows for a minimum lot area of 7,000 SF; however, the majority of the proposed lots (29 of 40) have an area of more than 9000 SF. The subject property is surrounded by land in the A1 Zone; however, a subdivision in the R1.8 Zone, which lies approximately 550 feet north of the subject land, has been approved and is currently being developed. The proposed development area is located in a High-Water Table Area and all requirements of Section 15.05.170 of the Provo City Code must be met. Further, the southwest corner of the subject property lies in the 100-year floodplain (a 1% annual chance of flooding). All applicable floodplain requirements must be met. As for access to the subject land, both 1150 S and 1600 W appear to terminate at the northeast corner of the rezone area. One member of the public has voiced concerns about the City approving more development that would utilize 1600 West. This individual notes that 1600 West is very narrow; however, 1600 West is not the only road that would access the development area and staff believes many individuals would also use 1150 South to travel to and from the development. Utility infrastructure would need to be expanded to support additional residences on the subject property. Providing sewer to this area seems to be of particular concern; the Public Works Department notes that “it appears that sewer generally can be installed in this area to meet Provo City Standards.” Public Works has cautioned the developer that more thorough details (regarding utilities) would need to be provided to demonstrate that all City standards can be met. Planning Commission recommended approval. The street layout respects the principles of interconnectivity. It is mostly aligned with the envisioned overall density of the area. My biggest concern is that this looks an awful lot like "leap-frog" development. Well, actually, my biggest complaint is that there is only one housing type, but until Provo provides for more flexible zoning that accommodates or requires a diversity of housing types, I don't feel like we can hold developers to that ideal. his item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 18, 2020; the presentation was continued to that meeting. See my report for item 6 on the evening agenda.



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, August 18, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.

Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:

Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.



Action Agenda

1. A resolution approving the form of the lease/purchase agreement with ZMFU II, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah and authorizing the execution and delivery thereof for golf course maintenance equipment. (20-109)
   A Request for Proposals was issued for lease financing of golf course maintenance equipment. The low bidder was Zions Bank at 1.78%. This lease would fund the replacement of existing golf course maintenance equipment that is at the end of its useful life. This was already budgeted for. After reading through 50 pages of information, I still don't have any idea what the maintenance equipment is or why this request wasn't made as part of the annual budget process. I'm confident that we will get these answers in the meeting tomorrow, but it would be nice to get this kind of information beforehand. Approved 5:0, with David Shipley abstaining and David Sewell excused. The maintenance equipment is lawnmowers and such. The item was part of the annual budget (at least the first year's payment) because it was the plan all along.
2. A resolution appropriating $521,093.13 in the Golf Fund for the lease of Golf Course Maintenance Equipment to be leased. (20-109)
   The Parks and Recreation Department requests an appropriation of $521,093.13 in the Golf Fund for the purchase of Golf Course Maintenance Equipment to be leased. The equipment leased will replace current equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. This is the appropriation for the equipment mentioned above. This is related to the previous item. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. This is related to the previous item.
3. A resolution appropriating $69,200 in the Ice Sheet Fund for the replacement of the main fire panel at Peaks Ice Arena applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. (20-112)
   The current fire alarm system at the Peaks Ice Arena is outdated and is no longer supported by the vendor. Replacement parts are unavailable, so it is recommended that we replace the system immediately. We received three quotes, and we are recommending we go with the lowest quote in the amount of $69,200, which includes:
   1. Project Management
   2. Labor
   3. Demo of existing system
   4. Installation of new system
   5. Programming of System
   6. Testing and Commissioning/Final Inspection with AHJ & Permit Closeout
   I support the proper upkeep of our facilities. This seems like a reasonable project, given the current age of the ice arena. I do have questions about how this fits into the overall budget and the building's operations and maintenance. We've been working towards building up funds to cover systems repair and replacement in our facilities, so I'm curious why that doesn't seem to apply in this case. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. The source of the money is indeed coming from the fund balance of the Ice Sheet. It is remarkable that these maintenance and upgrade projects can be funded by the operation of our Parks and Rec Department.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct an inconsistency and clarify accessory living spaces as a permitted accessory use in the PRO-R-9 Limited Density Residential (LDR) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200162)
   This was item 5 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 5 in the previous meeting. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. Just fixing small mistakes in the code.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the minimum lot depth in the Low Density Residential (LDR) and Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zones. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200208)
   This was item 6 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 6 in the previous meeting. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. The lot depth requirement was greater in these zones than the R1.6 zone, which doesn't make sense. I asked Community and Neighborhood Services staff to look at any adjustments that they think would help make sure that the area that goes towards square footage requirements is actually meaningful.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 14 acres of real property, generally located at 1164 South 1600 West, from Agricultural (A1.5) to Residential (R1.7). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180029)
   This was item 7 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 7 in the previous meeting. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. I voted for it, but very reluctantly. It looks like leapfrog development to me.
7. ***WITHDRAWN*** An amendment request to Sections 14.50(2).030, 14.50(20).050 and 14.35.050 to allow for an additional dwelling unit, located at 670 N 800 E in the PRO-A2 zone. Joaquin Neighborhood. PLOTA20200197
   This item was withdrawn by the applicant.
8. ***CONTINUED*** A Zone Change request Residential Conservation (RC) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) to subdivide the lot to create one 5,000 sf, single-family lot, located at 189 S 500 W. Franklin Neighborhood. PLRZ20200124
   This item was not ready to be heard.
9. ***CONTINUED*** Request for a General Plan amendment from Commercial to Mixed Use for the Super 8 Motel, located at 1555 N Canyon Road in the General Commercial (CG) zone. Carterville Neighborhood. PLGPA20200062
   This item was not ready to be heard.
10. ***CONTINUED*** Request for a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU) for the Super 8 Motel, located at 1555 N Canyon Road. Carterville Neighborhood. PLRZ20200085
    This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 4 August 2020

The only item in the Work Meeting is COVID-19 related. I like what Councilor Sewell wrote about our need to be vigilant in his last newsletter. After celebrating the first real drop in new cases since the huge surge Utah experienced after Memorial Day, he wrote, "More people have been wearing masks in public lately. We need to continue to improve in following state guidelines and federal guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to protect ourselves and others. The onset of cooler weather in the fall, combined with increased activity at businesses, churches and schools could cause another spike in new cases if we are not vigilant." 

If you are interested in other Council or councilor publications, please visit bit.ly/ProvoEmail.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

3:30 pm, Tuesday, August 4, 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




Administration

1. A discussion regarding an interlocal agreement with Utah County on CARES Act Funding. (20-108)
   The City has received an allocation under the CARES Act from Utah County for expenses and projects related to the impact of COVID-19 on citizens and city operations. The Administration would like to review the proposed agreement with the County and the projects the Administration intends to undertake with the allocated funding (see attachments). List of CARES Act projects. Proposed expenditures. The pandemic has reduced the City's general revenues, reduced the operating income of many of the services we provide, and necessitated many unplanned expenditures. The CARES Act funding can't offset lost revenues, but can be used to reimburse the City for COVID-19-related expenses. These are things like additional PPE for first responders, Plexiglas installations at customer service counters, and additional sanitizing equipment. There are a couple of items on the proposed list that I will need some help feeling comfortable with the COVID-19 link. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 4, 2020. See my report for item 3 in the evening meeting.



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. A closed meeting was held.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.

Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda: Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.



Consent Agenda

1. An ordinance granting Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless a nonexclusive franchise to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah. (20-107)
   Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless is looking to install small cell wireless facilities in the public right of way. This agreement would govern the rights and obligations of any work performed in the public right of way. I found the memo that accompanies the agreement very helpful to focus on aspects that differ from the default contract. I appreciate the competent civil servants that serve throughout the city government.
   
   This is a 5G agreement that many in the City will cheer its arrival. I have also heard from a few residents concerned about adverse health effects related to 5G networks. I have looked into the concerns and found the broad consensus of health and safety experts is that testing has not shown any undue risks. Approved 7:0. With this being on the Consent Agenda, there was no discussion.




Action Agenda

2. A resolution appointing individuals to various boards and commissions. (20-003)
   Mayor Kaufusi has submitted a number of appointments and reappointments of individuals to various boards and commissions. The Council has had an opportunity to review the appointees' qualifications and meet with the appointees. This resolution will formalize their appointments to these respective boards and commissions. Emma Willes is being appointed to the Arts Council. Allyn Jones is being appointed to the Planning Commission. I'm grateful that such high caliber individuals are willing to serve. Approved 7:0. I believe there is still one to go and then we'll be set for a while.
3. A resolution authorizing Provo City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Utah County for disbursement from the Corona Virus Relief Fund. (20-108)
   This was item 1 in the work meeting. See my preview in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. It was good to get my questions answered. The Administration has gone through and continues to go through a careful vetting process, including third-party review, to ensure each project is eligible for this program.
4. A resolution approving the application for grants from the Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART Drought Response Program for fiscal year 2021 for the Provo Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project. (20-105)
   Public Works has been working to identify ways to artificially recharge the aquifers that supply water to the City. A WaterSMART drought resiliency grant has been identified as a potential funding source for these aquifer storage and recovery projects. One of the requirements of the grant application is a resolution indicating the Council's support and commitment to meeting the requirements of the grant program. We discussed this in our Work Meeting two weeks ago. My report of the discussion said, in part, "I agree with the Public Works Director, Dave Decker, that ASR is the most important project that the department is currently working on. Generations to come will benefit from the foresight driving this project." Approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore excused. I'm happy to support this grant application and the ASR project in general.
5. A resolution to place the vacant property at 480 West Center on the Surplus Property List and to remove a parcel at the mouth of Provo Canyon therefrom. (20-110)
   In 2013, Provo City acquired the property at 480 West Center, previously known as the "Roasted Artichoke." Provo City became involved in this property when the building condition was considered to be dangerous and needed to be demolished. The property has been sitting vacant since that time, except for a storage shed that is being used by the Parks and Recreation Department. The City has been approached by several individuals who have expressed interest in developing this property into a commercial use. Before pursuing any of those offers, it would be appropriate to first put the property on the Surplus Property List.
   
   On February 28, 2019, the Provo Municipal Council approved the placement of a 39- acre parcel of ground located at the mouth of Provo Canyon on the Surplus Property List (Resolution 2019-12). After further discussion about the possibility of developing the property, it was determined that the property should remain as open space for trails and other recreational purposes and the property should be removed from the Surplus Property List. I'm excited that the old "Roasted Artichoke" property may redevelop. I'm looking forward to the discussion about the property at the mouth of the canyon. It wasn't that long ago that the Council, at the request of the Administration, added the property to the surplus list. Approved 7:0. Hopefully a master plan for the north-east area will bring a more comprehensive and cohesive plan. In the mean time, I wouldn't support selling to a developer.
6. ***CONTINUED*** A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a lease financing for golf course maintenance equipment. (20-109)
   This item was not ready to be heard.
7. ***CONTINUED*** A resolution appropriating $521,093.13 in the Golf Fund for the purchase of Golf Course Maintenance Equipment to be leased. (20-109)
   This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment