Council Meetings - 15 September 2020

So much of my council time and energy is being taken by the mask discussion. As is the tradition for the past several meetings, we have an item to consider (changes to) masking requirements. I did spend some time last week in a committee continuing the work on the Joaquin Parking Permit proposal.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Business

1. A discussion of possible amendments to Chapter 9.25 COVID-19 Response. (20-128)
   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. Several tweaks were proposed at the last meeting, and we worked on them over the past two weeks. I have read over the draft and feel comfortable with the changes. There is one other tweak that I would like to see, which would make it clearer when masks aren't required because social distancing is being observed.
2. A presentation regarding budget carryovers from fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2021. (20-125)
   This presentation will outline the amount of budget carryovers from the fiscal year (FY) 2020 budget to the fiscal year 2021 budget. The carryovers include (1) amounts that were encumbered on purchase orders in FY20 but not paid and (2) amounts committed to current ongoing projects and equipment purchases. Also included are all remaining unspent balances in capital improvement project fund budgets from FY20. The Council discussed some concerns regarding the carry-over practices with the Administration earlier this year during the budget season, but we never reached a resolution. Because of the pandemic, all departments have been trimming expenses and sending back any unspent money, so I don't think there will be many unrelated carry-over requests this year. Presentation only. Reacting to the changed financial situation due to the pandemic, and perhaps due to the discussions between the Administration and our Carry-over Committee, this year's Carry-over plan looks quite different than last year. It was a good move.
3. A presentation regarding Best Friends Animal Society's Community Cat Program. (20-129)
   Trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs are one approach to preventing cat populations from growing beyond what animal shelter facilities can manage. Salt Lake County explained TNR as “a humane and non-lethal approach to long term community and feral cat population control.” TNR programs first trap (either by working with cats brought to the shelter or by sending someone to trap feral cats reported in the area), then neuter, then return the cat (back to the wild if it is too unsocialized to be adopted, or in an adoption shelter if it can be rehabilitated). In addition to ethically controlling the local feral cat population, TNR also reduces the sounds and smells associated with cats mating or marking territory, which are the most common complaints from residents. According to Lydia LaSalle, the Executive Director for Utah’s Best Friends Animal Society, as of 2019, "Weber, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties all have successful [TNR] programs, but Utah County remains the only urban county to not adopt the practice which is becoming the national norm.” Provo City also does not currently operate an independent TNR program, though at least one non-profit, Ashley Valley Community Cats, operates one in the area. I've had mixed feelings about the City's Urban Deer program, so I was a bit wary when first learning about a program to address feral cats in Provo. There is still plenty more to learn, and I look forward to doing so in this meeting, but reviewing the information in the document packet left me optimistic. Presentation only. It was determined that further legislative action is not required and that the Administration could execute a memorandum of understanding to formalize any arrangements and implementation of the program. A program that promises to reduce the number of feral (stray) cats in the community, costs less than the current program, and will be paid for 6 months during the pilot by a non-profit? Sounds pretty good to me. But we heard afterward from our Animal Control staff who have serious concerns. I don't know what will be decided in the end, but this is why it is important to listen to all sides before making decisions.
4. A discussion regarding setback requirements for chicken coops. (20-130)
   Provo City Code 8.02.190(2) currently requires that chicken coops "shall be located in a rear yard at least fifteen (15) feet from any property line and six (6) feet from any dwelling." A councilor has asked that the Council review this setback requirement. There was a robust debate when backyard chickens were allowed a few years ago, but things have been mostly quiet since then. Some have interpreted the quiet to mean that allowing chickens has not led to any problems. I think that with the issue raised again, we will hear from several who have been negatively impacted but who haven't submitted complaints to the City. I say that because (1) I have already heard from some of them, and (2) I've experienced some of the unpleasantries of having chickens as neighbors. A motion to ask the Administration and their staff to bring to the Council a recommendation on chicken coop setbacks was approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore excused. I think it was a good discussion and we arrived at the right course of action. I believe the Administration heard all of the competing concerns, and I am confident that they will put together a good proposal.
5. A presentation regarding incentives. (20-131)
   A discussion to be given by the Development Service Department - Redevelopment and Economic Development Divisions. This includes a history of who, how, when, where and why incentives have been used in Provo over time and potentially into the future. Long time readers of this blog know of my love-hate relationship with tax incentives for economic development. I think that they are great tools in a narrow set of circumstances, but they have been broadly misused across the Country, the State, and locally. They have become almost an entitlement expected by developers. Presentation only. It was definitely a pro-incentive presentation, talking about all the good uses of these tools. Afterward, I shared my concerns about the poor uses of the tools. In the end, we both agreed with each other that there are proper and improper uses of these tools. I thought it was a good exchange.
6. A presentation regarding how to run an effective committee. (20-132)
   Members of the Council also serve on numerous boards and committees. It has been requested that staff offer training on how best to run an effective committee. I'm excited to receive this training. Committee work is an important aspect of serving on the Council, but I, for one, have never received any training on how to be an effective committee member or how to run a committee effectively. Presentation only. This was a good presentation on the role of the Council and how committees can help us fulfill our role, and then some practical tips for how to run an effective committee.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify amenity space requirements for developments with 20 or more residential units in the Interim Transit Oriented Development (ITOD) zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200283)
   The existing text related to amenity space in the ITOD zone (attachment 1) does not clearly define any requirements for the open/recreation space requirement. It only requires that twenty percent of the lot needs to be open/recreation space, but there is no definition of what that should be. In other zones that have an amenity space requirement, there are examples of what qualifies as amenity space. In those zones, the amenity space is defined as a percentage of the residential gross floor area (GFA) to be used as a clubhouse, gym, pool, rooftop garden, or other amenity. The Downtown zones require ten percent of the GFA be provided in amenity space. Staff is proposing the same standard for the ITOD zone. Calculating the required area based on the GFA instead of the lot size will provided a more realistic requirement. The proposed text amendment (attachment 2) will base the amenity space off of the GFA and not the lot size. It will make it applicable to residential uses within the zone. The proposed amendment will make the amenity space requirements similar to those in the downtown. Planning Commission recommended approval. I believe the ITOD was one of the first zones to have an amenity space requirement. The requirement has been added to other higher-denisty zones. The wording of the requirements has been refined in subsequent iterations. I support updating the ITOD requirements to be more in line with the requirements in other zones. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 15, 2020. I was able to confirm that this is the exact language used in other similar zones.
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 2.31 acres at 4100 N Canyon Road and 3.42 acres at 3956 N Canyon Road from Residential Agriculture (RA) to Residential (R1.10). North Timpview Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200217)
   Dudley and Associates are requesting a zone change from the Residential Agricultural (RA) zone to the One-Family (R1.10) zone for eleven parcels of land around 3956 N Canyon Road and 4100 N Canyon Road. The proposed zone would require 10,000 square-foot residential lots on the 5.73 acres of land. The applicants are proposing this zone to subdivide the land into 27 single-family lots. They were hoping to get more land in the area to create a more continuous development, but there were some property owners that have chosen not to participate. Planning Commission recommended approval. I share many of the concerns discussed by the Planning Commission about connectivity. The Planning Commission still unanimously recommended the proposal to the Council. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 15, 2020. See my report for item 5 on the evening agenda.



Business

9. A discussion regarding an update on the Wastewater Loan with the State of Utah. (20-102)
   Public Works is seeking consideration of a bond resolution approving the parameters of the City's financial agreement with the State. This would approve issuing wastewater revenue bonds in order to finance a portion of the construction of new and upgraded facilities for the water reclamation plant. Our sewer rates have gone up a lot in the past few years, but without this loan from the State, the rates would have had to have gone up substantially more. The terms offered by the State are excellent. This is an important opportunity. Presentation only. This item has been scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 6, 2020. I strongly support this. And look forward to voting for it at the next 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, September 15, 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. A presentation of the 2020 Best of State Award to Provo Parks and Recreation. (20-126)
   Our Parks and Rec Department provides amazing value in services, and is being recognized for their operations. Presentation only. We already know what excellent services and value we get from our Parks and Rec Department, but it's still nice to see them recognized.
2. A presentation of the Provo City Justice Court Annual Report. (20-127)
   Speaking of a well-run operation, I enjoy hearing from Judge Romney each year, and appreciate how his team runs the City's Justice Court. Presentation only.
   
   

   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

3. 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 support the proposed bond and urge people to vote for it. A motion to change from a joint resolution to a Council (i.e., Council-only) resolution. was approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore abstaining. A motion to continue this item to the Council Meeting on October 6, 2020 was approved 7:0. Several councilors expressed concern that the School Board and District have not made the general public aware of the coming bond vote and were wary of "leading out" on the education effort when it isn't our project. By continuing the vote on the resolution, I hope that we can achieve unanimous support and it can still go out before the ballots are mailed out.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify amenity space requirements for developments with 20 or more residential units in the Interim Transit Oriented Development (ITOD) zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200283)
   This was item 7 in the work meeting. I believe the ITOD was one of the first zones to have an amenity space requirement. The requirement has been added to other higher-denisty zones. The wording of the requirements has been refined in subsequent iterations. I support updating the ITOD requirements to be more in line with the requirements in other zones. Approved 7:0. I was able to confirm that this is the exact language used in other similar zones.
5. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 2.31 acres at 4100 N Canyon Road and 3.42 acres at 3956 N Canyon Road from Residential Agriculture (RA) to Residential (R1.10). North Timpview Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200217)
   This was item 8 in the work meeting. I share many of the concerns discussed by the Planning Commission about connectivity. The Planning Commission still unanimously recommended the proposal to the Council. Continued to the Council Meeting on October 6, 2020. When we updated the process for approving rezones for proposed developments, we said that all but the most routine rezones requests should have two hearings at Council meetings. By the rules, the item can be continued at the request of a single councilor. There were two councilors who requested the continuation. The Council has talked a lot about increasing the mix of housing types throughout the city. The idea is that a single housing type doesn't fit the needs of people throughout their lives. If communities are made up of different housing types, then people aren't forced to move out of an area when their housing needs change. Think of a young family needing a larger house for their growing family. Think of a young adult heading out on their own for the first time. Think of a couple that has successfully launched all their kids and are looking to downsize. Often empty nesters hang on to houses far too large for their needs, just because they don't want to leave their friends and neighbors. Many would love to downsize if they could stay in the area, but that can only happen if there is a diversity of housing.
6. An ordinance amending Chapter 9.25 and related Sections of Provo City Code. (20-118)
   This was item 1 in the work meeting. Several tweaks were proposed at the last meeting, and we worked on them over the past two weeks. I have read over the draft and feel comfortable with the changes. There is one other tweak that I would like to see, which would make it clearer when masks aren't required because social distancing is being observed. Approved 7:0. I felt good about all the tweaks we made and was able to tweak clarifying the "social distancing" alternative to masks in most circumstances. The one thing I wish we could have found an answer to is the lower threshold on outdoor gathering than indoor gatherings. This is confusing to many people, but the difference is that below the outdoor threshold, nether masks or social distancing are required, above the outdoor threshold is when either masks or social distancing is required. For indoor (in public), either masks or social distancing is required below the threshold, and masks are required above the threshold regardless of social distancing.
7. ***CONTINUED*** The Development Services Dept. requests a Zone Change from Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC2) to Medium Density Residential for approximately 11 acres, located at 1920 W Center Street. Fort Utah Neighborhood PLRZ20200282
   This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Science vs Policy

There is a difference between "science" and "public policy." They have different roles and different scopes. The conflation of the two (not recognizing the difference) leads to frustration, bad science, and bad public policy. I fear that this conflation is driving some of the contention in our national and community discussion.

Science proposes hypotheses, then runs experiments or reviews data sets to test the hypotheses. Science has limitations, uses assumptions, and makes human interpretation of results. Good science recognizes these limitations, calculates confidence intervals, and uses independent verification. There are frequent debates in science regarding the accuracy and interpretation of findings. There are established processes for resolving competing theories and reaching consensus.

Public policy’s role is to consider the best research and best practices regarding the issue at hand in order to make decisions for the community based on the values and preferences of the people being governed.

When people advocating for a particular policy claim that science requires the policy, it leads those who oppose the policy to question the science. In these instances, both sides are mistaken. Science does not require specific government action, and policy preferences do not change facts. The fact that COVID-19 is an easily spread infectious disease that can cause serious illness and possibly death does not require a mask mandate, a stay-at-home order, or businesses to be shut down. Those are all public policy decisions that may be made in response to those facts. On the flip side, just because someone feels that businesses shouldn't be shut down, does not mean that reported transmission rates must be false. The science and the policy should be kept separate. I believe people are questioning the broad consensus of doctors, public health officials, and infectious disease researchers, and embracing outlier opinions because they are being told that if they follow "the science" then they have to support public policies that they don't agree with.

There is plenty of room to debate what public policies are justified by the best scientific understanding of the pandemic. For example, I personally think that, as a country, we went too far in shutting the economy down. Instead, we could have had lower transmission with less economic damage by embracing masking and social distancing guidelines to allow for more activity under safer conditions. (Of course, I'm saying this with the advantage of hindsight.)

First, let’s be guided by the consensus of experts, specialists, and health officials who are working hard in difficult situations to provide the best data. Despite confidence intervals, noise in the data, necessary assumptions, and ongoing refinement as more is learned, we have a reasonably clear idea of the scope and severity of the pandemic. We know the most common modes of transmission, and we know how effective different behavioral changes are in slowing the spread. The science isn't perfect, but we can have a high level of confidence in it.

Next, let's decide as a community what public policies make the most sense for our community. Let the debate be about what the best response is to the best data and science that we have access to, not about what conspiracy the whole scientific and medical community is trying to pull on us. There is a near-infinite set of combinations of public policy options and each will have a different set of consequences. There is no "right" answer. But we can debate together as a community to reach a solution that makes the most sense for us.