Council Meetings - 6 October 2020

We have very full agendas for each of the meetings. I don't see anything as being too controversial. Most of it is incremental improvement.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, October 6, 2020

Business

1. An update on the new Airport Terminal. (20-234)
   Council update on the new Airport terminal design and construction plan. The update will include discussion on financial timing and potential UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation) and internal loans. A new terminal is being built at our airport, using federal, state, county, and city funds. I'm looking forward to this status update.Presentation only.
   
   Take a look at the most recent renderings. The federal, state, and county governments are all making significant contributions to the project, but some of the money will not be available immediately. At the next Council meeting, we will be asked to fill in the funding gap until the other money arrives.
2. A presentation regarding the development application process. (20-225)
   Bill Peperone, Director of Development Services, and Gary McGinn, Director of Community and Neighborhood Services, are giving an overview of the development processes from the administrative point of view. They will cover what the processes are for a developer from the initial application through the Planning Commission and the Council. This presentation will include the processes for a simple rezone to large multi-unit projects. When I first joined the Council, Councilor Sewell and I spent a lot of time with key members of the Administration discussing, improving, and optimizing the development approval process. I believe this is an opportunity to check in on the process and make sure everyone on the Council is familiar with it. Presentation only. There are still a couple of places where projects can get stuck in the "spin cycle," but the City is limiting how much of that is due to our own actions.
3. A presentation from the Public Gatherings Committee on proposed changes to Section 6.20 of Provo City Code (Public Assemblies and Special Events). (20-223)
   At the July 7, 2020 Council Work meeting there was a discussion about the permitting process for public gatherings and demonstrations. This was in response to the demonstration in Provo that led to the shooting of a driver when they became surrounded by demonstrators. The Council created a subcommittee to look at Provo City’s current ordinance regarding the permitting of such activities to see if more could be done to help regulate these activities to protect the general public’s safety. After several meetings, the committee made changes to the ordinance. The ordinance regulates the use of traditional forums. The committee looked at the use of these spaces and decided it would be best to treat expressive speech such as political speech differently than commercial speech such as the Freedom Festival. What is before you is an enhanced section guaranteeing the rights of expressive speech, while balancing the need for public safety. Included is a definition of a spontaneous event, banning the protesting in front of individual residents, and a definition of what types of expressive speech events need a permit before they can take place. There is also some language to clarify existing language and to come into compliance with new Court rulings since the ordinance was last updated. I appreciate the work of the Committee. I think their proposals will improve the ordinance. I wonder if the existing ordinance doesn't already make things too complicated, which could discourage the organization of special events or make the enforcement of these regulations less likely for smaller events. Presentation only. This was a very helpful discussion for my understanding. I was able to point out a couple of spots that could use a little more polishing. Still, I think this is just about ready for primetime, and I think it will be a significant improvement.
4. A discussion about the renewal of the Urban Deer Program. (20-224)
   On July 07, 2019 Provo city entered into an agreement with Humphries Archery, LLC to provide for urban deer removal in accordance with the Urban Deer Plan approved by the Council. The contract was for one year and allowed for the city to renew the contract. The year has expired, and the Council need to make a decision if they wish to continue with the urban deer removal program and renew the contract with Humphries Archery. I would like to see some concrete metrics to evaluate if we are getting real value for the taxpayer's money invested in this program. Presentation only. I wish the metrics showed more impact from the program.
5. An update on the utility billing errors that stem from the system conversion in July 2020. (20-235)
   Since Provo switched over to its new billing system there have been errors on resident’s utility bills. Some of this was caused by a change in the number of billing days while others appear to be issues with the conversion of data from the old system to the new. The administration has been working through these issues to resolve the problems. They are giving an update on the status of correcting the remaining issues with the new system, along with how they have dealt with customer complaints. I feel like we are getting on top of the billing errors. But I've also seen several complaints, not of billing errors, but of unusually high meter readings. This is something I plan to ask about. Presentation only. I'm still seeing some complaints, but it does seem that Customer Service is getting on top of the problems.



Administration

6. A presentation about the CARES Act OIG Audit Guidelines (20-227)
   Discuss recent changes received from the OIG Audit Guidelines. I have no idea what an OIG Audit is, so I'll have a lot to learn from this presentation. Presentation only. This was just an update on how we are planning to use the CARES money. Once it became clear that we could use the money to fund aspects of our Police and Fire departments, we shifted much of the expenditures there. The tracking and paperwork will be much simpler than documenting so many small projects.
7. An update from Mr. Ralph Clegg, Executive Director Utah County Health Department, on Utah County and Provo COVID-19 cases and strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19. (20-226)
   Mr. Clegg from the Utah County Health Department will give the Council an update on the County’s response to COVID 19. This will include a discussion about the increased number of cases since the start of the school year. He will give an update of the data and what the county plans to do after October 20 when their mask mandate is set to expire. I would appreciate better communication between the Council and the Health Department. My biggest question at the moment is what data are the County Commissioners and Health Department going to use to determine if the County mask mandate should be extended. Presentation only. This was a very helpful discussion about the metrics quantifying the risks and challenges faced by people in the County. My understanding coming out of the discussion is that the Health Department will provide the best data possible to the County Commission and then will implement policy at the direction of the Commission.
8. A Discussion Regarding a Budget Appropriation to Correct Elements of the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget Related to the Cemetery (20-228)
   In the preparation of the Fiscal Year 2021 budget, there were errors made in Cemetery Personnel accounts that need to be corrected in order for Cemetery to have the budgeted funds necessary to operate at current staffing levels through the end of the fiscal year. In a document as large as our budget, these mistakes are bound to happen. I'm glad it was identified and that we can correct it. Presentation only. This item is scheduled to be on the Council Meeting agenda on October 20, 2020. The magnitude of the error was around $56k. This was not wasted money, but money that should have been budgeted for personnel but wasn't.
9. A discussion about the Blue Sky Tax Increment Proposal. (20-229) and (20-230)
   Staff has been working with McKay Christensen on a proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Center Street and 100 East. The ground floor will be commercial and the remaining floors will be residential with a mix of studio, one and two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Christensen intends to provide all the necessary parking for his project in a parking structure at the center of the complex. It feels like this project has been in the works for 12 years, and in the meantime, very little property tax has been generated. TIF might be the right tool to facilitate this development. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 6, 2020. See my report for item 4 in the evening meeting, where this item was approved.
10. A discussion about the Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area Interlocal Agreements. (20-231) and (20-232)
    Previously, the City Council approved the creation of the Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Area as Qualtrics announced their corporate headquarters expansion. Qualtrics is now seeking to expand their offices and employees here in Provo. They will be adding at least 150,000 square feet of office space and two parking structures to help house over 1,000 additional employees they expect to hire over the next 10 years. Qualtrics will make some of the parking available to other visitors to the Riverwoods Business park. The resolutions and agreements being considered are the vehicle for the City to provide tax increment financing to help support this expansion. I'm less excited about this item. There is no question that Qualtrics is an important part of our community, and I'm thrilled that they are expanding in Provo, but we should give our gratitude, not our tax-dollars, as a thank-you. Property taxes that Qualtrics pays go to fund the education of the children that all those new employees bring with them. Property taxes help pay for the police and fire protection that the city provides to the company, its employees, and their families. Property taxes help pay for the outstanding community amenities that will help Qualtrics recruit top employees to fill their new positions. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 6, 2020. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting, where this item was approved.



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, October 6, 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 by Counselor Shannon Ellsworth commemorating the ratification of the 19th Amendment of the United States Constitution. (20-236)
   The amendment was ratified in 1920. The first woman to vote in Utah happened 50 years prior. 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.
   
   

   Consent Agenda

   Items on the consent agenda are generally routine in nature, have been fully vetted in other meetings, or do not need additional discussion. They are approved together as one item.
2. An ordinance granting Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink QC a nonexclusive franchise to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah (20-091)
   This agreement is the epitome of routine. A motion to approve all items on the Consent Agenda was approved 7:0.
3. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council outlining support for the Provo School District General Obligation Bond. (20-115)
   We've talked about this resolution over the past two meetings. I hope all questions have been answered and that we can pass it unanimously. A motion to approve all items on the Consent Agenda was approved 7:0. I encourage everyone to vote in favor of the bond. If we defeat the bond on the ballot, a different type of bond will be used to raise the same amount of money, the only difference is that the interest rate that we have to pay will be more.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

4. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreements with several local governmental agencies to authorizeing the use of tax increment in the Center Street Community Development Project Area. (20-229)
   This was item 9 in the work meeting. Items 4 and 6 are related. See my preview of item 9 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. See? I'm not anti-TIF! I just think we should be more selective in what projects we apply the tool to. I think this is a great example of where Tax Increment Financing makes sense.
5. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreement with several local governmental agencies to authorizeing the use of tax increment in the Provo Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-231)
   This was item 10 in the work meeting. Items 5 and 7 are related. See my preview of item 10 in the earlier meeting. Approved 6:1, with David Shipley opposed. I was far less excited to vote for this proposal.




Action Agenda

6. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreements with several local governmental agencies to authorizeing the use of tax increment in the Center Street Community Development Project Area. (20-229)
   This was item 9 in the work meeting. Items 4 and 6 are related. See my preview of item 9 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. See my report for item 4 above.
7. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreement with several local governmental agencies to authorizeing the use of tax increment in the Provo Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-231)
   This was item 10 in the work meeting. Items 5 and 7 are related. See my preview of item 10 in the earlier meeting. Approved 6:1, with David Shipley opposed. See my report for item 5 above.
8. A resolution authorizing the issuance of Wastewater Revenue Bonds of Provo City, 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 was presented in the Council work meeting on August 25, 2020. As I said last time, when we heard this in a Work Meeting, "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." Approved 7:0. As I've said previously, this is an excellent opportunity.
9. 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. This item had a first hearing at the September 15 Council meeting. We've heard from many neighbors who object to anything other than single-family detached housing on quarter-acre lots. Some are decrying high-density housing, but I'm not sure if they believe what was discussed was actual high-density housing, or if they believe that anything other than single-family detached is high density. One idea suggested by a neighbor is to place the A-overlay on the property, which would allow for accessory dwelling units. I like that idea. Approved 5:2, with David Harding and Shannon Ellsworth opposed. I feel like I failed on this one. I really liked the idea of simply adding an A-overlay to the property which would allow accessory apartments, but I didn't reach out to the other councilors before the meeting to discuss the idea. I figured that I would just recommend it during the meeting. Unfortunately, it would have required returning the proposal to the Planning Commission and I didn't sense that the Council would support that delay.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to condominiums. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200228)
    Provo City Community and Neighborhood Services requests amendments to Provo City Code Section 15.06 to simplify and speed up the process of subdividing condominium projects by aligning the process with the final subdivision process. Planning Commission recommended approval with revised language. I think this is a good change. What wasn't clear to me is what revisions were recommended by the Planning Commission, and whether those revisions were integrated into the language we received. Approved 7:0. This will streamline some of the non-value-added steps in the process.
11. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 0.5 acres of real property, generally located at 2022 W Center Street, from Residential Agricultural (RA) To General Commercial (CG). Fort Utah Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200275)
    The subject property lies at 2022 W Center Street and is nearly surrounded by commercially zoned properties. The properties to the north and east lie in either the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1) Zone or the Community Shopping Center (SC2) Zone. Properties with a CG zoning designation lie to the south and west. Land in the Residential (R1.8) Zone lies to the southwest. An application to rezone the vacant, adjacent land from the SC2 Zone to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone has been put forward by the City. The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Commercial. The Southwest Area Future Land Use map designates this property as Village Center Commercial/Mixed Use. Currently, a food truck/trailer is currently operating on the property, which is not permitted in the RA Zone. A seasonal produce stand also lies on the subject property. A temporary permit has not been issued for this stand. Food trucks are allowed to be operated in the CG Zone, provided all applicable requirements are met. Temporary uses may be conducted in the CG Zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. This proposal makes sense. I love seeing the work we did on west Provo development policies being used to guide and evaluate these proposals. Approved 7:0. I believe this will lead to a better use of this important corner.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding swimming pool fencing and covering. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200286)
    Provo City Development Services is requesting approval for an ordinance amendment to Section 14.34.210, Provo City Code. This amendment comes by request of the Building Division as a way to update the zoning codes on swimming pools to better match the International codes that the building inspectors review from. The current city code states one option for securing pools on private property, a six (6) foot high fence surrounding the pool. However, the International Building Code now allows for a variety of measures including a safety cover. In an attempt to have the City Code parallel today’s building codes, staff has prepared the text amendment for adoption. Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation. I applaud our Building Division for proactively recommending updates to keep our code current with international standards. This item was continued for a second hearing by Council rule. I felt comfortable with the Staff's recommendation to adopt the international standard. I don't plan to spend time over the next two weeks trying to independently verify that they are truly best practices. I'll be interested to see if any changes are suggested.
13. An ordinance amending the Low Density Residential (LDR) and Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zones. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200274)
    Planning staff is requesting some text changes to the LDR and VLDR zone in order to help development in these zones to better meet the intent of the zones and blend with adjacent single-family zoned neighborhoods. The LDR zone was adopted in 2012 and has not had any major amendments since that time. Staff is proposing a reduction of the maximum allowed attached townhomes from eight (8) to six (6), as well as a reduction in maximum housing density from fifteen (15) units per acre to twelve (12). The additional amendment to the LDR zone proposes a reduction in the minimum lot area required for a detached one-family home from five thousand (5,000) to four thousand (4,000) square feet. The VLDR zone was adopted in June of 2020. Staff is proposing reducing the maximum allowed attached townhomes from seven (7) to six (6); and reducing the minimum lot area required for a detached one family home from five thousand (5,000) to four thousand (4,000) square feet. Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation. I have some concerns about reducing the minimum lot area for one-family detached in the VLDR down to 4,000 sqft. The intent was for VLDR to have the intensity similar to the R1.6, but with more flexibility for housing types. I'll have to be convinced that this aspect of the proposal doesn't undermine this objective. A motion to remove proposed changes to the minimum lot size of the VLDR zone was approved 7:0, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. VLDR was recently created to give an option with the flexibility of LDR, but with less density. I didn't feel good about reducing the lot size in both LDR and VLDR to the same level. I appreciate the Staff and my fellow councilors for listening and accommodating my concerns.
14. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.25 acres of real property, generally located at 189 S 500 W, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200124)
    The applicant would like to divide the 0.25-acre one-family dwelling site and establish an additional dwelling site. However, the subject property lies in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone, which does not allow for the creation of new lots. As such, the applicant is proposing a rezone of the subject property to the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zone, which does not have a prohibition on the creation of new lots and is proposed to allow one-family dwelling sites with a minimum lot area of 4000 SF. This item was continued from the August 12, 2020 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for (1) the applicant to revise his associated concept plan and (2) staff to prepare a text amendment application to propose a reduction in the minimum lot area for the VLDR and LDR zones. Staff has prepared a text amendment as noted. Also, the concept plan has been revised to propose two (2) lots that generally have a rectangular configuration and comply with the proposed lot area minimums for the VLDR Zone. The subject property is surrounded by the RC Zone. A 0.34-acre parcel lying approximately 125 feet to the northeast of, and on the same block as, the subject property was recently rezoned to the LDR Zone. The applicant is requesting the VLDR Zone, which has a lower density allowance per acre than the LDR Zone (7 units per acre vs. 15 units per acre). Staff notes that the applicant originally applied for a rezone to the LDR Zone, but revised his proposal for a rezone to the VLDR Zone. The VLDR Zone is a newly created zone that has a lower density allowance, as opposed to LDR Zone. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. I support this proposal and am glad that the neighbors do as well. This item was continued for a second hearing by Council rule. I appreciated the applicant's patience and understanding. He was following Staff's recommendation to apply for the VLDR (at the same time that changes were proposed for VLDR), but after we chose not to lower the required lot size in VLDR, he has to go back to the Planning Commission to request an LDR zone designation.
15. ***CONTINUED*** D. R. Horton, Inc. requests a Zone Change from A1.20 to the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone for approximately 18 acres, located at 1920 S 500 W. Lakewood Neighborhood (PLRZ20190182)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
16. ***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