Council Meetings - 31 March 2020

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

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

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

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

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 31, 2020

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

Business

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



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

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



Closed Meeting

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

Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

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



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

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

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


Adjournment

Council Meetings - 10 March 2020

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 10, 2020

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

Business

1. A presentation regarding the Provo Police Department's FY 2020-2021 budget. (20-007)
   The Police Department will present a pre-budget summary to review department budget management, trends, and developments in the operations with the Municipal Council. We are significantly short on police officers, and it affects the ability to provide the level of service the community wants and strains our police officers. Last year we made a good dent in staffing hole, but we still need to add 3 or so more officers a year for several more years to get to a manageable level, that would still be well below the national average as well as state averages for police staffing. I'm interested to see how this is presented this year. Presentation only. The Police Department is requesting 5 additional officers. This would bring us to the level that the Police Executive Research Forum advised the City that we should be at when they reviewed our department in 2012.
2. A presentation regarding the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for FY 2020-2021. (20-045)
   The information presented will inform future budget discussions. In the final Work Meeting in April 2020, the Council will give the Mayor a list of their budget priorities for consideration as Administration and Finance draft the FY 2021-2022 budget. That's a 153-page document, but oh so important. It lays out major projects for the City for the next 5 years and the projected funding sources. Presentation only. The link to the document that was included in our document packet was for last year's CIP. I carefully reviewed the document and came with several questions, but only half of them still applied.
3. A presentation regarding the Administrative Services FY 2020-2021 budget (Finance and Human Resources Divisions only). (20-007)
   The Administrative Services Department will present a pre-budget summary to review department budget management, trends, and developments in the operations with the Municipal Council. This presentation will cover the Finance and Human Resources Divisions. Other divisions will be presented at another meeting. Each department is giving us a budget preview. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to the Work and Council Meetings on March 31, 2020. We are in the midst of an unprecedented period of economic growth in the country. We need to be careful that we are prepared for the next downturn.
4. A presentation regarding Library Services' FY 2020-2021 budget. (20-007)
   Library Services will present a pre-budget summary to review department budget management, trends, and developments in the operations with the Municipal Council. Each department is giving us a budget preview. Presentation only. Books, Building, and Bytes. The Library is focused on providing great services to our community
5. A presentation regarding the regulation of short-term rentals. (20-049)
   Starting last year, the Council asked that staff investigate the use of short-term (30 days or fewer) rentals in Provo, what the possible impacts they are having in Provo are, and issues Code Enforcement is having with them. Staff have completed that work and will present some recommendations on how to regulate the use of short-term rentals. For a while now, I feel that the City has adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to STRs. I believe it is time to create some reasonable regulations so that STRs can be operated legally in a way that doesn't hurt the community. Presentation only. The Council discussed the possibility of creating an ad hoc committee to address issues for short-term rentals. STRs are here. It is already allowed in some areas of Provo. It is not allowed in most areas. But there are STRs everywhere. The City has purchased software to monitor the listings. We need to revisit our policy to make sure that we can maximize the benefits of STR and minimize the negative impacts. It looks like we need to create a subcommittee to draft a recommendation.
6. A presentation regarding Stormwater Quality Updates. (20-050)
   Public Works will be bringing to the next regular Council meeting changes to the Drainage Manual and Title 18 of City Code to address the State of Utah's new retention/low-impact development rule. I support the State's new emphasis on retention and low-impact development for stormwater, as long as it can be done feasibly. Presentation only. This is looking good.
7. A discussion regarding licensing for restaurants with ancillary breweries. (20-057)
   In the last Council Meeting on February 18, 2020, the Council amended Provo City Code to permit restaurants with ancillary microbreweries as a permitted use in General Downtown (DT1), Downtown Core (DT2), and Regional Shopping Center zones. The ordinance included a sunrise clause which specified that the ordinance would not take effect until the Council authorized the issuance of a beer license for such restaurants. It is proposed that the Council create a committee to address licensing for restaurants with ancillary breweries. It is anticipated that the committee would bring a proposal to a Council Work Meeting within the next month or so. We need to create a license for the newly allowed brewpub land use. I feel that it is the right time to review all of our beer license policies to make sure they are aligned with our goals and objectives. A motion to recommend creating a committee to look at alcohol licensing, comprised of three Council members (two of whom voted in favor of land use change, with one who voted against it), with the mission statement: “to review current city policy regarding alcohol licenses, study best practices and options for regulation, recommend city policy and regulations for alcohol licenses to the Council, and make a recommendation or an update by March 31, was approved 7:0. A motion for David Harding to serve as Chair, David Sewell as Vice-chair, and Shannon Ellsworth as a committee member was approved 7:0. There was some disagreement on the approach. Some thought it would be better to first pass licensing to accommodate brewpubs and then begin looking at beer licensing more broadly.
8. A discussion regarding Interlocal Agreements regarding the Medical School project between the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City and Provo City, Utah County, Provo School District, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. (20-051, 54-56)
   Provo City and the Redevelopment Agency have previously approved the sale of 3 holes at the Provo Municipal Golf Course to a developer building a medical school and associated housing. Provo also agreed to use its best efforts to create a tax increment area, now known as a Community Reinvestment Area, on the portion of the development that would be utilized for housing in order to help meet the infrastructure obligations of the proposed development. This is not related to the balance of the medical school development or a reimbursement for the developer paying to relocate the 3 golf holes.
   
   The proposed interlocal agreements allow for the Redevelopment Agency to capture a portion of the increase in tax revenues associated with the construction of the housing units. The City will use these revenues to pay for enhancements to the golf course and to reimburse the developer for certain sewer improvements needed for the construction of the housing units. This is part of the execution of the agreement previously entered into. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 10, 2020. The presentation was continued to the Council Meeting.
9. A discussion regarding the Project Area Plan and budget for The Mix Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-052)
   "The new owners of the former Plumtree Plaza on University Parkway (now known as The MIX) plan to demolish and rebuild the portions of the area they own in order to reestablish and revitalize the center. They have requested help with the construction of the sewer upgrades required for the project.
   
   The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has requested an estimated $7.92 million in property tax revenues that will be generated by development within the Project Area to fund a portion of project costs within the Project Area.  These property tax revenues will be used for the following: mandatory housing allocation as required by statute, payment and reimbursement of infrastructure costs, incentives to developers, RDA administrative expenses, taxing entity mitigation payments, and other expenditures as authorized by law.
   
   These property taxes will be levied by the following governmental entities, and, assuming current tax rates, each will pay the RDA as follows:
   • Provo City -  $1,253,669
   • Utah County - $ $324,042
   • Provo School District - $1,681,946
   • Central Utah Water Conservancy District - $247,901
   All of the property taxes to be paid to the RDA will be generated only if the Project Area is developed.
   It is important to note approval of this resolution does not commit the Agency or any taxing entities future tax increment to a project. Commitment of tax increment would require the affected taxing entities to enter into voluntary agreements with the Agency. A copy of the Project Area Budget is available at the Redevelopment Agency offices in the Provo City Center building." This has been a bit of a nightmare project, probably for everyone involved. I would like to see it get done and done quickly. I do worry, though, that the "increment" is being calculated on the value of the property after they demolished the buildings and drove the businesses out. I don't know if that is fair to use as the baseline. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 10, 2020. The presentation was continued to the Council Meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

10. A discussion regarding the Utah County Health Department’s preparations for COVID-19  (novel coronavirus). (20-061)
    Members of the Council have requested that the Director of the Utah County Health Department discuss the the coronavirus and the County's preparations. Presentation only. I imagine you've heard something about this topic recently. It was in this presentation that I learned the difference between quarantine and isolation. Quarantine is for people who may have been exposed, isolation is what it's called once the illness is confirmed.
11. A discussion regarding ordinances approving various amendments to Provo City Code Title 14 for consistency and stylistic purposes (PLOTA20200042) and amending Section 15.08.060 (Impact Fee Calculations). Citywide application. (PLOTA20200042)
    The Provo City Council has proposed amendments to Titles 14 (Zoning) and 15 (Land Use and Development) of the Provo City Code to correspond with recent changes in those Titles. Most of the proposed changes are minor. A full list is included below:
    
    • Correcting terminology in regards to accessory living spaces in Sections 14.21A.020 and 14.50(9).020
    • Adding “Rail Stations” as a land use type to tables in Sections 14.37.050 and 14.37.065 to clarify that rail/bus terminals and stations/airports bicycle parking standards are reflected under the proper land use
    • Correcting the design standard reference for the Medium Density Residential (MDR) and and High Density Residential (HDR) zones in Sections 14.14B.080 and 14.14B.080
    • Updating the adopted date for Impact Fee Calculations, Section 15.080.060
    Planning Commission recommended approval. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 10, 2020.
12. The Public Works Department requests a General Plan Amendment for adoption of the 2020 Transportation Master Plan. Citywide application. (PLGPA20200038)
    The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is an appendix to the General Plan and provides guidance on future transportation needs within the City. The TMP provides information on current and future transportation conditions to be taken into consideration when reviewing future development projects and capital improvements. Planning Commission recommended approval. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 10, 2020. The presentation was continued to the Council Meeting. See my report for item 14 in the evening meeting?
13. Text Amendment to the Professional Office (PO) Zone (Section 14.16.020) to allow private educational services as a conditional use. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200047)
    The proposed Ordinance Text Amendment is a staff-initiated amendment to add “Educational Services” to the list of conditional uses in the Professional Office (PO) zone. State law permits public and charter schools in any zoning district; however, a private educational facility is not currently permitted in a PO zone because “Educational Services” is not listed in the list of permitted uses. Staff feel that, with adherence to the proposed conditions, private educational facilities are compatible with other uses in the PO zones.
    
    It was recently brought to the attention of staff that a private school occupies an existing office building in an existing PO zone. The school was initially permitted there because it was thought to be a charter school; however, it is actually a private school and therefore is not currently permitted. The school has been operational for several months and does not seem to be causing major impacts to the surrounding properties, so the proposal to allow private educational facilities as conditional uses, with specific codified conditions, seemed the logical way to allow the school to continue operating in the zone.
    
    Proposed conditions to which a private educational facility would be required to adhere when operating in a PO zone include:
    
    • 1. Following the parking provisions of Section 14.37.060 of the Provo City Code;
    • 2. Having a detailed parking and circulation plan prepared by a professional which empirically concludes the existing or proposed facility will not negatively affect area traffic or surrounding uses;
    • 3. Conform to all health, safety, and building codes; and
    • 4. No exterior lighting shall shine directly into adjoining properties.
    The owner of the property had previously requested that a portion of the lot that had been zoned as Public Facilities (PF) be rezoned to Low Density Residential (LDR) to accommodate townhomes, but neighbors had concerns about the impact on traffic, future development, and aesthetics. in the Council Meeting on January 7, 2020, the Council rejected the proposed rezone 7:0.
    
    Planning Commission recommended approval. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 10, 2020. The presentation was continued to the Council 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, March 10, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


Public Comment

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




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

The Provo Municipal Council also serves as the executive board of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA). Certain items must be heard by the RDA.


Consent Agenda

Items in this category will be voted on together. All items on the Redevelopment Agency of Provo Consent Agenda were approved 7:0. These all relate to our commitment made during the negotiation that we would create a Community Reinvestment Project Area for the housing portion of the medical school.
1. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreement with Provo School District for the Provo Medical School Community Reinvestment Project Area . (20-056)
   
This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda.
2. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency Of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreement with Central Utah Water Conservancy District for The Provo Medical School Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-055)
   
This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda.
3. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreement with Provo City for The Provo Medical School Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-051)
   
This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda.
4. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreement with Utah County for The Provo Medical School Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-054)
   
This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda.


Action Agenda

5. A resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Approving adopting the Project Area Plan for The Mix Community Reinvestment Project Area.(20-052)
   
This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 5:2, with David Harding and David Shipley opposed. I said in the meeting, shortly after this vote, that I had made a mistake by not voting for this item. This item is specifically about the creation of the project area and I do not object to that.
6. A resolution Redevelopment Agency of Provo City approving and adopting The Community Reinvestment Project Area Budget for The Mix Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-053)
   
This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 4:3, with David Harding, Travis Hoban, and David Shipley opposed. This is the item that I object to. The budget for the project area sets the "baseline" on valuation years into the project when many of the buildings had been torn down. If we grant tax increment incentives then the increment should be calculated from what was there before, not once everything is in disarray.


Action Agenda (Provo Municipal Council)

7. A resolution appointing individuals to The Metropolitan Water Board Of Provo. (20-003)
   
Three people will be appointed to fill vacancies on the Metropolitan Water District Board. Approved 6:1, with Shannon Ellsworth opposed. We had an abundance of well-qualified applicants to serve. It was a pleasant chore to try to pick between such capable people willing to serve their community.
8. An ordinance approving various amendments to Provo City Code Title 14 for consistency and stylistic purposes. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200042)
   
This was item 11 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. Clerical.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 15.08.060 (Impact Fee Calculations). Citywide application. (PLOTA20200042)
   
This was item 11 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. Clerical.
10. A resolution authorizing Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreement with the Redevelopment Agency Of Provo City for The Provo Medical School Community Reinvestment Project Area.(20-051)
    
This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. This is the flip side of the consent agenda voted on by the RDA board.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to Section 18.03.040 and the Drainage Manual. Citywide Application. (20-050)
    
At a December 2019 Council meeting, Public Works presented generally on the topic of upcoming State of Utah rule changes regarding stormwater retention and low-impact development. Now that the rule is going into effect, they are presenting the specific changes they are recommending be adopted in the Storm Drainage Manual and to Title 18 of City Code. Approved 7:0. This is a good improvement to City policy. It is a better, more responsible way to handle stormwater and brings us in line with State law.
12. An ordinance of Provo City Adopting the Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan for The Mix Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-052)
    
This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 5:2, with David Harding and David Shipley opposed. This is the flip side of the item I voted against on the Redevelopment Agency Board.
13. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Relating to the Professional Office (PO) Zone to allow private educational services as a conditional use. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200047)
    
This was item 13 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. There was some thought that instead of allowing private schools in the PO zone, we should consider changing the zoning property in question to PF, which already allows private schools. But the proposal before us was whether private schools should be allowed in the PO zone, and I agree that that is a perfectly acceptable use in a PO zone. There may still be a request in the future to change the zone for that property, at which time I'll consider the arguments for that action.
14. An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan relating to the Transportation Master Plan. Citywide Application. (PLGPA20200038)
    
This was item 12 on the work meeting agenda. Continued to the Council Meeting on March 31, 2020. I think this is the first real opportunity for this Council to decide on long-range City policy and vision. The biggest point of discussion was around the proposed $70M expansion of 800 N, and whether it was needed, justified, or desirable. That's a lot of money. More broadly, some concern was expressed that the proposed TMP was too auto-centric.
15. ***CONTINUED*** Comm. & Nbhd. Services Dept. requests ord. amend. to City Code 15.20.090--Parking Lot Landscaping. Request seeks to increase the min. canopy coverage & landscaping arrangement within new parking areas. Citywide appl. (PLOTA20190433)
    
This item was not ready to be heard.
16. ***CONTINUED*** The Community and Neighborhood Services Department requests various Code Amendments to Titles 14 and 15 to allow for driveway and parking lot surfaces that are more permeable. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190411)
    
This item was not ready to be heard.


Adjournment

On Perception and Representation

What is common sense?

One cynical definition of common sense is "the rationale that supports my position on an issue...particularly when I can't articulate that rationale."

Most of us like to think of ourselves as rational beings. Therefore, the positions we take are rational positions. So obviously other rational people, people with common sense, will also reach the same conclusion. People who take a different position are mistaken, lack common sense, or have ulterior motives.

I believe it is part of our human nature to think this way. I definitely see this influencing my own thought processes. (And since I experience this, I assume that all 'normal' people also experience it; which is why I believe it is part of human nature.)

A corollary to this is the assumption that whatever opinion we hold is more broadly held by the public than is generally understood. People expressing the opposing opinion are part of the vocal minority, and most of the people not speaking up are on my side. We all experience our own "echo chambers" to one degree or another. It is easy to feel that because all my friends (be they in person or online) feel similar to me, the general public must also feel this way.

And, of course, we can't forget confirmation bias, where we overweight evidence that supports our position and dismiss evidence that contradicts our position.

So, how does this apply to our representative democracy? Should our elected officials vote for what they believe is in the best interest of the people they represent or should they vote for what the people they represent believe* is in the people's best interest?

An honest self-assessment may find that where we stand on this question is heavily influenced by whatever hot issue we are most concerned about at the moment. And where we stand on this question may change from time-to-time depending on the issue at hand. If we perceive that our position is the majority position, then we are more likely to agree with the idea that representatives should "respect the will of the people". If we perceive that our position is the minority position (but right none-the-less) then we are more likely to agree with the idea that representatives should carefully study the issue and decide for themselves what is in the best interest of the community. That's why we elected them as leaders, right?

Based on the feedback I've received before and after contested decisions, I put together this handy table:

How we see our elected officials
if their position is...	aligned with the majority of the constituents	not-aligned with the majority of the constituents
the same as mine	*They are doing the job they were elected to do.	*They are courageous, enlightened, true leaders.
		*They are the reason we have a representative democracy and not a pure democracy.
different than mine	*They only care about their re-election.	*They are bought off by special interests.
	*They are caving into the mob mentality.	*They are arrogant, thinking they are better and smarter than the people they represent.
	*They are deciding their position based on opinion polls.

Please understand that on every contested issue councilors will hear sentiments from at least two of the four boxes. And because of our propensity to overestimate how broadly held our own position is, councilors will often have both sides telling them to listen to the will of the people.

Which brings me to my final thought for this blog post. *Knowing the will of the people. What is the right way to determine the will of the people? 

Should elected officials rely on the people who reach out by email and come to speak in public meetings? That is a self-selected group, generally a group where the item is of special interest to them. Should the opinion of someone who could be personally affected or who is very concerned about an item count more or the same as someone who doesn't care about the issue? It is also worth noting that among people who care about an issue, people who believe the Council is going to vote the way they want them to are less likely to take the time and make the effort to show up to a meeting or write an email than people who believe the Council is going to vote opposite of the way they want them to. 

Should elected officials invite the public to participate in "unscientific" surveys? People still self-select to participate, much like the feedback we get by email and in the meetings. But this method lowers the time and effort required to express a position. Is that a good or a bad thing?

Should elected officials commission and pay for "scientific" surveys to gather the opinions of a "representative" sample of the public? There are many hurdles to collecting a truly representative sample. What methods are used to contact participants? Some demographics are harder to reach than others. People can still select to not participate in the survey. There are ways to mitigate these hurdles, but they cost money. If the general public isn't familiar with an issue, is it really that helpful to get a representative sample of their opinions? Who should be polled? Active voters? Registered voters? Everyone over 18?

Should we rely on the officials elected by the people to represent them? Considering how low our voter participation rates are (and the percentages that are reported are against the number of registered voters, not eligible voters), how representative is the vote that put elected officials into office?

My point is that it is harder to know "the will of the people" than one might expect, and there is a bit of nuance in what is meant by "the will of the people".

Thanks for making it this far in the post. I hope it is helpful in understanding how I try to make sense of a passionate and articulate public weighing in on all sides of an issue.

Council Meetings - 18 February 2020

I still have over 500 pages of housing reports to digest before Tuesday's meetings. I'm not going to hold back posting the rest of my previews in the meantime. The Brewpub question is back after 4 additional weeks of study and public engagement. This will be the hot topic on Tuesday.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, February 18, 2020

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

Business

1. A presentation regarding the fiscal year (FY) 2021-2022 budget from Public Works. (20-007)
   The Department of Public Works will present a pre-budget summary to review department budget management, trends, and developments in the operations with the Municipal Council. Each specific operation unit of Public Works will be covered. Public Works will be our second budget season presentation. Much of our infrastructure is overseen by this department. Presentation only.
2. A discussion regarding information on restaurants with ancillary breweries. (PLOTA20190378)
   Council staff will briefly review what information has been published so far and where the Council can find it. Councilors are welcome to request any other information they would like staff to find before the Council Meeting that evening. See my preview for item 10 in the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 18, 2020. See my report for item 10 in the evening meeting
3. A discussion regarding the appropriations on the agenda for the evening Council Meeting. (20-035, 20-038, 20-039, and 20-040)
   In the evening meeting this evening, the Council will hear four proposed appropriations: 1. A resolution appropriating $15,000 in the General Fund for a public bike rack expansion project. (20-040) 2. A resolution transferring Personnel Budget of $200,000 from the Community and Neighborhood Services Department in the General Fund to the Development Services Department in the General Fund. (20-039) 3. A resolution appropriating $26,819.85 in the General Fund for a reimbursement as per the terms of the Participation and Reimbursement Agreement between Provo City and Parkway Village Holdings, LLC. (20-038) 4. A resolution appropriating $3,638,455 in the General Fund for the design and construction of a new roadway, utilities, and infrastructure at the Mountain Vista Business Center. (20-035) Please refer to the Council Meeting agenda for more information about each appropriation. This item on the Work Meeting agenda will give the Council (especially newly elected Councilors who have not yet heard any appropriations) the opportunity to ask any clarifying questions before hearing the appropriations that evening See my previews for items 4 - 7 in the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 18, 2020. See my reports for items 4 - 7 in the evening meeting.
4. A discussion regarding the 2020 Consolidated Plan goals and priorities to direct Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funding. (20-036)
   The Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) is designed to help local jurisdictions to (1) assess their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions and to (2) make data-driven, place-based decisions. Through the ConPlan, grantees engage the community in the process of developing and reviewing the proposed plan and in the implementation of the same. Executive Summary. Housing Market Analysis. Housing Needs Assessment. I have not completed my review of the supporting documents. It is over 550 pages. I don't want to hold up the rest of my previews. I'll update this once I'm done with my review. Presentation only. This begins a 30-day review period.
5. A discussion regarding zoning enforcement. (20-037)
   For the past several years, Community and Neighborhood Services has reported to the Council in a Work Meeting concerning the effectiveness of their zoning enforcement efforts. This report will include any available statistics concerning the effectiveness of the new zoning disclosure ordinance due to intense public interest on the topic. The report will also include an update on the average tenure of zoning enforcement employees. During last year’s report, it was reported that the average tenure of those employees was only nine months, which makes it very difficult to have a well-trained, effective, and professional zoning enforcement department. The lack of credible, consistent enforcement of Provo zoning regulations has been an ongoing complaint that I've heard since before I joined the Council. We had taken several steps to try to encourage zoning compliance and support our officers who have the role of enforcing the regulations. I am very interested to hear this year's update. A motion to reaffirm the Council's request that short-term rental software be funded with carryover funds; to proceed with the selection of a vendor; to request that the Community and Neighborhood Services Department share recommendations with the Council for the most cost-effective and strategic methods for staffing retention and/or use of funding for zoning enforcement; and to discuss these recommendations in a future Work Meeting, was approved 7:0. Some were dismayed by the presentation, but I don't think it is bad for a department to check in with the new Council to verify that priorities have not changed from the previous Council. I do hope that we were clear enough and aligned enough with the Mayor so our compliance efforts can move forward decisively.
6. A discussion regarding Community and Neighborhood Service's vision for the General Plan and Neighborhood Plans. (20-044)
   Gary McGinn will update the Council on Community and Neighborhood Service's work on the General and Neighborhood Plans and discuss potential directions to take these plans in the future. Staff are seeking direction from the new Council as they continue to plan Provo's future. I feel the neighborhood and area master plans that have been completed over the last several years have been very helpful in defining what the City and the residents want in these areas. I only wish that we were making more progress. I fear that the early plans will be long out-of-date before the last ones are completed. Presentation only. I really like the idea of a concise General Plan that articulates the broad, unifying goals and policies for the City, and then using the Area-Specific Master Plans (neighborhood and area plans) to describe how the goals and policies should look in a context-sensitive way for the specific location.
7. A discussion regarding the Provo Power renewable energy goal for 50% renewable sources by 2030. (20-043)
   In the Energy Board Meeting on February 3, 2020, the Board voted (4:0) to recommend a goal to reach 50% non-carbon energy production by the year 2030. Staff recommended this goal be presented to the Municipal Council. In order to meet this goal, Provo will need to continue acquiring Green resources for the next 10 years. Provo currently produces over 25% of its power from hydro and solar, and that percentage should increase to 45% with the building of a large solar farm near Mona. My initial reaction to this goal is, "only 50%?" and "not until 2030?". It seems that 10-years ago I saw an annual report for UMPA (our power producing consortium with a few other cities) showing that over a third of our energy was from renewable sources. I'll be asking questions as to whether getting to 50% in 10 more years is really much of a goal at all. Presentation only. What an interesting discussion. Part of goal setting is selecting the metrics by which you track the goal. Apparently, there is a large difference between some of the terms, as defined by the State, and what might be understood by the general public. "Green" resources, "Non-carbon" energy production, "renewable", etc. all have different meanings. I don't remember which term it was, but one, by the State's definition, wouldn't include power secured from the Glen Canyon Dam, because the Dam isn't located in Utah (it's about 3 miles over the border with Arizona). BYU's cogen facility qualifies under one of the terms, but not another. As long as we are okay with a broad definition for our goal, an aggressive but realistic goal could be 75% by 2030! With this new information and support from the Council, the Energy Board is being asked to make a new recommendation.



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, February 18, 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. Introduction of the new Grandview South Neighborhood Chair. (20-041)
   Presentation only. I wish the new neighborhood leadership the best as they start this adventure.
2. Presentation on the Timpview Trail Neighborhood Matching Grant Project in the Indian Hills Neighborhood. (20-042)
   Congrats to Joshua Killpack, and the rest of the Indian Hills Neighborhood for successfully conducting this project. Our Matching Grant program provides a lot of value to the community by partnering with residents to make improvements to our neighborhoods. Presentation only. The presentation was impressive. Great work.



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

3. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (20-003)
   
Mayor Kaufusi has recommended several individuals to be appointed to various City boards and commissions. The Council has reviewed the recommendations, met the tentative-appointees, and will now consider a resolution to appoint those individuals to the respective boards and commissions. The appointees are Zach Atherton, Thomas Taylor, and Daren Smith to the Arts Council, David Shipley to the Library Board, and Beth Alligood to the Housing Authority. I'm grateful to the many residents who serve our community on boards and commissions. We live in a better city because of them. Approved 7:0. Thanks to all who are willing to serve.
4. A resolution appropriating $15,000 in the General Fund for a public bike rack expansion project. (20-040)
   In Provo's contract with Zagster for the scooter program, they were to pay the City a fee of $25,000. It was anticipated that the City would use some of that money for bike racks to support bikes in general and the bike sharing program that Zagster is working on in particular. The City has now received that funding and staff have requested an appropriation of $15,000 for bike racks as outlined in the attached Public Bike Rack Expansion Project Powerpoint. I think this is a great use of the proceeds of the SPIN scooters and is wise preparation for the bike-share component. Approved 7:0. This is a win-win for the community.
5. A resolution transferring $200,000 from the Community and Neighborhood Services Department to the Development Services Department. (20-039)
   In the current fiscal year, the former Community Development Department was split into two separate departments, Community and Neighborhood Services and Development Services. At the time of budget preparations for this fiscal year, it was still unclear exactly which functions and employees would be going to each department. The City now has a better idea of what the personnel budgets should be for each department and is proposing a transfer of $200,000 of budget from Community and Neighborhood Services to Development Services. This is a transfer, not additional money. I have no concerns. Approved 7:0.
6. A resolution appropriating $26,819.85 in the General Fund for a reimbursement to satisfy the Participation and Reimbursement Agreement with Parkway Village Provo Holdings, LLC. (20-038)
   On November 15, 2016 the Council approved a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between Provo City and Parkway Village LLC, the ownership group of the Parkway Village shopping center located at 2255 North University Parkway. At the meeting, the Council was presented with a request to reimburse the ownership group for certain extraordinary demolition, development, and construction costs associated with the removal of an existing occupied retail pad; participation of the installation of a new traffic signal; and the construction of a replacement retail pad. The reimbursement would be funded through retail sales tax increment above the established predetermined sales tax revenue actually generated by the retail center as of a certain date. The baseline revenue was established at $136,476, which represents one half of one percent of total sales generated at the center, or that portion of sales tax revenues received by Provo City from the retail center, as provided by the State of Utah. In this agreement, Provo City will continue to receive the baseline amount of $136,476. The developer/owner will receive, on an annual basis, a reimbursement against their actual out of pocket expenses; that is, any additional sales tax revenue above and beyond the baseline amount of $136,476. The terms of the agreement run for ten years. In that time the developer/owner will be able to be reimbursed up to half the out of pocket costs for the expenses described above. The target reimbursement amount as per the agreement is $1,053,395.86. Further, if the shopping center performs extraordinarily well, and if the owner/developer has earned reimbursement equal to the targeted reimbursement amount, and if there is still time left within the ten-year agreement, the owner/developer will be entitled to half of the tax increment above the baseline. However, at no point will the developer/owner be entitled to more than the out of pocket expenses. That total out of pocket expenses are $2,106791.72. 2 As this is the first payment in the ten-year agreement, that is $26,819.85, which represents that amount over the baseline of $136,476, it is not likely that full reimbursement amount will be achieved. However, the agreement does provide for the opportunity to do so, and the City is obligated to reimburse as per the agreement. I voted against this deal back in 2016, but the majority of the Council voted to enter into the agreement. I support following through with our commitments. Approved 7:0. Following through with our commitments.
7. A resolution appropriating $3,638,455 in grant funds and sale proceeds for the design and construction of a new roadway, utilities, and infrastructure at the Mountain Vista Business Center. (20-035)
   On August 15, 2018 Provo City Economic Development Division was awarded a matching grant from the Economic Development Administration for the construction of a new road and utility improvement from the roundabout in Mountain Vista Parkway to State Route 75, also known as 1400 North, in Springville, to provide access to the southern end of the business park and more direct access to I-15 to the west. The road is being built in conjunction with property recently sold to Hall Property Holdings, LLC for the construction and development of the continuation of the business park in the form of new large warehouse, manufacturing, and office buildings. This one is also completing a project that we have already committed to. Part federal grant, part proceeds from a sale of land that will be serviced by the road. Approved 7:0. The overall Moutain Vista project has been a real boon to the city. I don't believe any City tax dollars have been used. Through the efforts of our Economic Development staff, we have converted contaminated, unproductive land, into tax-paying business property.
8. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council urging support for educating consumers about where Tier 3 gasoline is sold. (20-031)
   The Mayor’s Substantiality and Natural Resources Committee presented their annual report to the Council in the Work Meeting on January 21, 2020 and asked for the Council to support a resolution regarding the Utah State government taking action to educate the public about which gas stations sell Tier 3 gasoline. Cleaning up our air is a major priority and converting to tier 3 gas and cars will do more to clean up our air than just about anything else. Approved 7:0. I saw that the Legislature was grappling with a Tier 3 question for one of the major refineries. Perhaps this resolution will help them as they gauge public support for this important measure.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to floor area ratio, setback, and buffer yard requirements in the Research and Business Park (R&BP) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190425)
   The applicant has requested an amendment to Provo City Code 14.44.050 (Tract and Lot Area, Yard, Coverage, and Height Requirements). These requirements apply to the Research and Business Park (R&BP) Zone. This zone is only located in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood at the Riverwoods Business Park. The proposed request would remove the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) requirement for a structure, which is currently 30%. The proposed amendment would add a provision to allow the Development Services Director the ability to modify setbacks and perimeter buffer yards in the zone if certain conditions are met. Staff have reported that this request does not raise any concerns for them. Other requirements for building height, setbacks, and open space would still limit the building's footprint and preserve open space on the lot. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was continued after the first hearing at the February 4, 2020, Council meeting. I don't see any change in the proposal from the last time we saw this. Perhaps a newer version exists but just wasn't uploaded to the system. I can't support the version that we were presented with last time. ***CONTINUED***
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow restaurants with ancillary microbrewing as a permitted use in certain zones. (PLOTA20190378)
    The applicant has had inquiries as the Downtown Neighborhood Chair, about establishing restaurants with microbreweries as part of their business model. The applicant worked with staff to create an amendment to accomplish this goal. The specific language being proposed adds as a permitted use, microbreweries in the above zones only when attached to and ancillary to a restaurant. Restaurants in these areas are currently permitted to sell and serve alcohol based on their business license. This amendment would allow current and future restaurants to brew and sell on site as part of their business. In this case, ancillary to a restaurant means that 60% of the sales would need to be from food. This is the definition of a Class B liquor license. Planning Commission recommended approval. Council staff prepared a report for the initial hearing on January 21, 2020. This item was continued to allow for more staff research and public input.
    Links:
    • Additional research
    • Public engagement information
    • Testimonials from event planners
    People are passonate on both sides of this issue. I am very concerned about the public health effects of alcohol abuse. But I believe that brewpubs is one of the least likely settings for alcohol abuse. I see very little difference between what is allowed now (restaurants selling beer produced offsite) and what is being requested (restaurants selling beer produced onsite). Many people on both sides of the issue have pointed to Strap Tank in Springville. Right now, a Provo restaurant with an alcohol licenses (27 currently) could sell Strap Tank beer brewed in Springville. A business could even brew beer in one location in Provo and then sell it at their restaurant in a different location of the City. I don't see a good reason to not grant this request. I also think it is time for the Council to revisit the City regulations on granting alcohol licenses, which is a necessary next step if this proposed ordinance passes. A motion to substitute the ordinance with the version incorporating a sunrise clause was approved 7:0. The ordinance was then approved 4:3, with George Handley, William Fillmore, and David Sewell opposed. Much ink, or at least key-strokes, and words have been spilt over this question. Some citizens have initiated the referendum process. If they can gather enough signatures then this question will be on the ballot this fall. In the meantime, like I indicated in my preview, we will be revisiting the City policy on granting alcohol licenses, to make sure they are aligned with recommendations by public health institutions (like the CDC and WHO) and the community's interests.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 4 February 2020

Tuesday marks the real start to the Council budget season. We begin with the Parks and Rec Department. I'm excited to discuss the Very-Low-Density Residential zone, which was proposed by a resident in the first Council meeting of the year. The item generating the most interest, though, is a General Plan land use designation change that is being proposed.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, February 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

1. A presentation regarding fiscal year (FY) 2021 budget from Parks and Recreation. (20-032)
   Provo Parks and Recreation Department administration will present a pre-budget summary to review department budget management, trends, and developments in the operations with the Municipal Council. Each specific operation unit of Parks and Recreation will be covered. Parks and Recreation’s accomplishments in supporting the General Plan will also be reviewed. In the past, I have found these budget presentations to be very helpful in understanding the scope and status of our departments and the services they provide. Presentation only. We have a remarkable Parks and Rec Department where many of the facilities and activities pay for their own operation. We are not aware of another rec center in the country that isn't subsidized in operations. Our rec center actually transfers money into our General Fund! We were warned that the Department may not be able to continue this half-million transfer in the future. I'm okay with that. Taxpayers are already subsidizing the rec center through the bond that was used to build it. I want to make sure that we are making the operation as sustainable as possible and setting aside proper funds to pay for future maintenance, rather than maximizing the transfer to the General Fund.
2. A training on the use of development agreements. (20-030)
   The Council Attorney will lead a training session going over the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act (MLUDMA), Utah Code 10- 9a-102(1) and how it applies to development agreements and the use of those agreements in Provo City. This issue has been churning since before I joined the Council. It is part of the legal dance. Presentation only. It would be nice if we never felt that development agreements were needed and our land use (zoning) regulations were sufficient.
3. A discussion regarding the creation of a Very Low Density Residential Zone (VLDR). (20-029)
   There has been some discussion about creating a new zone like the current Low Density Residential Zone (LDR). This new zone would be Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). It would have the same uses but would limit the number of units by half, with a maximum of 7.5 dwellings per acre. I like the flexibility of the LDR zone, but there are places in the City where 15 units to the acre may be too dense for the area. The idea behind the VLDR zone is to provide the flexibility of LDR with the density of R1.6. Presentation only. This will be a helpful tool. And perhaps we'll be able to avoid some development agreements in the future with this tool.
4. A discussion regarding Councilors' committee assignments. (20-021)
   The Council's fiscal oversight necessitates the creation of an Audit Committee. The Council will discuss how it will operate and what it its responsibilities will be. The Council also intends to discuss the future direction and membership of the Housing Committee. The Audit Committee will be an important addition. Housing is such a critical issue right now in the City, the Valley, and the State. I don't know the best form for the Housing Committee, but I feel we need to be putting forth our best effort to get ahead of the challenges. A motion to nominate David Shipley as chair and Travis Hoban as vice-chair of the Audit Committee; to charge them with examining the scope of what committee would do and who would be involved; and to approve the mission statement: "The mission of the Audit Committee is to review and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council concerning the City’s financial reporting processes, standards, financial statements, and internal controls, as audited by the City’s independent auditors; and other audit related assignments as requested by the City Council,” was approved 7:0. The word “objectively” was struck from the Budget Committee mission statement by unanimous consent. They'll make a great team.
5. A discussion regarding Tier 3 gasoline and a proposed resolution calling for state action to educate consumers about where Tier 3 gasoline is sold. (20-031)
   The Mayor’s Substantiality and Natural Resources Committee presented their annual report to the Council in the Work Meeting on January 21, 2020 and asked for the Council to support a resolution regarding the Utah State government taking action to educate the public about which gas stations sell Tier 3 gasoline. Some actions have been taken to raise the public awareness of Tier 3 gas. I am unsure if this proposed step is still needed. A motion to authorize Council Leadership to send a letter to state legislators about the Council’s consideration of this resolution in two weeks and encourage legislators to advance and pass legislation for Tier 3 gasoline; and to bring this resolution to the Council Meeting on February 18, 2020, was approved 7:0. There was some difference in understanding between advisors regarding the prevalence of non-Tier 3 gasoline. I'm not clear on how much of an impact the proposed resolution could have. Regardless, the Council strongly supports efforts to improve the air quality in our valley.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to floor area ratio, setback, and buffer yard requirements in the Research and Business Park (R&BP) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190425)
   The applicant has requested an amendment to Provo City Code 14.44.050 (Tract and Lot Area, Yard, Coverage, and Height Requirements). These requirements apply to the Research and Business Park (R&BP) Zone. This zone is only located in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood at the Riverwoods Business Park. The proposed request would remove the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) requirement for a structure, which is currently 30%. The proposed amendment would add a provision to allow the Development Services Director the ability to modify setbacks and perimeter buffer yards in the zone if certain conditions are met. Staff have reported that this request does not raise any concerns for them. Other requirements for building height, setbacks, and open space would still limit the building's footprint and preserve open space on the lot. Planning Commission recommended approval. See my preview for this item in the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 4, 2020. See my report for this item in the evening meeting.
7. An ordinance amending the General Plan designation of approximately 151 acres, generally located between 300 E. and 1000 E. and between 4800 N. and 6000 N., from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R). North Timpview Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190352)
   Staff would like to note that this proposal is to amend the General Plan. It would not approve an annexation, rezone, or development plan. Bob Jones has requested that the Land Use Element and Map of the General Plan be amended to facilitate his planned Terra development. This amendment would change the land use designations for 11 properties totaling 151 acres (in Provo City and in unincorporated Utah County areas) from Agricultural to Residential. The area is included in the proposal is in a Developmental Sensitive overlay area, which would still remain in place if the General Plan designation were changed to Residential. This proposal was continued in the Planning Commission on December 4, 2019 to allow the applicant and staff more time to prepare and review, especially regarding the requirement that the Agricultural designation should "protect agricultural uses from encroachment ... until such time as residential, commercial, or industrial uses in such areas become necessary and desirable." On January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended approval (6:2). Two formal neighborhood meetings have been held regarding the Terra development in addition to several informal meetings between the developer and smaller groups. In the first Planning Commission hearing on December 4, 2019, several members of the Planning Commission expressed that they would like additional meetings between the developer and community members to resolve remaining concerns. No formal meetings have been held since then, to staff's knowledge. Debate so far as largely centered around the aesthetic and environmental impact. Land use designations depend on the desired outcomes for the area, which often shift and can be difficult to pin down. Best practice recommends that General Plan land use 2 designations be updated every 5 years. Unaddressed designations more than 10 years old are considered to be "out of date." The current General Plan was adopted in 2010 and has been revised as the Council has approved proposed amendments. See my preview for this item in the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 4, 2020. See my report for this item 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.

Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 4, 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 regarding Citizen Connect. (20-033)
   Hopefully, all of you have received the packet from the City in the mail listing some of the various ways to connect with the City. The Mayor posted about this effort in her blog. Presentation only.



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

2. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to floor area ratio, setback, and buffer yard requirements in the Research and Business Park (R&BP) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190425)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. This item reminds me of the change we made to the lot coverage restriction on PO zones two weeks ago. I want to understand why a regulation was put in place before I can be comfortable voting to remove it. Continued to the Council Meeting on February 18, 2020. We identified some shortcomings in the proposed ordinance so Staff will make some changes and will bring it back.
3. An ordinance amending the General Plan designation of approximately 151 acres, generally located between 300 E. and 1000 E. and between 4800 N. and 6000 N., from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R). North Timpview Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190352)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. Here are my thoughts on this one:
   • The Staff report notes that plans that are older than 10 years are considered out-of-date. I believe that an out-of-date planning document should be updated, not ignored. After reading the parts of the General Plan that are specific to this area, I agree that they are out-of-date. I believe that a proper update will include some significant changes. Several other areas of the City have faced changing ideas about how the land could be used. We have taken the time and effort to engage the public and other stakeholders in a professionally lead effort to consider possible outcomes, develop a community vision, and craft a planning document that helps all involved know what to expect and to guide future decisions. I believe this is what is needed now for this area.
   • The current land use designation of land in the proposal is Agricultural. This is the adopted plan and policy of the City for this area.
   • Should the adopted plan and policy be changed? Maybe, but not without a proper visioning and planning process, as I described above.
   • Should the land subject to the proposal be land-use designated as Agricultural or Residential? It depends on how that planning process goes.
   • The argument has been made that we should make this land-use-designation change so that more extensive studies can be conducted related to the concept plan, rezoning, and annexation. If we approve this General Plan amendment, large amounts of Staff and developer time and resources will be expended. I believe the proper course of action is to update the General Plan for this area which will determine the proper land use designation going forward, which then justifies whether those more extensive studies should occur.
   The implied motion to approve the ordinance failed 0:7. I didn't think that such a large change to our adopted policy should be made without a more thorough public process. I felt like this view was shared by the rest of the Council as well.
4. A public hearing regarding extending parking restrictions in the Foothills Permit Parking area. Foothills Neighborhood. (20-023)
   Currently, the Foothills Permit Parking Area includes a portion of Seven Peaks Boulevard, and there is a desire to extend those restrictions further down to include more of Seven Peaks Boulevard. The Council will hold a public hearing to determine if there is sufficient public interest to move forward with the proposed extension. I'm not too concerned about a slight expansion of this Permit Parking Area if the affected residents want it. I do believe that permit parking programs should pay for themselves. A motion to send this request to the City Parking Coordinator for further review was approved 7:0. This proposal will now be studied by our Parking Coordinator.
5. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan to rezone properties in the R2.5, R3, and R4. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190427)
   This item was not ready to be heard.
6. ***CONTINUED*** Community & Neighborhood Services Department requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to remove the R2.5, R3, R4, R5 and Campus High Density Residential zones from the city code. These zones include sections 14.12, 14.12A, 14.13, 14.14 and 14.14D. Citywide Application. PLOTA20190428
   This item was not ready to be heard.
7. ***CONTINUED*** The Sign Ordinance Committee requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 14.38.120-140 to clarify sign size requirements. Citywide application  PLOTA20190409
   This item was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment