Council Meetings - 16 June 2020

Tomorrow's meetings are very full. I'm afraid we will go well into the evening. We will be voting on additional regulations for brewpubs, zoning changes for Christensen Oil, and the Foothills Overlay. One hot local topic that we won't be addressing is a Parking Permit Program for Joaquin. I set off a bit of a controversy last week when I was interviewed by a reporter for the Daily Universe about a proposal that is being developed. I didn't include all of the details and the story raised the concerns of many people. Take a look at this post for more information.

Work Meeting Agenda
1:00 pm, Tuesday, June 16, 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 discussion regarding potential updates to the budget. (20-008)
   This is the Council's opportunity to make any changes to the budget before the second of two required hearings in the Council Meeting this evening. The Council has discussed carryovers in the past, and final language must be determined before the resolution adopting the budget is approved. There was a very short time frame in which to address this concern. Basically, the State Code says that all unspent and unencumbered money (meaning that a P.O. or contract has already been executed to spend the money) lapses at the end of the year and must be returned to the General Fund. There is concern that this encourages a "use it or lose it" mentality that is not fiscally prudent. The "Carry-over" Committee is recommending that the Council collaborate with the Administration to address this concern in a way that respects both the role of the Administration and the role of the Council and the checks and balances that have been put into place between the equal branches of our city government. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. We basically punted on the "Carry-over" question, but it will need to be revisited before we continue the practice of past years.



Administration

2. A presentation regarding an update on the Innovation Grant Fund Program. (20-096)
   The Innovation Grant Fund Program was created several years ago to encourage our employees to think outside the box and be innovative in their approach to their jobs or challenges. The program successfully launched one round of initiatives/ideas. However, the program was not implemented in fiscal year 18/19. In late 2019, the program was re-initiated and the program began promoting and soliciting Provo City employees to submit innovative ideas. The criteria for selecting an innovative idea were as follows:
   
   
   
   • cost savings to Provo City as a whole
   
   
   
   • cost savings to individual departments
   
   
   
   • service and quality improvement to Provo residents
   
   
   
   • increased efficiency
   
   
   
   • contribution to public safety or quality of life and finally
   
   
   
   • innovation or a compelling concept
   
   
   
   
   
   The Administration will present three brief updates from Police, Fire, and Community and Neighborhood services on the innovative submissions from these departments. I am very supportive of the Innovation Grant Fund Program. I think the first year was highly successful and look forward to the innovations that the current program will produce. Presentation only. The projects that were reported on this year seem a bit more like implementing best practices developed elsewhere, things which we should be funding from the regular budget. I appreciated the projects that were funded last time, I felt they better fit the "innovation" focus of the program.



Business

3. A presentation regarding the State Auditor's Office Fraud Risk Assessment. (20-012)
   On January 7, 2020, the Council heard a presentation in a Work Meeting regarding the Utah State Auditor's Office Fraud Risk Assessment for Municipalities. This is a follow-up presentation to inform the Council of updates on the City's activities and progress related to filling out this assessment to determine the level of Provo City's fraud risk. The State recommended some practices that would reduce the risk of fraud in local governments. I am grateful for the way the Administration took ownership of issue and has been working to fully implement the recommendations. They are returning to report to the Council the results of their efforts. Presentation only. Serious kudos to Mr. Borget and the Administration for taking this as an opportunity to seriously evaluate the system Provo had in place and to look for ways where we can do things even better.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

4. A discussion regarding a Letter of Intent with PEG Development. (20-097)
   The Redevelopment Agency has been working with PEG Development for a facility that would provide additional Class A office space in the downtown and also meet the RDA's obligation to Utah County to provide 350 parking spaces for the Utah County Convention Center. PEG has encountered difficulties in getting sufficient commitments of the office space to allow their construction lender to release the financing to commence construction. PEG has asked the Agency to consider leasing enough space to reach the 60% threshold and obtain the financing. This is scheduled to be heard at the July 7 Council meeting. I see this as a win-win proposal. It allows the developer to move forward with the project, which is also needed by the Convention Center. It accommodates the developer's needs, but holds tax-payers harmless and keeps the developer motivated to fill the space because the money for the lease is diverted from the money they would be receiving for building the parking lot. Presentation only. We will move forward on this.
5. A resolution approving a substantial amendment to the Program Year 2019 Annual Action Plan to incorporate additional funds from the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act into the Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus funds. (20-093)
   In response to the pandemic caused by the spreading of the Corona Virus COVID-19, the federal government provided an economic stimulus package through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). This act made available, at the first tranche, $5 billion in supplemental CDBG-CV funding to prevent prepare for and respond to the coronavirus. The funds are administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which has notified Provo City of an expected allocation of $745,997 in CDBG-CV grant funds. To use the funding, the City is required to amend the most recently approved Annual Action Plan (AAP), which for Provo City is the PY2019 AAP. The CARES Act provides flexibilities and waivers for CDBG grantees to make it easier to use CDBG-CV grants for coronavirus response, including amending the City’s Citizen Participation Plan to suspend regulatory requirements associated with CDBG funds, such as a reduced comment period, opportunity to hold virtual public hearings and citizen participation reasonable notices and opportunities to comment. A duly noticed Public Comment Period from June 11, to June 16, 2020 is conducted for citizens, partner agencies, and other interested parties to review and comment on the Plan’s proposed amendment. Electronic copies of the Plan are available for public review at the City’s website. The public hearing on June 16, 2020 will close the Public Comment Period, present the Plan (Exhibit A) to the Municipal Council and public in general, show proposed uses to the recommended projects for CDBG-CV funds (Exhibit B), and an opportunity for the Municipal Council to make final funding determinations for the CDBG-CV uses and approve the Substantial Amendment to the Plan The bulk of the money will go to small business support, but there is a variety of other uses from rent and mortgage relief to social services. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for item 9 in the evening meeting.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt additional regulations for the Class "F" Beer License for restaurants with ancillary breweries. (20-098)
   The Council approved restaurants with ancillary breweries (brewpubs) on February 18, 2020 on the condition that a license be adopted. On April 14, the Council approved a simple license for brewpubs (Class "F" Beer License). Since then, the Alcohol Licensing Committee has worked to draft additional regulations for brewpubs to promote safety without unduly burdening prospective brewpub owners. The proposed regulations received support from the Council in previous Work Meeting discussions. I don't think that any of these provisions hurt, but I also don't think they really add anything. As a quick example, a restriction is proposed to forbid brewpubs from storing equipment and ingredients outside. This type of storage is already forbidden in the three zones where brewpubs are allowed. Does it hurt to have outside storage forbidden in two places? Does it help? As a member of the committee, I have reviewed and can recommend the langauge that was drafted to fulfill the F-license Restrcitions proposal supported by the Council, even if I still question the value of some of the provisions. A motion to amend the proposed language from 2 to 1, to read: “No more than one premises located within the same contiguous incidence” of the relevant zones, was approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for item 10 in the evening meeting.
7. A resolution approving and adopting the Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan and Budget for the Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-094)
   Qualtrics seeks 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. Qualtrics will make some of the parking available to other visitors to the Riverwoods Business park. They will also hire an additional 1,000 employees over the next ten years, with an average annual payroll of $80,000 per employee. I'm struggling with this item. I think Qualtrics is a great local company and has greatly benefitted our community. I am thrilled that they are cementing their commitment to the area and are expanding their operation here. But we don't typically thank companies by rebating the taxes they pay. *IF* this expansion is enabled by TIF then it is a wise investment in our future. *IF* the expansion would happen anyway then (for example) the Provo City School District will now have half a million dollars less to educate our children, including the children of the 1000 additional employees that Qualtrics will be bringing on. Wouldn't it be better to show our appreciation to the company by providing the very best education possible for their employee's children? Wouldn't it be better to provide top-notch city services and public amenities like parks? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for item 7 in the evening meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to permitted uses and yard requirements of the M1 Light Manufacturing Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200117)
   This is the second hearing for this item. Previous hearings were held on May 5, 2020 and May 19, 2020. The proposed Ordinance Text Amendment is a staff-initiated amendment to add “Petroleum bulk stations and terminals (only as to the sale of petroleum products listed in the International Fire Code as combustible liquid classifications Class II, IIIA, and IIIB” as a permitted use in the M1 Zone. The text amendment also adds, “Petroleum bulk station and terminals for the sale of petroleum products in flammable classifications Class IA, IB, and IC of the International Fire Code” as a conditional use with specific conditions; removes natural or manufactured gas storage as a permitted use and instead adds it as an accessory use only; and, adds language to Section 14.27.080 to allow the Development Services Director or designee to modify the yard requirements. While the proposed text amendment will apply to all M1 Zones in the City, the impetus for the amendment is the Christensen Oil Site at 595 S 200 E in the Maeser Neighborhood. In 1935 the property located at 600 South and 200 East was occupied by Utah Oil Company, a petroleum distribution company. Owen Christensen began working there in the 1940’s and bought them out in 1973. Christensen Oil was established in 1973 as a petroleum product wholesaler. The property has several land uses including corporate headquarters for Christensen Oil and Crest Convenience Stores, warehousing and storage, and petroleum bulk station and terminal. Planning Commission recommended approval.
   
   Updated Christensen Oil site plan.
   
   Draft land use and site improvement agreement This is a tricky issue with many points of disagreement and conflict over the years. I believe the proposed text amendment to the M1 zone, along with the Land Use and Site Development Agreement, removes as much uncertainty as possible for the neighbors, the City, and the company. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for item 11 in the evening meeting.
9. A discussion regarding updates to ordinances amending Provo City Code to establish a Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone and applying the zone to multiple areas on the East Bench. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200077 and PLRZ20200078)
   This item was continued from the Council Meeting on April 14, 2020, after which it was discussed in a Town Hall on May 7, 2020 and by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2020 and June 10, 2020. The greatest change since the Council last heard this item is that the overlay zone will be applied on a much smaller scale. The zone already exempts platted and developed properties, and so those properties have been removed from the area to which the zone would be applied. Following discussions after complications with the gravel pit, the Foothills Protection Committee and Planning staff prepared a proposed set of hillside requirements and development standards to help protect hillside areas of Provo City. Staff felt that an overlay zone approach was best for adding hillside requirements. The proposed requirements and standards would overlay the existing zoning of a property; in other words, this proposal would add additional zoning requirements for a given parcel in addition to the requirements of the underlying zone. Feedback from multiple City departments was considered in the drafting of this proposal. The proposal includes, among other things, requirements related to limits of disturbance or LOD (identification of the limited area of a lot that can be encroached upon by development activity), slope protection and stability, detention basin design, ridgelines, trails, streets and access, fences, vegetation protection, stream corridor and wetlands protection, design standards, and development clustering. Multiple graphical illustrations of requirements are included in the proposal for the sake of facilitating comprehension of the requirements. Further, this proposal has a companion zone map 2 amendment application. With the zone map amendment application, staff has proposed the inclusion of certain properties in the CH Zone. Included in the proposal is an amendment to Chapter 14.01, Provo City Code, to limit development east of the proposed CH Zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval with one condition and staff have requested a motion from the Council to direct the creation of a Northeast Area Plan, which includes the foothills. The Commission also noted some items to be addressed. I see this mainly as a balancing act between different interests. It appears that this latest revision strikes a good balance, but I am looking forward to the discussion tomorrow to get a better feel for it. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 16, 2020. See my Report for items 12 & 13 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. None requested.

Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 16, 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 the 2020 Census update and Mayor Kaufusi's Census Challenge Video. (20-028)
   Presentation only. Have you filled out the online census form? Is there anyone you know that might need help filling it out? An elderly relative or neighbor? An English language learner? Someone who doesn't have an Internet connection?
   
   

   Public Comment

   Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.
   
   Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:
   
   Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.
   
   Please limit your comments to two minutes.
   
   State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.




Action Agenda

2. A public hearing on transferring utility revenues to the General Fund and other funds. (20-008)
   State law requires that Provo City provide an annual disclosure of funds transferred from the utility enterprise funds to the General Fund. Historically, Provo has budgeted for the transfer of 10% of utility fund revenues to the General Fund as a "dividend" to Provo taxpayers as the result of the taxpayers' investment in the City's utility infrastructure. These funds are used each year to help cover the costs of important City services like police, fire, parks and recreation, and other city functions. The utility transfer, together with franchise fees, helps keep property taxes in Provo low. If City utility services were provided by private utility owners, these dividends would instead be paid to investor-owners. Because Provo taxpayers are the investor-owners, these dividends are used to offset what otherwise would be a significant increase in property tax rates. The 10% transfer totals $11,490,397 in the proposed 2021 budget. Since 2013, a 1% transfer from utility fund revenues has been transferred to the General Fund to be used to enhance available funding for road maintenance. The 2021 budget proposes that $1,149,041 be transferred to the General Fund. The transfers from utility fund revenues to the General Fund total $12,639,438 in the proposed FY2021 budget. Almost all of our utility rates are equal to or less than the average for this area, and our service is better. Our tax-exempt community members are getting a better utility deal than they would in other nearby cities, but they still are contributing to the other city services they enjoy (like Police and Fire protection) through this enterprise fund transfer. Public hearing only. The State requires this in the name of transparency. I think it is also a great way to highlight what a great deal our residents and other community members are receiving from Provo utilities.
3. An ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021 in the amount of $292,939,096 and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. (20-008)
   This is the last of two public hearings on the budget. The Council will vote on approving the budget and the updated Consolidated Fee Schedule. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. In addition to the link in the background, I recommend reading the Citizen's Budget document. Approved 7:0. We did our best at this stage. We will likely need to be nimble and make adjustments as the fiscal year progresses and we see how the pandemic affects our revenues and expendatures.




Stormwater Service District

4. A public hearing on transferring Stormwater fund revenues to the General Fund and other funds. (20-010)
   State law requires that Provo City provide an annual disclosure of Stormwater funds transferred from the utility enterprise funds to the General Fund. Historically, Provo has budgeted for the transfer of 10% of utility fund revenues to the General Fund as a "dividend" to Provo taxpayers as the result of the taxpayers' investment in the City's utility infrastructure. These funds are used each year to help cover the costs of important City services like police, fire, parks and recreation, and other city functions. The utility transfer, together with franchise fees, helps keep property taxes in Provo low. If City utility services were provided by private utility owners, these dividends would instead be paid to investor-owners. Because Provo taxpayers are the investor-owners, these dividends are used to offset what otherwise would be a significant increase in property tax rates. See my Preview for item 2. Public hearing only. See my Report for item 2.
5. A resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021 in the amount of $6,704,839. (20-010)
   This is the last of two public hearings on the budget. The Council will vote on approving the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This budget is much smaller and simpler than the main budget. Approved 7:0. See my Preview for this item.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

6. A resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021 in the amount of $1,171,617. (20-009)
   This is the last of two public hearings on the budget. The Council will vote on approving the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This budget is much smaller and simpler than the main budget. Approved 7:0. See my Preview for this item.
7. A resolution approving and adopting the Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan and Budget for the Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-094)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 7 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. I was able to express the concerns I described in my Preview: "I'm struggling with this item. I think Qualtrics is a great local company and has greatly benefitted our community. I am thrilled that they are cementing their commitment to the area and are expanding their operation here. But we don't typically thank companies by rebating the taxes they pay. *IF* this expansion is enabled by TIF then it is a wise investment in our future. *IF* the expansion would happen anyway then (for example) the Provo City School District will now have half a million dollars less to educate our children, including the children of the 1000 additional employees that Qualtrics will be bringing on. Wouldn't it be better to show our appreciation to the company by providing the very best education possible for their employee's children? Wouldn't it be better to provide top-notch city services and public amenities like parks?"




Action Agenda

8. A resolution adopting the Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan for the Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-095)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 7 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. This is related to the previous item.
9. A resolution approving a substantial amendment to the Program Year 2019 Annual Action Plan to incorporate additional funds from the Coronavirus Aid Relief & Economic Security Act into the Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus funds. (20-093)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 5 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. Staff did a great job quickly yet carefully drafting a plan for using the federal COVID relief funds that we were given.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt additional regulations for the Class "F" Beer License for restaurants with ancillary breweries. (20-098)
    This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 6 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. The Council made a change to the proposal earlier in the day, to limit the number of brewpubs in each instance of a permitted zone to 1. This means that there can only be 6 brewpubs in Provo. Considering that there are only two in the entire county, I will be surprised if we even hit two in the next 5 years.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to permitted uses and yard requirements of the M1 Light Manufacturing Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200117)
    This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 8 in the Work Meeting. Implied motion approved as amended 7:0. I feel that this is the best possible outcome from this difficult situation. The decades-long disagreement about what the law allows and what the judgement allows is over. The company is agreeing to abandon all previous claims and to fully conform to the current zoning. The company, the city, and the neighbors now have some assurance as to what to expect.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200077)
    This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. This created the overlay, and had comparably little discussion this time. Most of the discussion was had on the map of where the overlay would be applied, which is the next item.
13. An ordinance amending the Provo City Zone Map to include multiple east bench properties in the Critical Hillside (CH) Overlay Zone. Citywide application. (PLRZ20200078)
    This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my Preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. Implied motion approved as amended 6:1, with David Sewell opposed. The main discussion revolved around whether the overlay should apply to land where development has already occurred beyond it on the mountainside, and how small of pockets it should apply to.
14. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 18.5 acres of real property generally located at 901 W 1560 S from Residential Agricultural (RA) and Agricultural (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.7). Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200079)
    The Community and Neighborhood Services Department on behalf of the Provo Municipal Council has requested to amend the Provo City Code to add the Very Low Density Residential (14.14F) zone. There is no proposed development requesting to utilize this zone. The proposed zone would have a minimal impact on a neighborhood due to the density limitation and could be a buffer between One Family Residential (14.10) and Low Density Residential (14.14A) zones. The proposed zone would require the residential units to follow the Residential Design Guidelines which would result in a higher quality of product within the neighborhood. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was first heard by the Council at their June 2 meeting and was continued to allow for more input. Input was taken on Open City Hall. We continued this item after hearing it in our last Council Meeting. Here is what I reported on this item, "I believe this is the first major rezone request for land west of I-15 since the West Side Development Policies were adopted by the Council a few years ago. It aligns pretty well with the policies. The continuation will allow for more resident input and for getting some questions answered."
    
    The main question that I have is how the property around the existing structure will be treated in the future. The structure is old and will sit on 1 acre of land. If it is redeveloped, will the parcel be subdivided? How will that work with the proffered development agreement? If it is subdivided, how will it be integrated into the rest of the neighborhood? Implied motion approved as amended 7:0. I was able to get my questions answered. The 1-acre lot was not included in the other density calculation so as long as it is not redeveloped into more than four properties then the overall density should work out.




Adjournment

Joaquin Neighborhood Parking Permit Proposal Under Development

More than a year ago a committee started working to develop a parking permit program that could be used in the densely populated area of Provo south of BYU.

Last week I was interviewed over the phone by a reporter with the Daily Universe about the proposal that is being developed. The article was published yesterday.

The article prompted a discussion on the Provo Forward Facebook group. I wanted to answer some of the questions and fill in some of the details. Here is what I wrote:

Ms. Andersen did a great job writing this up. There is a limit to the amount of information that can be transferred in a quick phone interview and a single newspaper article, so hopefully, I can address some of the questions and fill in some of the details.

There are a lot of good questions here. And there will be plenty of opportunities to learn more about the draft proposal and to help shape the final form of the proposal. Most of the work took place last year, and the pandemic has put a hold on the effort, but so far we have used student and resident surveys, focus groups, stakeholder groups, and leaned heavily on a committee composed of students, landlords, and non-student residents of the neighborhood.

Why not use a regular parking permit program? Most parking permit programs are used to keep commuters or patrons of a nearby attraction from taking up all of the parking in front of residences. (There is a philosophical question about whether a public resource like on-street parking should be reserved for only some members of the public. This was asked in a comment above, and is a valid question to ask. But the public generally feels that residents should get priority over commuters for on-street parking. I feel that this proposal does a decent job of balancing these interests). This area of the City is somewhat unusual because it has so many residents compared to off-street spots that the on-street parking demand of just the residents outstrips the supply. This is compounded by commuters who choose the free parking on the streets and then walk or catch transit to campus.

So what do you do when resident demand outstrips supply? You can still allow all residents to obtain a permit, but, in this case, this will certainly lead to more permits than parking spaces. As one commenter complained above, it is frustrating to buy a permit and still regularly not have a spot to park in. If you want to not over-subscribe the program, then what is the best way to limit the permits? We could just have a hard limit, and sell them first-come-first-served. Hopefully, everyone can see why this would be a bad idea. Or we could use price the permits high enough that it dissuades enough residents from buying the permit. That certainly would create a lot of revenue for the City, but the point of this effort is to address a major hindrance to the quality of life in this area, not to create a new one.

There is a regulation that applies to all of Provo and has been around for several decades. It is that every property should provide enough off-street parking for every automobile operated from the premise. If this was the case in Joaquin then there wouldn't be a problem to address. One option to fix the on-street parking problem is for the City to try to enforce that regulation. But I can't imagine that that would be too popular. The proposal that is being developed currently is based on the concept of augmenting the off-street parking that every property should have, with some of the parkable frontage.

I should note that property owners (which include landlords) are not being offered the parking spaces in front of their properties. Permits would be valid anywhere in a fairly large area (perhaps a two-block radius). The number of permits that they can buy would be less than the amount of parkable frontage they have. This would under-subscribe the permit program, in other words, the number of permits sold will be less than the total number of on-street parking spaces. This ensures space for visitors. ANYONE can park in ANY open on-street space. If the license plate is not associated with a permit then payment will be required. There are a ton of details to work out, but the first half-hour or hour is likely to be free. We have received presentations and proposals from several companies and are looking across the country for the most convenient systems to manage on-street parking. It will be license-plate based. It will allow for payments by app, web, or over the phone. The pay-by-the-hour price will be adjusted as frequently as needed and will vary across the neighborhood. Parking occupancy will be constantly measured as the parking enforcement license plate readers count the number of parked cars on each block as they drive by. The price will be set to try to always have one spot open during the most congested times.

The price of the permits would be fixed and would just cover the cost of administering the program. This will be WELL below market value. The only way this program would raise rents generally is if even more people want to live in the area once the parking headache is resolved. Simple supply and demand.

As it is now, the "free parking" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking) skews the rents in the area and benefits complexes will little off-street parking and penalizes complexes with adequate off-street parking. It also leads to the inefficient use of parking as Celeste mentions above. This proposal will level the playing field. Some older properties have little off-street parking and are effectively being subsidized. They may need to lower their rent if this proposal is implemented, because they can't offer a parking spot to all of their tenants. Some complexes may choose to decouple the cost of parking from their rent. This would provide opportunities for savings for tenants who don't have cars, and would encourage residents to have fewer cars. Some property managers might even try to buy permits from other properties. This is part of leveling the field, will encourage more efficient use of parking, and may encourage the redevelopment of the underutilized properties.

Anyway, I look forward to the broader public engagement phase of this effort. Hopefully, we will have a completed draft of the proposal ready to publish soon.

Council Meetings - 2 June 2020

It feels like there is so much going on in the world right now.

Be safe. Be kind. Don't give up.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, June 2, 2020

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


Business

1. A presentation from the Provo School District. (20-092)
   The Superintendent of Provo School District will be giving an update about what is happening with the district. He will talk about the impacts the district is dealing with and how they plan to move forward in fall with classes. I am a fan of having a smaller school district that shares boundries with our city. The school board is elected by the same people who elect city leaders. We serve the same people and are funded by the same people. While we have different roles, it seems that this arrangement should make it easier to have good coordination between the District and the City.
   
   The District is facing some unusual and difficult challenges with the pandemic and the school building needs. Presentation only. Much of the time was spent on explaining the plan to do a phased rebuilt of Timpview High.
2. A discussion on the proposed FY 2021 budget. (20-008)
   The Council has adopted the FY 2021 tentative budget and continues to review items in the budget. One item of discussion is the Tier II retirement enhancement for public safety, and the City’s contribution to that. It's been a tough year to budget, but I feel we are getting close. There were some meetings last week to discuss some policy tweaks, but I don't know if we will be ready to present in this meeting or if it'll need to wait for two more weeks. A motion that Provo City Municipal Council directs that the City “pick-up” (that is, pay) the required member contribution, which will be designated as employee contributions, on behalf of employees serving as a Public Safety Officer or as a Firefighter that are members of the Public Safety and Firefighter Tier II Hybrid Retirement System was approved 7:0. This is in response to changes made by the State Legislature and was recommended by the City Administration. It was built into the proposed budget.
3. A discussion regarding beer licensing regulations and density restrictions. (20-077)
   Staff is working with Council on their preferences in regard to the different proposals put forth by the brewpub licensing subcommittee. The goal of this discussion is to give direction to the subcommittee so they can move forward. This has been a difficult and unusual issue. The way the committee work has been handled by the Council has also been unusual and I feel it has added to the difficulty. Hopefully we will get to a decision soon. A motion to strike restaurant regulations from any further discussion in the committee was approved 4:3, with Bill Fillmore, David Sewell, and David Harding opposed. This has been such an exhausting issue to work through. The Council Staff prepared a survey that all the councilors filled out before the meeting, with the hope that it would speed our discussion along and so we could understand which provisions of the proposals had majority Council support. This backfired a bit because the survey showed that a couple of provisions had 4:3 support, but in the meeting they ended up having 3:4 support (i.e. majority opposition). It was a painful process to get to that understanding because the survey showed the opposite.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

4. Chris Ensign requests a zone change from Residential Agricultural (RA) and A1.5 to R1.7 for property located at approximately 901 W 1560 S. Lakewood Neighborhood (PLRZ20200079)
   This item is the proposed rezoning of approximately 18.5 acres from the RA residential agricultural and the A1.5 agricultural zones to the R1.7 single family residential zone. The rezoning would facilitate the development of a residential subdivision that would contain approximately 54 single-family residential lots. The current land use designation for the project is residential, as shown on both the General Plan Map and the Southwest Area Land Use Map. The proposed concept plan would comply with the maximum density of 4 units per acre (net) called out in the Westside Development Policies. The Westside Development Policies, though not yet adopted, were considered and used in the development of the adopted Southwest Area Land Use Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. "I feel that this proposal is about as good as we can expect. I think the committee that drafted the broad development policies for west Provo had hoped for even better, with a variety of housing types sprinkled in, but we, as the government, failed to create zones that would actually allow that kind of variety. I do think it is unfortunate that a more recent neighborhood meeting wasn't held. I don't know if that is enough to change my vote." Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 2, 2020. See my report of item 3 in the evening meeting.
5. An Ordinance Text Amendment request to add the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) zone to the Provo City Code as Chapter 14.14F. Citywide application (PLOTA20200120)
   The Community and Neighborhood Services Department on behalf of the Provo Municipal Council has requested to amend the Provo City Code to add the Very Low Density Residential (14.14F) zone. There is no proposed development requesting to utilize this zone. The proposed zone would have a minimal impact on a neighborhood due to the density limitation and could be a buffer between One Family Residential (14.10) and Low Density Residential (14.14A) zones. The proposed zone would require the residential units to follow the Residential Design Guidelines which would result in a higher quality of product within the neighborhood. Planning Commission recommended approval. The idea behind this new zoning option was suggested in a Council Meeting by a member of the public. I think it is a great idea and will help diversify our housing stock while keeping projects compatible with the surrounding areas. This zone has the density of an R1.6 zone but the flexibility of the LDR zone.
   
   There are a couple of proposed provisions that I have questions about, but overall I'm excited to see this come to fruition. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 2, 2020. See my report of item 2 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

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

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

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

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



Action Agenda

1. A resolution creating a Public Infrastructure District for the medical school and associated housing. (20-090)
   The developer of the medical school and associated housing would like to speak with the Council about creating a Public Infrastructure District (PID) to provide a financing mechanism for the removal of former landfill debris and the installation of utilities and infrastructure. The letter of intent and the draft policy document for the consideration for creating PIDs (included in the supplemental materials) was reviewed in a CRC meeting on May 6, 2020, that was attended by all of the development review departments. None of them expressed any concerns. There was a question about scope and size of these types of developments. The answer is that this type of funding mechanism really only makes sense for large developments – such as a medical school and associated multiple family housing. It was also noted that should Provo consider the creation of PIDs, that single-family detached residential development would not likely be considered for approval. The Council has heard a presentation on the creation of Public Infrastructure Districts to create discrete districts to apply to specific parcels of ground that, with the creation of the PID, self-impose an additional property tax levy, the proceeds of which are used to construct public infrastructure such as water, sewer, storm drain and roadway improvements. I think this is a great application for this new tool given to us by the State Legislature. At this point, I feel it is just a matter of ensuring it is implemented properly. Approved 7:0. The Staff and consultants were well prepared and had everything in order.
2. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to enact the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) zone as Chapter 14.14F. Citywide Application (PLOTA20200120)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 5 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. I'm excited to see when this new zoning option will be first used.
3. An ordinance amending the zone map classification from Residential Agricultural (RA) and A1.5 to R1.7 for approximately 18.5 acres of property located at 901 W 1560 S. Lakewood Neighborhood (PLRZ20200079)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 in the work meeting. A motion to continue this item and to put it on Open City Hall was approved 7:0. I believe this is the first major rezone request for land west of I-15 since the West Side Development Policies were adopted by the Council a few years ago. It aligns pretty well with the policies. The continuation will allow for more resident input and for getting some questions answered.
4. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to permitted uses and yard requirements of the M1 Light Manufacturing Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200117)
   This item was not ready to be heard.
5. A public hearing and an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in the amount of $292,939,096. (20-008)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This is the first hearing on the main budget. I've talked a lot about this budget over the past two months. The plan is to pass it on the 16th of June. There may be a small tweak or two before that happens. Public hearing only. A second public hearing has already been scheduled for June 16, 2020. Here is the proposed budget.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

6. A public hearing and a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in the amount of $1,299,333. (20-009)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This is the first hearing on the RDA budget. It will also likely be passed on the 16th. Public hearing only. A second public hearing has already been scheduled for June 16, 2020. This does not include any CARES Act or Pandemic-related programs that we have been considering recently. Any changes will be made by future action.




Stormwater Service District

7. A public hearing and a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $6,704,839 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021. (20-010)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the budget. More budget information can be found on our website: https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. This is the first hearing on the storm water budget. It will also likely be passed on the 16th. Public hearing only. A second public hearing has already been scheduled for June 16, 2020. The storm water budget typically isn't too contraversial.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 19 May 2020

I'm kind of excited for tomorrow's meetings because I think the stickiest item on the agenda, regarding a proposed text amendment to the M1 zone to accommodate Christensen Oil, has been moving in the right direction and I am hopeful that we will be able to find a good solution. It may not be ready for tomorrow's meeting but I'm anxious to hear an update.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

Time, Tuesday, May 19, 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 discussion regarding the Tentative Budget for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. (20-008)
   This is a follow-up to the Budget Retreat held May 12, 2020. Topics for discussion include debt, General Plan update funding, Joaquin Parking program, wastewater projects and fees, unfunded supplementals, budget intent statements, summary of the Stormwater Special Service District budget, and summary of the Redevelopment Agency budget. We are about halfway through the budget season. I feel that after this discussion there will only be small tweaks to be made.



Redevelopment Agency

2. A discussion regarding Interlocal Agreements for Tax Increment for The Mix Community Development Project Area. (20-085, 20-086, 20-087, 20-088, 20-089)
   The Mix, the former Plumtree Plaza shopping center on University Parkway, is seeking tax increment financial assistance to help pay for the infrastructure required to redevelop the site into a mixed-use center that would include retail, hospitality and residential uses. This is mostly following through with decisions that we have already made, but last time we discussed this, I complained that we were setting a "base" value from 2019 and not from before the businesses were shut down and building torn down. I believe I was told that staff would look into the difference between the current value and the value the property had before demolition started.
3. A discussion regarding the creation of a Public Infrastructure District for the medical school and associated housing. (20-090)
   The developer of the medical school and associated housing would like to speak with the Council about creating a Public Infrastructure District (PID) to provide a financing mechanism for the removal of former landfill debris and the installation of utilities and infrastructure. The letter of intent and the draft policy document for the consideration for creating PIDs (included in the supplemental materials) was reviewed in a CRC meeting on May 6, 2020 that was attended by all of the development review departments. None of them expressed any concerns. There was a question about scope and size of these types of developments. The answer is that this type of funding mechanism really only makes sense for large developments – such as a medical school and associated multiple family housing. It was also noted that should Provo consider the creation of PIDs, that single-family detached residential development would not likely be considered for approval. The Council has heard a presentation on the creation of Public Infrastructure Districts to create discrete districts to apply to specific parcels of ground that, with the creation of the PID, self-impose an additional property tax levy, the proceeds of which are used to construct public infrastructure such as water, sewer, storm drain and roadway improvements. I think PIDs are a great new tool given to us by the State Legislature. But I also think that we should only apply them in very specific situations that I don't think will arise very often in Provo. A medical school building ancillary housing on a former City landfill is one of those unusual situations where I think this would be an appropriate tool.
4. A discussion regarding the creation of a Small Business Loan Program in response to COVID-19. (20-081)
   This item is continued from the Council Meeting on May 5, 2020. In response to the negative impacts to the local economy (particularly to small businesses) caused by COVID-19, the Economic and Redevelopment Staff are recommending the creation of a Small Business Loan Fund. The purpose of the fund is to help small businesses stay in business during this difficult economic time. These would be small loans ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 dollars each. The available funding identified is from a Tax Increment Financing fund generated from an existing Community and Redevelopment Area. The documents are still a bit jumbled. I can't tell if they have been updated from two weeks ago. There will be plenty to talk about as we discuss the authorization of this program.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to permitted uses and yard requirements of the M1 Light Manufacturing Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200117)
   The proposed Ordinance Text Amendment is a staff-initiated amendment to add “Petroleum bulk stations and terminals (only as to the sale of petroleum products listed in the International Fire Code as combustible liquid classifications Class II, IIIA, and IIIB” as a permitted use in the M1 Zone. The text amendment also adds, “Petroleum bulk station and terminals for the sale of petroleum products in flammable classifications Class IA, IB, and IC of the International Fire Code” as a conditional use with specific conditions; removes natural or manufactured gas storage as a permitted use and instead adds it as an accessory use only; and, adds language to Section 14.27.080 to allow the Development Services Director or designee to modify the yard requirements. While the proposed text amendment will apply to all M1 Zones in the City, the impetus for the amendment is the Christensen Oil Site at 595 S 200 E in the Maeser Neighborhood. In 1935 the property located at 600 South and 200 East was occupied by Utah Oil Company, a petroleum distribution company. Owen Christensen began working there in the 1940’s and bought them out in 1973. Christensen Oil was established in 1973 as a petroleum product wholesaler. The property has several land uses including corporate headquarters for Christensen Oil and Crest Convenience Stores, warehousing and storage, and petroleum bulk station and terminal. Planning Commission recommended approval.
   
   Public comments on this item are being taken on Open City Hall. After further discussions with multiple parties, I do not have safety concerns about the operation of this business in this area. Here are the three concerns I do have about the proposal, and what I'm looking for in a solution: 1) That any solution does not open other areas in the City that are currently zoned M1 for similar uses (the bulk storage and distribution of fuels and lubricants). 2) That any disputes about what is "grandfathered" be resolved and any claims to such rights be abandoned. 3) That any "expansion" that would be permitted by the text amendment be defined and capped, so as to give the community predictability and a final scope.



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, May 19, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

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

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

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

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

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



Action Agenda

1. A resolution appropriating $33,500 in the General Fund for professional services to create a Fire Services Master Plan applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. (20-083)
   The Fire Department is requesting a General Fund appropriation to Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) in the amount of $33,500. ESCI was the lowest competitive bid to conduct a fire station location and fire department staffing master plan. The previous fire services station location study was conducted in 2000 by the Fire Chief. A formal fire services masterplan has never been conducted. The Fire Department maintains a staffing level equal to the staffing level in 2000, 20 years ago. Fire Department responsibilities have grown including types of calls, total requests for services, and ambulance transports. I think we are past due for a Fire Services Masterplan, and there are pressing needs to select locations for fire stations that are being rebuilt so now is the time to do this study to make informed siting decisions.
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)
   The CenturyLink franchise agreement has expired and is in need of renewal. The City has negotiated an updated franchise agreement with CenturyLink and the parties are seeking City Council approval of the agreement. Franchise agreements are fairly routine and I have confidence in our templates. I really appreciate the work of whoever put this information together, I assume it was Mr. Draper, an attorney in our Legal Department, because it clearly lays out areas where this proposed franchise agreement deviates from the template and why. It made it easy to understand and review the proposal. It is a pleasure to serve in a City with such competent employees.
3. A resolution approving the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and funding recommendations to the first-year action plan. (20-080)
   The Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) is designed to help states and local governments to assess their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions, and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The ConPlan process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue to identify housing and community development priorities that align and focus from the formula block grant programs administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This will be the second of two public hearings and will close the Public Comment Period and provide the Municipal Council an opportunity to make final funding determinations for the CDBG and HOME programs for Program Year 2019, which begins on July 1, 2019 and ends on June 30, 2020. I hope we will get the chance to focus on the ConPlan to be part of that "community-wide dialogue".
4. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.52 acres of real property, generally located at 852 North 500 West, from One Family Residential (R1.6A) to General Commercial (CG). North Park Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200109)
   The applicant is requesting a zone map amendment from the R1.6A zone to the CG zone for the property at 852 N 500 W. The property has been split with the two zones, and the applicant desires to correct this issue by making the entire property zoned General Commercial. The building on the property is an office building and is a permitted use in the CG zone. Correcting the zone map on this parcel will relieve it of a nonconformity and allow the property to continue on as a permitted use. The neighborhood has not expressed any concerns. Planning Commission recommended approval. I have no concerns. This is pretty much a simple clean-up.
5. A resolution authorizing Provo City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City authorizing the use of Tax Increment in The Mix Community Development Project Area. (20-089)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 2 in the work meeting.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

6. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency to enter into Interlocal Agreements with various parties authorizing the use of Tax Increment in The Mix Community Development Project Area. (20-085, 20-086, 20-087, 20-088)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. This is the other half of the previous item.
7. A resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City authorizing and allocating funds for an economic assistance loan program. (20-081)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 4 in the work meeting.
8. A resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Appropriating $500,000 in the Tax Increment Fund for an Economic Assistance Loan Program. (20-084)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. This is a companion to the previous item.
9. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Redevelopment Agency of the Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021. (20-009)
   This was item 1 on the work meeting agenda. This is part of the overall budget, but technically a separate budget.




Stormwater Service District

10. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021. (20-010)
    This was item 1 on the work meeting agenda. This is part of the overall budget, but technically a separate budget.




Action Agenda

11. A resolution tentatively adopting the proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021. (20-008)
    This was item 1 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 1 in the work meeting.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to permitted uses and yard requirements of the M1 Light Manufacturing Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200117)
    This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 5 in the work meeting.
13. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200077)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
14. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of multiple East Bench properties to include them in the Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLRZ20200078)
    This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 5 May 2020

The issue I'm most unsettled on is the request to add bulk fuel storage as a permitted use in M-1 zones. I'm not convinced that this is a good idea.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, May 5, 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 discussion regarding beer licensing regulations and density restrictions. (20-077)
   In the Work Session on April 14, 2020, the Council advised the Alcohol Licensing Committee to continue to look into density regulations. The committee will now return with two proposals -- one regarding density for all alcohol outlet types based on weight and one regarding further regulations for the Class "F" (brewpub) license. The two proposals are not mutually exclusive. The committee would like the Council's feedback on the directions of these policies. This is the issue that has commanded much of my attention over the past couple of months. I feel like we are ready to narrow down some of these ideas and more fully flesh them out. Next will come the public engagement portion where we will pitch the ideas and take feedback. Presentation only. This is has been an emotional and exhausting item to work on. The Council still hasn't coalesced and the committee will continue our work. I am hopeful that we can get this resolved sooner than later.
2. A discussion regarding the Council Code of Ethics and the use of social media during Council meetings. (20-082)
   There are State laws that require Councilors to report conflicts of interest. For the benefit of the Council, there will be a review of the Code of Ethics and when and how a Councilor is required to report a conflict of interest.
   
   Since moving to electronic meetings we have had members of the public use social media to make comments regarding issues before the Council. Our policy is to have members of the public use our Zoom meeting protocols and call into the meeting if they want to comment on an issue before the Council. In order to not complicate GRAMA requests and not increase the workload of staff, it would be best if Councilors refrain from using social media while the Council is meeting to conduct Council business. These topics are important internal affairs of the Council. A motion was approved 7:0 to adopt the following statement and to insert it at an appropriate place within the Provo City Municipal Council Handbook as the policy of the Council, applicable to Council members, the Municipal Council Executive Director and full-time employees in the Council Office:
   
   "The Municipal Officers' and Employees' Ethics Act" (Utah Code §10-3-1301 et seq.), applies to municipal councilors and the municipal council's staff. The Council considers it a best practice to revisit and remind the councilors and council staff of the limits and responsibilities of our unique positions. It is the policy of the Provo City Municipal Council that every Council member, the Municipal Council Executive Director, and all full-time employees of the Municipal Council complete and file annually with the City the Administrative Code of Ethics and Conduct and the Gift & Conflict of Interest Disclosure forms provided by the Administration generally to city officers and employees. It's important to keep the separation between the two branches, but the yearly ethics rules refresher is important and the Administration is already set up to handle the submission and retention of these forms. This change makes sense.
3. A discussion regarding Provo City’s goal of renewable energy. (20-083)
   The Council has had a presentation from Travis Ball the Director of Energy regarding the increased use of renewable energy in Provo’s electricity production portfolio. In the near future some of the coal fired plants that produce electricity for Provo are going to be taken offline, this will give Provo a chance to replace this production with new clean renewable energy. The Council had discussed in the past what percentage of electricity the city uses should come from renewable sources. Three weeks ago we seemed to coalesce around the idea of setting a goal for the City to reach 60% clean energy generation by 2030. We are returning to the topic to discuss a proposed goal. A motion to adopt into the Council Handbook, and refer to the Energy Board, a goal of achieving 60% green, renewable, and carbon-free power sources by 2030 was approved 7:0. I think this goal hits the sweet spot of being a bit of a stretch to achieve, and the timing is right where we can get a good return on our investment to improve our air quality.



Administration

4. 2020-2024 Five-Year Consolidated Plan and First Year Action Plan (PY2020) Approval of CDBG & HOME funding recommendations. (20-080)
   The Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) is designed to help states and local governments to assess their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions, and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The ConPlan process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue to identify housing and community development priorities that align and focus from the formula block grant programs administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
   
   The ConPlan is carried out through Annual Action Plans, which provide a concise summary of the actions, and the specific federal resources that will be used each year to address the priority needs and specific goals identified by the ConPlan.
   
   The 2020 ConPlan is a blueprint of how Provo City and the Utah Valley HOME Consortium’s goals and objectives will be achieved for the covered five-year period. The 2020 ConPlan, in its first Action Plan, PY2020, also provides performance measures and proposed activities to be carried out for CDBG and HOME.
   
   The CDBG and HOME Programs provide the City of Provo and other local governments with the opportunity to develop viable urban communities by funding activities that provide decent housing, a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. Funds are awarded to carry out a wide range of community development activities directed towards neighborhood revitalization, homeownership, and condition of housing stock.
   
   A Public Comment Period (April 19, 2020 to May 19, 2020) is conducted for citizens, partner agencies, and other interested parties to review and comment on the Plan.
   
   Along with the Public Comment Period, two public hearings are held to receive input from Provo citizens and Consortium members’ and citizens. Electronic copies of the 2020 ConPlan Draft are available for public review at the City’s website.
   
   The first public hearing on May 5, 2020 will present the Draft of 2020 ConPlan (Exhibit A) to Council members and the public in general. Also included are the proposed PY2020 uses for CDBG and HOME funds which, to simplify the review of proposed projects, are in Exhibits B-for CDBG Capital Projects, C-for CDBG Public Services Projects-Regional Collaboration, and D-for HOME Projects. Theses Exhibits show the proposed funding recommendations made by Advisory Committees who listened to applicant presentations and reviewed and evaluated application.
   
   The second public hearing on May 19, 2020 will close the Public Comment Period and provide the Municipal Council an opportunity to make final funding determinations for the CDBG and HOME programs for Program Year 2019, which begins on July 1, 2019 and ends on June 30, 2020. So far I'm only partway through this 179-page document. There are some possible oddities that I've found. It seems that if a couple were to retire, with sizable savings supplemented by Social Security, and choose to live in a high-end apartment Downtown, they could be classified as very low income and living in "severely overcrowded" conditions. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for a public hearing at the Council Meeting on May 5, 2020. See my report for item 3 in the evening agenda.
5. Small Business Loan Program in response to COVID-19. (20-081)
   In response to the negative impacts to the local economy, particularly small businesses, caused by COVID-19, the Economic and Redevelopment Staff are recommending the creation of a Small Business Loan Fund. The purpose of the fund is to assist small businesses stay in business during this difficult economic time. These would be small loans ranging from 10 to 25 thousand dollars each. The available funding identified is from a Tax Increment Financing fund generated from an existing Community and Redevelopment Area. This program is still being formulated and not all of the information is consistent. Perhaps my biggest concern is that much of the impetus seems to be the effects of the pandemic response, but much of the application was geared around funding business expansions, not helping businesses bridge the economic downturn. I imagine that all of this will be worked out before we vote on it which will be at least two more weeks. Presentation only. The Administration has been working hastily to get this program in place in time to have it actually matter to our local businesses. They asked the Council if we were supportive (we are) and how we would like to approach it policy-wise. They will revise the plan and bring it back to the next meeting, hopefully for passage.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 14.27 (M1 - Light Manufacturing Zone) regarding permitted uses and yard requirements. Citywide application (PLOTA20200117)
   The proposed Ordinance Text Amendment is a staff-initiated amendment to add “Petroleum bulk stations and terminals (only as to the sale of petroleum products listed in the International Fire Code as combustible liquid classifications Class II, IIIA, and IIIB” as a permitted use in the M1 Zone. The text amendment also adds, “Petroleum bulk station and terminals for the sale of petroleum products in flammable classifications Class IA, IB, and IC of the International Fire Code” as a conditional use with specific conditions; removes natural or manufactured gas storage as a permitted use and instead adds it as an accessory use only; and, adds language to Section 14.27.080 to allow the Development Services Director or designee to modify the yard requirements. While the proposed text amendment will apply to all M1 Zones in the City, the impetus for the amendment is the Christensen Oil Site at 595 S 200 E in the Maeser Neighborhood. In 1935 the property located at 600 South and 200 East was occupied by Utah Oil Company, a petroleum distribution company. Owen Christensen began working there in the 1940’s and bought them out in 1973. Christensen Oil was established in 1973 as a petroleum product wholesaler. The property has several land uses including corporate headquarters for Christensen Oil and Crest Convenience Stores, warehousing and storage, and petroleum bulk station and terminal.
   
   Public comments on this item are being taken on Open City Hall. I'm very unsettled on this item. Putting the question of the current Christensen Oil property aside for a moment, I haven't seen any analysis of whether "Petroleum bulk stations and terminals" would be an appropriate use at the other M1-zoned areas of the City. I am not convinced that fuel storage fits in "light manufacturing". Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 5, 2020. See my report for item 6 in the evening agenda.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 5, 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 FY 2020-2021 budget.
   This will be an interesting budget year with all the uncertainty because of the pandemic. Presentation only. Perhaps the hardest part is the uncertainty of how large the drop in revenues will be for the fiscal year that starts in July. How deep of cuts should we make? The tentative budget is fairly cautious. The cuts are real, not just shifting expenses until later, but we are trying to be careful not also do long-term damage to the services our residents receive or the people we depend on to provide those services.
2. Small Business Loan Program in response to COVID-19. (20-081)
   See my preview for item 5 in the earlier meeting. Presentation only. See my review for item 5 in the earlier meeting.




Public Comment

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

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

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

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



Action Agenda

3. A resolution approving the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and funding recommendations to the first-year action plan. (20-080)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 in the earlier meeting. This item was a public hearing only. It was continued for a second required public hearing at the Council Meeting on May 19, 2020. During the last four years of my Council service, I was only voting on the 1 year budget for how these programs would be implement. This year the 5-year plan is up for renewal, that will guide these programs for the next 5 years. I felt that the 5-year plan is the bigger deal and should have received the bulk of the discussion among the councilors, but the focus of the presentations were still on the 1-year budget. This item requires two meetings and I requested that the next meeting focus on the 5-year plan.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to parking lot landscaping. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190433)
   Provo City Community and Neighborhood Services requests amendments to Provo City Code Section 15.20.090 to change the design of parking lot landscaping. The amendment would do the following:
   
   Provide a clear calculation of the number of trees required for new parking areas. The ration would change from one (1) tree per 120-square feet of landscaped area (six percent (6%) of surface area) to one tree per four (1:4) parking spaces.
   
   Increase required tree canopy coverage from 25% to 50% at tree maturity
   
   Provide a list of 19 approved parking area trees, selected by the Provo City Forester, that grow well in parking lots in Provo’s climate
   
   Allow for xeriscaped groundcover in landscaped areas, lowering the amount of vegetated surface required from 50% to 35%.
   
   Remove the requirement for concrete curbing around landscaped areas to allow for natural storm water infiltration
   
   Gives one more option for parking lot landscaping design—planting diamonds--that maximizes number of parking spaces in a given land area
   
   Allows developers to substitute trees with landscaped stormwater control features in well control areas I like these proposed changes. I wonder if Staff supports the Planning Commission recommendation to amend the proposal to still require concrete curbing around landscaping. Also, as a note-to-self, 3(c) may have a typo in it. Approved 7:0. This is a solid update to these policies.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code updating the development requirements of lands located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190328)
   At the November 13, 2019, Planning Commission meeting a presentation was made regarding updates to the Special Flood Hazard Area ordinance. At that time, the Planning Commission members continued the item for additional information and to wait for the Public Works Department to update its design manual for stormwater. The stormwater manual has now been updated and we are sending the flood hazard amendment back to you. The proposed ordinance has been updated to include the specific Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Provo that have been revised by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with the effective date of June 2020. It is important that Provo City adopt these new maps before the effective date in order to comply with National Flood Insurance Program requirements. This will update and bring out code into compliance with federal guidelines. Approved 7:0. This is mostly just housekeeping.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to permitted uses and yard requirements of the M1 Light Manufacturing Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200117)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 6 in the earlier meeting. Continued by Council rules to the Council Meeting on May 19, 2020. This was the first time that this issue came before the Council, and it is definitely not a routine item. It was continued and the Council has continued to look into it between meetings. I really appreciated the quick adjustment made between meetings to address my biggest concern which was the opening of all M1 zones, all of which are adjacent to residential zones, to this use that everyone acknowledges is not ideal.
7. *** CONTINUED*** The Provo City Community and Neighborhood Services Department requests amendments to Section 14.34.295 Downtown Development Design Standards to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Citywide application 16-0005OA
   This item was not ready to be heard.
8. *** CONTINUED*** Paul Washburn requests a General Plan amendment from Commercial to Mixed Use for the Super 8 Motel, located at 1555 N Canyon Road in the General Commercial (CG) zone. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLGPA20200062)
   This item was not ready to be heard.
9. *** CONTINUED*** Paul Washburn requests a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU) for the Super 8 Motel, located at 1555 N Canyon Road. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200085)
   This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 21 April 2020

Last week's meeting was pushed back a week because of Spring Break, so now we have two sets of meetings just a week apart. It feels like we just finished the last meeting and here we are gearing up for the next one.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, April 21, 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 discussion regarding gathering neighborhood feedback on land use applications. (20-078)
   Provo’s Neighborhood Program has been in place for the past 50 years to gather feedback from residents on land use applications and the General Plan. Most of the feedback is gathered in neighborhood meetings and then reported by the Neighborhood Chair to the Planning Commission and City Council. With the current pandemic restrictions in place, neighborhood meetings have been put on hold. In order to be fair to both the applicant and the neighborhood residents, the Council office would like to use the Open City Hall online public engagement platform as a way to gather that input on applications that will be coming before the Council. I think this is a good addition to collect feedback, even if in-person meetings weren't taboo. I wonder if we need to update any code to facilitate this change. A motion to authorize staff to exempt planning proposals from the policy for Council approval of Open City Hall topics, to post these planning topics as they arrive, and to report back to the Council with the results as usual, was approved 7:0. This will allow will facilitate the collection of public input on proposed land use applications using Open City Hall. This is yet another avenue to provide your opinion on items before the Council.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

2. A discussion regarding updates to an ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200077)
   This item was continued from the Council Meeting on April 14, 2020.
   
   Following discussions after complications with the gravel pit, the Foothills Protection Committee and Planning staff prepared a proposed set of hillside requirements and development standards to help protect hillside areas of Provo City. Staff felt that an overlay zone approach was best for adding hillside requirements. The proposed requirements and standards would overlay the existing zoning of a property; in other words, this proposal would add additional zoning requirements for a given parcel in addition to the requirements of the underlying zone. Feedback from multiple City departments was considered in the drafting of this proposal. The proposal includes, among other things, requirements related to limits of disturbance or LOD (identification of the limited area of a lot that can be encroached upon by development activity), slope protection and stability, detention basin design, ridgelines, trails, streets and access, fences, vegetation protection, stream corridor and wetlands protection, design standards, and development clustering. Multiple graphical illustrations of requirements are included in the proposal for the sake of facilitating comprehension of the requirements. Further, this proposal has a companion zone map amendment application. With the zone map amendment application, staff has proposed the inclusion of certain properties in the CH Zone. Included in the proposal is an amendment to Chapter 14.01, Provo City Code, to limit development east of the proposed CH Zone. With only one week between our last set of meetings and the upcoming set of meetings, there has been less time to work through the requested changes to the proposal. I have seen a working draft and I feel it addresses my concerns about the "clustering" provisions well enough.
   
   I have not been closely involved in this issue. I know some have raised concerns about the additional requirements to develop. I'm interested to see how this is addressed on Tuesday. Presentation only. Due to a noticing mistake, this item will need to be pushed back to a later date. There is an upcoming Townhall to on Thursday for more information and to ask questions. See more details on Open City Hall.
3. A discussion regarding the FY 2020-2021 budget. (20-007)
   Given recent economic shifts, Mayor Kaufusi and the Administration have met with each department head to discuss the budget for next year. The Administration will discuss the budget with the Council and hopes that the Council will give an indication of their priorities that the Administration can take into consideration as they prepare the budget. I wonder if we can pass a bare-bones budget that is near "worst-case" but then have plans to reverse some of the more draconian measures if the economy rebounds quickly. Presentation only. Uncertainty is the predominant theme. The Administration will develop a budget with some "first-in" and "first-out" items so we can rapidly respond to changing economic conditions in the coming fiscal year.
4. An Administrative update. (20-079)
   This is an open time for the Administration to discuss any items they would like to bring up with the Council. If needed, it can also serve as a buffer time if any other discussion items run over time. Presentation only. The update focused on the various impacts of COVID-19 on the City, the budget, and the community.



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, April 21, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

1. A resolution appropriating $4,900,526 in the Airport Fund for the acquisition of land near the airport and authorizing an interfund loan from the Energy Fund as a funding source, applying to fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. (20-067)
   
The Administration recommends 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 $4,900,526 to be appropriated in the Airport. The funding will come from an interfund loan from the Energy 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 example of an expense that I think would be foolish to put off. We need to make some tough cuts to be prepared for the uncertainty that we are facing, but we shouldn't make cuts that will have long term negative impacts. Approved 7:0 This resolves several issues and positions the airport well for the future.
2. A resolution adding the structure known as Amanda Knight Hall, located at 42 E 800 N, to the Provo Landmarks Register. (PLLN20200115)
   
The applicant has nominated the structure known as Amanda Knight Hall located at 42 E 800 N to be placed on the Provo Landmark Register. The Landmarks Commission reviews the nomination for compliance with “Criteria for Designating Properties to the Landmarks Register” in Section 16.05.020 of the Provo City Code and makes a recommendation to the Municipal Council. Landmarks Commission gave a positive recommendation. Regular readers of this blog will know how long the community has been working towards this moment and how I feel this is a great example of how community advocates, the city government, large institutions, and private interests can all work together to accomplish the seemingly impossible. Approved 7:0 This will be a gem on the inside and out.
3. A discussion regarding updates to an ordinance amending Provo City Code to establish a Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200077)
   
This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for work meeting agenda item 2.
4. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of multiple East Bench properties to include them in the Critical Hillside Overlay (CH) Zone. Citywide application. (PLRZ20200078)
   
This is related to item 3 on the meeting agenda and was continued from the April 14 meeting. See my preview for work meeting agenda item 2.


Adjournment

Council Meetings - 14 April 2020

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

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 pm, Tuesday, April 14, 2020

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

Business

1. A presentation from Provo Power regarding their 5-year Strategic Plan and their Action Plans. (20-066)
   Provo Power recognizes that in order to serve the community successfully far into the future, they must invest in new technologies, promote renewable energy resources, maintain a qualified workforce, and develop the flexibility and vision to adapt to a fast-changing electric utility marketplace. During the Summer of 2019, Provo Power developed its 2020-2025 Strategic Plan and defined Strategic Priorities which the organization must address in order to reach defined goals and achieve its vision: "Provo Power shall be at the forefront in providing reliable energy services to enhance the quality of life for our community." Travis Ball, the Director of Provo Power, will review their Strategic Priorities, Goals, and Action Plans. Having Provo Power, a community-owned electrical service provider, has been a major benefit for the City. This 5-year Strategic plan is a good example of how well managed the department is. I think this document is a better summary than the one linked in the title. Presentation only. We spent a good portion of the time discussing a "clean energy" goal for the City. The consensus was that a goal to reach 60% clean energy by 2030 was a good balance between realistic and aggressive. It will take continued effort and focus like Provo Power and UMPA have given over the past decade. Note that this goal isn't for the energy used by the city government, but for all the power provided by Provo power to all our users. This is significantly larger than what some communities are targeting.
2. A presentation regarding the adoption of policies allowing for the use and establishment of Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs). (20-063)
   The developers of the medical school and medical school housing at the golf course will be building a public road as a part of the access off of Lakeview Parkway. A significant portion of this new road, which will also include several utility lines, will pass through the former golf course, which is also a former land fill. It has been determined that all former land fill material within the road right of way profile will be required to be removed and hauled away. It is estimated this will cost upwards of $10 Million. The developer is looking for ways to pay for this large cost item and spread the payment of this work over time. Utah Senate Bill 228 (Public Infrastructure Districts Act) took effect on May 14, 2019. This legislation created a funding mechanism for land developers to fund public infrastructure and attach the cost of the improvement to the property tax assessment through the creation of an independent taxing entity. The purpose of this item is to inform the Municipal Council of the implication and issues revolving around this funding mechanism. It looks like we have been given the same documents as we were before the first discussion of this item two weeks ago. I feel the Council was interested in pursuing this for the medical school project, but we need to get the policy in place first. Presentation only. The comparison was made to the TIF (tax increment financing) tool that we sometimes use. We don't have a defined policy and make individual decisions on each proposal that is made. It was suggested that we don't need to establish broad policies on PIDs, at least not yet. This got me thinking. I actually think we would make better decisions and would be more predictable for our residents and businesses in the community if we had defined, broad policies on both TIF and these new PIDs.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

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



Business

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



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

1. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.34 acres of real property, generally located at 164 s 400 w, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200041)
   
This was previously heard at the March 31 Council meeting. Rob Slater is requesting a zone change from the RC zone to the LDR zone for his property at 164 South 400 West. The proposal conceives of demolishing the existing home and building three single-family homes on the site. The current zoning would allow the applicant one unit while approval of an LDR zone would allow up to five units. The single-family home that is currently on the property was built in 1885. Two conditions exist on this property. First, the size of the property, at 14, 810 square feet, is larger than most in the area. Second, the home on the property is in disrepair and would be very costly to try to rehabilitate. The restrictions of the RC zone would limit redevelopment to the single-family home. The location of the property is on the edge of the Franklin Neighborhood and a half block away from the Downtown Neighborhood. The related concept plan shows a front facing home on 400 West with a driveway on the north side to access two other detached single-family homes. The total project shows ten off-street parking spaces and over six thousand square feet of open space. Planning Commission recommended approval. Here is what I wrote in my report of the March 31st meeting: "Four years ago I voted against the adoption of the Franklin Neighborhood Plan because the Planners had changed the Future Land Use map to show R1.6(A) (small-lot single family detached with accessory apartments) zoning immediately south of 100 S instead of LDR (low density residential). Their original recommendation was for LDR and I felt that this was more appropriate for the area immediately south of our downtown. They changed their recommendation based on neighbors concern about a change in the housing type on these blocks. Well now, four years later, the Council has received its first request for a rezone in the area. The request, with Staff recommendation, is to rezone a property to LDR and not R1.6(A).

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



Adjournment