Council Meetings - 20 October 2020

The most controversial item on the agendas is our discussion about what to do with our "mask mandate" that is set to expire on the 15th of November. The discussion I'm most looking forward to is about the future of Historic Center Street. Two other items that I think are worth noting: the discussion on digital signs and their hold times, and proposed changes to regulations regarding Special Events and Expressive Activities (e.g. protests).

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Business

1. A presentation regarding the 2020 4th Quarter Financial Report. (20-137)
   Staff will provide to the Municipal Council a high level overview of the revenues and expenses for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020. The fourth Quarter of the fiscal year was Apr-Jun. Take a look at the report. Despite the pandemic, our revenues ended up at 99% of what was budgeted. Sales tax revenue was slightly above what was budgeted; lodging tax was 15% below. Charges for services (things like Rec Center admissions) were off 15% as well.
   
   On the expenditure side, we made some drastic, unsustainable cuts to department budgets because of the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic. This resulted in spending that was almost $5M below what was budgeted in the General Fund. The enterprise funds follow the same trend; revenue is about the same, expenditures are way down (for things like delayed maintenance or projects), leading to higher balances (or lower deficits) than expected. Presentation only. It was a helpful discussion to get down into the details a bit, but the discussion only reinforced the report's impression.
2. An update from Fire Chief Miguel regarding protective equipment purchased with CARES Act funding, plans for Fire Station 21, and needs for the Airport. (20-136)
   Fire Chief Jim Miguel will update the Council regarding the following topics: protective equipment purchases with CARES Act funding, Fire Station 21 plans, Airport needs. There wasn't a lot of information attached, but I look forward to hearing this update from the Chief. Presentation only. Most of the update focused on the Range Fire and the efforts by our Fire Department to assist and protect Provo City. Some of the future needs were discussed.
3. A discussion regarding proposed amendments from the Sign Committee to Provo City Code regarding electronic sign hold times and permitted locations. (20-101)
   This item is a continuation of the discussion from July 7, 2020. The Sign Committee has spent the last year reviewing Provo City's policy regarding electronic signs. At the suggestion of the committee, the Council approved an ordinance prohibiting electronic signs in residential and agricultural zones in October 2019. The committee is now bringing a second proposal to the Council for consideration.
   The committee proposes that Provo be divided into three areas:
   1. areas where digital signs are prohibited
   2. areas where long hold times no shorter than one hour are permitted
   3. areas where short hold times no shorter than one minute are permitted (unless the sign is in an SC3 zone and represents 20 or more tenants, in which case the shortest permitted hold time would be 15 seconds)
   Digital Sign Hold Time Principles v6 gives more details and outlines where each would be applied. After reviewing the available academic literature and visiting with local business owners, the committee believes that this is the best compromise between Provo's commitment to public safety and the need to create an environment where local businesses can thrive. A more thorough explanation of the rationale behind this proposal, including a short list of studies consulted, is available in the Digital Sign Ordinance Preamble. In Provo City Code, the current long hold time is that a sign may change up to three times per day. The short hold time is eight seconds, which is the most common hold time in neighboring cities. This has been an ongoing discussion topic for the Council for a couple of years and an on-and-off discussion for several more. I think the safety considerations of the regulations are essential, but I don't think we should discount the aesthetic considerations either. Presentation only. This item will return to the Sign Committee for further refinement. I believe this was a productive discussion, both in terms of helping the rest of the Council (those of us not on the Committee) understand what is being proposed, as well as giving feedback and sharing our concerns with the Committee. This item will come back to our next meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

4. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approx 5.33 acres of real property, generally located at 1724 S State St, from Agricultural (A1.5) & Residential (R1.6) to Community Shopping Center (SC2). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190426)
   The subject property lies on South State, just north of the intersection of State Street and Lakeview Parkway (1860 South). It is bordered on the north and east by vacant land that is the subject of a sizeable medium density residential project (204 units). A railway lies to the west of the property. The Provo City Transportation Master Plan 2020, Major and Local Street Plan calls for a future collector to run parallel with, and east of, the railway. The land west of the subject property lies in unincorporated Utah County and has an industrial zoning designation. Some of the land to the south also lies in unincorporated Utah County and has an agricultural/residential designation. A portion of the land to the south lies within the city boundaries and has an A1.5 zoning designation. The subject land is in a high-water table area and the National Wetlands Inventory Mapper shows potential wetlands on the property. Portions of the subject property (new construction, etc., which are located within one hundred [100] feet of South State Street) lies in the South State Street Design Corridor. This Design Corridor has a set of design standards to, among other things, “promote attractive development” and “attract customers to businesses.” Planning Commission recommended denial. This item was continued at the request of the applicant.



Business

5. A discussion regarding a Council policy intent statement for Center Street. (20-138)
   Councilors Dave Harding and Shannon Ellsworth met with several members of City staff to discuss policies for Center Street and wanted to discuss a policy intent statement from the Council to guide future Administrative decisions. Historic Center Street is an almost magical place, but it isn't living up to its potential. The year-plus construction on State Street has funneled even more traffic through Downtown Center, making it less inviting and further from living up to its designation as a pedestrian mall. What would it take for Center Street, from 500 W to 200 E, to be a comfortable place for people to spend time? According to the Administration, it would be helpful to have a statement from the Council expressing our support for a more pedestrian-focused street.
   
   Here is a statement by Downtown Provo Inc. A motion to adopt the Center Street policy intent statement as presented was approved 7:0. Over the years, there have been conflicting visions and priorities for Center Street. Hopefully, Public Works, the rest of the Administration, the businesses, and the public-at-large has a clear understanding of the policy direction the Council intends to pursue concerning Center Street.
6. A presentation regarding the Central Corridor Transit Study's findings. (20-133)
   The Central Corridor Transit Study (CCTS) Team has asked to present their progress and findings to the Council. The CCTS was a collaborative with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), and seven cities in Utah County (Lehi, American Fork, Pleasant Grove, Lindon, Orem, Vineyard and Provo) to evaluate options for faster and more frequent high-capacity transit service between Lehi and Provo. I've heard about an idea being toyed with which would extend light rail from Lehi down to Provo. I wonder if this corridor study is related to that. Even if this is, I imagine it'll be 15-20 years before such a project would reach completion. Presentation only. This is an exciting project and helps move our community towards a more sustainable transportation system.
7. A discussion regarding the renewal of certain requirements related to the COVID-19 pandemic responses, including face coverings and public gatherings. (20-118)
   This item is scheduled for the Council Meeting this evening, where the Council may vote on whether to renew Provo City Code Chapter 9.25. Chapter 9.25 was originally set to expire on November 15, 2020. The Council agreed to discuss renewing it in their meetings on October 20, 2020. First, the City enacted some regulations regarding social distancing and mask-wearing. Then, the County issued some regulations. And just recently, the State issued its own rules. What should the City do now? We have a sunset clause built into our ordinance to expire on the 15th of November unless we extend it on the 20th of October. A motion to make an ordinance repealing the mask ordinance the implied motion for the Council Meeting that evening was approved 6:1, with Shannon Ellsworth opposed. We discussed several options, including extending the regulations, doing nothing and allowing them to expire next month, or rescinding the rules. After discussing each option's positives and negatives, the majority of the Council wanted to make a repeal the default option for the evening's 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. No meeting was requested.




Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 20, 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 $56,147 in the General Fund to correct elements of the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget related to the Cemetery. (20-228)
   In the preparation of the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget, there were errors made in Cemetery Personnel accounts that need to be corrected in order for Cemetery to have the budgeted funds necessary to operate at current staffing levels through the end of the fiscal year. We discussed this as item 8 in the 6 Oct 2020 Work Meeting. In a large budget, corrections are bound to happen. Approved 7:0 A simple correction of a simple mistake.
2. A resolution authorizing the consolidation of two Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loans to create a new consolidated Bank Loan from the Utah Department of Transportation to the Airport Fund. (20-234)
   On October 29, 2019, the Council authorized a $5,000,000 Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan to the Airport Fund to be repaid at 2.1% interest over five years to partially fund the cost of infrastructure construction for the new airport terminal. The Provo Public Works Department has secured a second Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan for $5,149,553. This resolution would consolidate the two loans for the airport terminal. The new consolidated loan of $10,149,553 will be paid back at a 0.79% interest rate over five years starting in Fiscal Year 2023 and ending in Fiscal Year 2027. This was discussed as item 1 in the 6 Oct 2020 Work Meeting. There is a gap in the timing of some of the County funding for the new Airport Terminal. This loan, and the loan in the following item, will bridge the gap. Approved 7:0 The Administration will continue to look for other ways to span the funding gap, but they can move forward with the Airport construction, knowing that if all else fails, we can use a portion of the Energy Fund reserve, which will be paid back when the county contributions come in.
3. A resolution authorizing an interfund loan of up to $9,100,000 from the Energy Fund to the Airport Fund. (20-135)
   The Public Works Department requests authorization of an interfund loan of up to $9,100,000 from the Energy Fund to the Airport Fund to help finance the completion of the new airport terminal. Interest on the interfund loan will be calculated monthly at a variable interest rate equal to the monthly State Pool interest rate. Principal on the interfund loan will be paid back in the following years and amounts: $807,792 in Fiscal Year 2022, $1,798,962 in Fiscal Year 2023, $3,470,858 in Fiscal Year 2024, and $3,022,388 in Fiscal Year 2025. See the previous preview. Approved 7:0 See the previous report.
4. A resolution to place approximately 1.69 acres of vacant land at 1100 West Center Street on the surplus property list. (20-134)
   Starting in 2000, Provo City and the Provo City Redevelopment Agency have acquired several parcels of property at approximately 1100 West Center Street. The intent of these property acquisitions has been to control property for a project that would enhance the entrance onto the Center Street corridor. Over the years, we have received many offers to purchase the property for uses that have ranged from storage units to higher density housing. Recently, we have received viable inquiries about the property and have determined that it is the right time to add the property to the surplus property list. Having the property surplused will ease the process in negotiating the sale of the property. It should be noted that there is a Community Garden located on the parcel. Community Action, our partner for the management of the Community Garden, recognizes that the Community Garden is a temporary use and that the garden will need to be removed and possibly relocated at the time of the sale. This is not a commitment to sell the property to any particular buyer, but it does appear to be time to more seriously entertain the offers. Approved 7:0 This allows the Administration to enter into more serious discussions with potential buyers of the property.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding swimming pool fencing and covering. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200286)
   Provo City Development Services is requesting approval for an ordinance amendment to Section 14.34.210, Provo City Code. This amendment comes by request of the Building Division as a way to update the zoning codes on swimming pools to better match the International codes that the building inspectors review from. The current city code states one option for securing pools on private property, a six (6) foot high fence surrounding the pool. However, the International Building Code now allows for a variety of measures including a safety cover. In an attempt to have the City Code parallel today’s building codes, staff has prepared the text amendment for adoption. Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation. This is the second hearing. Development Services is acting the Council to update the code to refer to the International Building Code for pool fence requirement. I think that is a great idea. Approved 7:0 With this change, we are relying on the International Building Code.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 5.33 acres of real property, generally located at 1724 S State St, from Agricultural (A1.5) & Residential (R1.6) to Community Shopping Center (SC2). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190426)
   This was item 4 in the work meeting. This was continued at the request of the applicant.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code 6.20 Special Events and Expressive Activities (20-223)
   The Council’s subcommittee focused on public gatherings has prepared proposed changes to Chapter 6.20 of the Provo City Code to address guaranteeing the rights of expressive speech while balancing the need for public safety. Included in this proposal is the definition of a spontaneous event, a ban on protesting in front of private residences, and a definition of what types of expressive speech events need a permit before they can take place. This was discussed in the 6Oct20 Work Meeting. I am supportive of this effort and hope that a couple of concerns I raised last time were addressed. Approved 7:0 I appreciate the work of the Committee and am happy to vote for it after the concerns that were brought up were addressed.
8. An ordinance regarding the renewal of certain requirements related to the COVID-19 pandemic responses, including face coverings and public gatherings. (20-118)
   This was item 7 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 7 in the work meeting. A motion to approve amendments to the draft ordinance was approved 7:0, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. We rescinded the Provo Mask Mandate to reduce any confusion by having both a Municipal and a State mask mandate, feeling that the State Mandate was sufficient. See the press release.
9. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the permissible lot coverage in the Del Coronado PRO Zone. Maeser Neighborhood. (PLOTA20200318)
   This item was not ready to be heard.
10. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.7 acres of real property, generally located at 1320 South 1080 East, from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200319)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
11. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 18 acres of real property, generally located at 1920 South 500 West, from Agricultural (A1.20) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190182)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
12. ***CONTINUED*** Adding Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) zone as City Code Chapter 14.33. Amend City Codes: 15.20.080(2)(c), supplemental landscape requirements; 14.38.075, signs permitted within OSPR zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200140)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
13. ***CONTINUED*** The Community and Neighborhood Services Dept. requests Zone Changes for various city parks from Public Facilities (PF) to the Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) zone. Citywide Impact PLRZ20200304
    This item was not ready to be heard.
14. ***CONTINUED*** An Ordinance Text Amendment request to Sections 1.2.9 and 1.2.10 of the Provo City General Plan, relating to key land use policies and the annexation policy plan. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200341)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
15. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.25 ac of property, generally located at 189 S 500 W, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200124)
    This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 6 October 2020

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, October 6, 2020

Business

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



Administration

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



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 6, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation by Counselor Shannon Ellsworth commemorating the ratification of the 19th Amendment of the United States Constitution. (20-236)
   The amendment was ratified in 1920. The first woman to vote in Utah happened 50 years prior. Presentation only.
   
   

   Public Comment

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

   Consent Agenda

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




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

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




Action Agenda

6. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreements with several local governmental agencies to authorizeing the use of tax increment in the Center Street Community Development Project Area. (20-229)
   This was item 9 in the work meeting. Items 4 and 6 are related. See my preview of item 9 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. See my report for item 4 above.
7. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an interlocal agreement with several local governmental agencies to authorizeing the use of tax increment in the Provo Riverwoods Community Reinvestment Project Area. (20-231)
   This was item 10 in the work meeting. Items 5 and 7 are related. See my preview of item 10 in the earlier meeting. Approved 6:1, with David Shipley opposed. See my report for item 5 above.
8. A resolution authorizing the issuance of Wastewater Revenue Bonds of Provo City, Utah. (20-102)
   Public Works is seeking consideration of a bond resolution approving the parameters of the City's financial agreement with the State. This was presented in the Council work meeting on August 25, 2020. As I said last time, when we heard this in a Work Meeting, "Our sewer rates have gone up a lot in the past few years, but without this loan from the State, the rates would have had to have gone up substantially more. The terms offered by the State are excellent. This is an important opportunity." Approved 7:0. As I've said previously, this is an excellent opportunity.
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 2.31 acres at 4100 N Canyon Road and 3.42 acres at 3956 N Canyon Road from Residential Agriculture (RA) to Residential (R1.10). North Timpview Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200217)
   Dudley and Associates are requesting a zone change from the Residential Agricultural (RA) zone to the One-Family (R1.10) zone for eleven parcels of land around 3956 N Canyon Road and 4100 N Canyon Road. The proposed zone would require 10,000 square-foot residential lots on the 5.73 acres of land. The applicants are proposing this zone to subdivide the land into 27 single-family lots. They were hoping to get more land in the area to create a more continuous development, but there were some property owners that have chosen not to participate. Planning Commission recommended approval. This item had a first hearing at the September 15 Council meeting. We've heard from many neighbors who object to anything other than single-family detached housing on quarter-acre lots. Some are decrying high-density housing, but I'm not sure if they believe what was discussed was actual high-density housing, or if they believe that anything other than single-family detached is high density. One idea suggested by a neighbor is to place the A-overlay on the property, which would allow for accessory dwelling units. I like that idea. Approved 5:2, with David Harding and Shannon Ellsworth opposed. I feel like I failed on this one. I really liked the idea of simply adding an A-overlay to the property which would allow accessory apartments, but I didn't reach out to the other councilors before the meeting to discuss the idea. I figured that I would just recommend it during the meeting. Unfortunately, it would have required returning the proposal to the Planning Commission and I didn't sense that the Council would support that delay.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to condominiums. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200228)
    Provo City Community and Neighborhood Services requests amendments to Provo City Code Section 15.06 to simplify and speed up the process of subdividing condominium projects by aligning the process with the final subdivision process. Planning Commission recommended approval with revised language. I think this is a good change. What wasn't clear to me is what revisions were recommended by the Planning Commission, and whether those revisions were integrated into the language we received. Approved 7:0. This will streamline some of the non-value-added steps in the process.
11. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 0.5 acres of real property, generally located at 2022 W Center Street, from Residential Agricultural (RA) To General Commercial (CG). Fort Utah Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200275)
    The subject property lies at 2022 W Center Street and is nearly surrounded by commercially zoned properties. The properties to the north and east lie in either the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1) Zone or the Community Shopping Center (SC2) Zone. Properties with a CG zoning designation lie to the south and west. Land in the Residential (R1.8) Zone lies to the southwest. An application to rezone the vacant, adjacent land from the SC2 Zone to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone has been put forward by the City. The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Commercial. The Southwest Area Future Land Use map designates this property as Village Center Commercial/Mixed Use. Currently, a food truck/trailer is currently operating on the property, which is not permitted in the RA Zone. A seasonal produce stand also lies on the subject property. A temporary permit has not been issued for this stand. Food trucks are allowed to be operated in the CG Zone, provided all applicable requirements are met. Temporary uses may be conducted in the CG Zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. This proposal makes sense. I love seeing the work we did on west Provo development policies being used to guide and evaluate these proposals. Approved 7:0. I believe this will lead to a better use of this important corner.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding swimming pool fencing and covering. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200286)
    Provo City Development Services is requesting approval for an ordinance amendment to Section 14.34.210, Provo City Code. This amendment comes by request of the Building Division as a way to update the zoning codes on swimming pools to better match the International codes that the building inspectors review from. The current city code states one option for securing pools on private property, a six (6) foot high fence surrounding the pool. However, the International Building Code now allows for a variety of measures including a safety cover. In an attempt to have the City Code parallel today’s building codes, staff has prepared the text amendment for adoption. Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation. I applaud our Building Division for proactively recommending updates to keep our code current with international standards. This item was continued for a second hearing by Council rule. I felt comfortable with the Staff's recommendation to adopt the international standard. I don't plan to spend time over the next two weeks trying to independently verify that they are truly best practices. I'll be interested to see if any changes are suggested.
13. An ordinance amending the Low Density Residential (LDR) and Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zones. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200274)
    Planning staff is requesting some text changes to the LDR and VLDR zone in order to help development in these zones to better meet the intent of the zones and blend with adjacent single-family zoned neighborhoods. The LDR zone was adopted in 2012 and has not had any major amendments since that time. Staff is proposing a reduction of the maximum allowed attached townhomes from eight (8) to six (6), as well as a reduction in maximum housing density from fifteen (15) units per acre to twelve (12). The additional amendment to the LDR zone proposes a reduction in the minimum lot area required for a detached one-family home from five thousand (5,000) to four thousand (4,000) square feet. The VLDR zone was adopted in June of 2020. Staff is proposing reducing the maximum allowed attached townhomes from seven (7) to six (6); and reducing the minimum lot area required for a detached one family home from five thousand (5,000) to four thousand (4,000) square feet. Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation. I have some concerns about reducing the minimum lot area for one-family detached in the VLDR down to 4,000 sqft. The intent was for VLDR to have the intensity similar to the R1.6, but with more flexibility for housing types. I'll have to be convinced that this aspect of the proposal doesn't undermine this objective. A motion to remove proposed changes to the minimum lot size of the VLDR zone was approved 7:0, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. VLDR was recently created to give an option with the flexibility of LDR, but with less density. I didn't feel good about reducing the lot size in both LDR and VLDR to the same level. I appreciate the Staff and my fellow councilors for listening and accommodating my concerns.
14. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.25 acres of real property, generally located at 189 S 500 W, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200124)
    The applicant would like to divide the 0.25-acre one-family dwelling site and establish an additional dwelling site. However, the subject property lies in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone, which does not allow for the creation of new lots. As such, the applicant is proposing a rezone of the subject property to the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zone, which does not have a prohibition on the creation of new lots and is proposed to allow one-family dwelling sites with a minimum lot area of 4000 SF. This item was continued from the August 12, 2020 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for (1) the applicant to revise his associated concept plan and (2) staff to prepare a text amendment application to propose a reduction in the minimum lot area for the VLDR and LDR zones. Staff has prepared a text amendment as noted. Also, the concept plan has been revised to propose two (2) lots that generally have a rectangular configuration and comply with the proposed lot area minimums for the VLDR Zone. The subject property is surrounded by the RC Zone. A 0.34-acre parcel lying approximately 125 feet to the northeast of, and on the same block as, the subject property was recently rezoned to the LDR Zone. The applicant is requesting the VLDR Zone, which has a lower density allowance per acre than the LDR Zone (7 units per acre vs. 15 units per acre). Staff notes that the applicant originally applied for a rezone to the LDR Zone, but revised his proposal for a rezone to the VLDR Zone. The VLDR Zone is a newly created zone that has a lower density allowance, as opposed to LDR Zone. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. I support this proposal and am glad that the neighbors do as well. This item was continued for a second hearing by Council rule. I appreciated the applicant's patience and understanding. He was following Staff's recommendation to apply for the VLDR (at the same time that changes were proposed for VLDR), but after we chose not to lower the required lot size in VLDR, he has to go back to the Planning Commission to request an LDR zone designation.
15. ***CONTINUED*** D. R. Horton, Inc. requests a Zone Change from A1.20 to the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone for approximately 18 acres, located at 1920 S 500 W. Lakewood Neighborhood (PLRZ20190182)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
16. ***CONTINUED*** The Development Services Dept. requests a Zone Change from Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC2) to Medium Density Residential for approximately 11 acres, located at 1920 W Center Street. Fort Utah Neighborhood PLRZ20200282
    This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 15 September 2020

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Business

1. A discussion of possible amendments to Chapter 9.25 COVID-19 Response. (20-128)
   The Governor of Utah allows local jurisdictions to decide if mandating masks are warranted requirements to combat COVID 19. On August 25, 2020, the Provo Municipal Council passed an ordinance initiating Section 9.25 and amending Section 9.17 of Provo City Code. This was done to address the health issues caused by COVID 19. On August 27, 2020, the Council held a special meeting to override the Mayor’s veto. Since the passage of the ordinance there have been discussions about making some changes to Section 9.25. Several tweaks were proposed at the last meeting, and we worked on them over the past two weeks. I have read over the draft and feel comfortable with the changes. There is one other tweak that I would like to see, which would make it clearer when masks aren't required because social distancing is being observed.
2. A presentation regarding budget carryovers from fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2021. (20-125)
   This presentation will outline the amount of budget carryovers from the fiscal year (FY) 2020 budget to the fiscal year 2021 budget. The carryovers include (1) amounts that were encumbered on purchase orders in FY20 but not paid and (2) amounts committed to current ongoing projects and equipment purchases. Also included are all remaining unspent balances in capital improvement project fund budgets from FY20. The Council discussed some concerns regarding the carry-over practices with the Administration earlier this year during the budget season, but we never reached a resolution. Because of the pandemic, all departments have been trimming expenses and sending back any unspent money, so I don't think there will be many unrelated carry-over requests this year. Presentation only. Reacting to the changed financial situation due to the pandemic, and perhaps due to the discussions between the Administration and our Carry-over Committee, this year's Carry-over plan looks quite different than last year. It was a good move.
3. A presentation regarding Best Friends Animal Society's Community Cat Program. (20-129)
   Trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs are one approach to preventing cat populations from growing beyond what animal shelter facilities can manage. Salt Lake County explained TNR as “a humane and non-lethal approach to long term community and feral cat population control.” TNR programs first trap (either by working with cats brought to the shelter or by sending someone to trap feral cats reported in the area), then neuter, then return the cat (back to the wild if it is too unsocialized to be adopted, or in an adoption shelter if it can be rehabilitated). In addition to ethically controlling the local feral cat population, TNR also reduces the sounds and smells associated with cats mating or marking territory, which are the most common complaints from residents. According to Lydia LaSalle, the Executive Director for Utah’s Best Friends Animal Society, as of 2019, "Weber, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties all have successful [TNR] programs, but Utah County remains the only urban county to not adopt the practice which is becoming the national norm.” Provo City also does not currently operate an independent TNR program, though at least one non-profit, Ashley Valley Community Cats, operates one in the area. I've had mixed feelings about the City's Urban Deer program, so I was a bit wary when first learning about a program to address feral cats in Provo. There is still plenty more to learn, and I look forward to doing so in this meeting, but reviewing the information in the document packet left me optimistic. Presentation only. It was determined that further legislative action is not required and that the Administration could execute a memorandum of understanding to formalize any arrangements and implementation of the program. A program that promises to reduce the number of feral (stray) cats in the community, costs less than the current program, and will be paid for 6 months during the pilot by a non-profit? Sounds pretty good to me. But we heard afterward from our Animal Control staff who have serious concerns. I don't know what will be decided in the end, but this is why it is important to listen to all sides before making decisions.
4. A discussion regarding setback requirements for chicken coops. (20-130)
   Provo City Code 8.02.190(2) currently requires that chicken coops "shall be located in a rear yard at least fifteen (15) feet from any property line and six (6) feet from any dwelling." A councilor has asked that the Council review this setback requirement. There was a robust debate when backyard chickens were allowed a few years ago, but things have been mostly quiet since then. Some have interpreted the quiet to mean that allowing chickens has not led to any problems. I think that with the issue raised again, we will hear from several who have been negatively impacted but who haven't submitted complaints to the City. I say that because (1) I have already heard from some of them, and (2) I've experienced some of the unpleasantries of having chickens as neighbors. A motion to ask the Administration and their staff to bring to the Council a recommendation on chicken coop setbacks was approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore excused. I think it was a good discussion and we arrived at the right course of action. I believe the Administration heard all of the competing concerns, and I am confident that they will put together a good proposal.
5. A presentation regarding incentives. (20-131)
   A discussion to be given by the Development Service Department - Redevelopment and Economic Development Divisions. This includes a history of who, how, when, where and why incentives have been used in Provo over time and potentially into the future. Long time readers of this blog know of my love-hate relationship with tax incentives for economic development. I think that they are great tools in a narrow set of circumstances, but they have been broadly misused across the Country, the State, and locally. They have become almost an entitlement expected by developers. Presentation only. It was definitely a pro-incentive presentation, talking about all the good uses of these tools. Afterward, I shared my concerns about the poor uses of the tools. In the end, we both agreed with each other that there are proper and improper uses of these tools. I thought it was a good exchange.
6. A presentation regarding how to run an effective committee. (20-132)
   Members of the Council also serve on numerous boards and committees. It has been requested that staff offer training on how best to run an effective committee. I'm excited to receive this training. Committee work is an important aspect of serving on the Council, but I, for one, have never received any training on how to be an effective committee member or how to run a committee effectively. Presentation only. This was a good presentation on the role of the Council and how committees can help us fulfill our role, and then some practical tips for how to run an effective committee.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

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



Business

9. A discussion regarding an update on the Wastewater Loan with the State of Utah. (20-102)
   Public Works is seeking consideration of a bond resolution approving the parameters of the City's financial agreement with the State. This would approve issuing wastewater revenue bonds in order to finance a portion of the construction of new and upgraded facilities for the water reclamation plant. Our sewer rates have gone up a lot in the past few years, but without this loan from the State, the rates would have had to have gone up substantially more. The terms offered by the State are excellent. This is an important opportunity. Presentation only. This item has been scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 6, 2020. I strongly support this. And look forward to voting for it at the next meeting.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the 2020 Best of State Award to Provo Parks and Recreation. (20-126)
   Our Parks and Rec Department provides amazing value in services, and is being recognized for their operations. Presentation only. We already know what excellent services and value we get from our Parks and Rec Department, but it's still nice to see them recognized.
2. A presentation of the Provo City Justice Court Annual Report. (20-127)
   Speaking of a well-run operation, I enjoy hearing from Judge Romney each year, and appreciate how his team runs the City's Justice Court. Presentation only.
   
   

   Public Comment

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

   Action Agenda

3. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council outlining support for the Provo School District General Obligation Bond. (20-115)
   At the joint meeting between the Provo City Council and Provo School District Board, there was a discussion about the need to reconstruct Timpview High School. In order to pay for the reconstruction, the Provo School District Board has placed a General Obligation Bond on the November ballot. This is the least expensive and disruptive of all the options before the school board and for the citizens of Provo. I support the proposed bond and urge people to vote for it. A motion to change from a joint resolution to a Council (i.e., Council-only) resolution. was approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore abstaining. A motion to continue this item to the Council Meeting on October 6, 2020 was approved 7:0. Several councilors expressed concern that the School Board and District have not made the general public aware of the coming bond vote and were wary of "leading out" on the education effort when it isn't our project. By continuing the vote on the resolution, I hope that we can achieve unanimous support and it can still go out before the ballots are mailed out.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify amenity space requirements for developments with 20 or more residential units in the Interim Transit Oriented Development (ITOD) zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200283)
   This was item 7 in the work meeting. I believe the ITOD was one of the first zones to have an amenity space requirement. The requirement has been added to other higher-denisty zones. The wording of the requirements has been refined in subsequent iterations. I support updating the ITOD requirements to be more in line with the requirements in other zones. Approved 7:0. I was able to confirm that this is the exact language used in other similar zones.
5. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 2.31 acres at 4100 N Canyon Road and 3.42 acres at 3956 N Canyon Road from Residential Agriculture (RA) to Residential (R1.10). North Timpview Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200217)
   This was item 8 in the work meeting. I share many of the concerns discussed by the Planning Commission about connectivity. The Planning Commission still unanimously recommended the proposal to the Council. Continued to the Council Meeting on October 6, 2020. When we updated the process for approving rezones for proposed developments, we said that all but the most routine rezones requests should have two hearings at Council meetings. By the rules, the item can be continued at the request of a single councilor. There were two councilors who requested the continuation. The Council has talked a lot about increasing the mix of housing types throughout the city. The idea is that a single housing type doesn't fit the needs of people throughout their lives. If communities are made up of different housing types, then people aren't forced to move out of an area when their housing needs change. Think of a young family needing a larger house for their growing family. Think of a young adult heading out on their own for the first time. Think of a couple that has successfully launched all their kids and are looking to downsize. Often empty nesters hang on to houses far too large for their needs, just because they don't want to leave their friends and neighbors. Many would love to downsize if they could stay in the area, but that can only happen if there is a diversity of housing.
6. An ordinance amending Chapter 9.25 and related Sections of Provo City Code. (20-118)
   This was item 1 in the work meeting. Several tweaks were proposed at the last meeting, and we worked on them over the past two weeks. I have read over the draft and feel comfortable with the changes. There is one other tweak that I would like to see, which would make it clearer when masks aren't required because social distancing is being observed. Approved 7:0. I felt good about all the tweaks we made and was able to tweak clarifying the "social distancing" alternative to masks in most circumstances. The one thing I wish we could have found an answer to is the lower threshold on outdoor gathering than indoor gatherings. This is confusing to many people, but the difference is that below the outdoor threshold, nether masks or social distancing are required, above the outdoor threshold is when either masks or social distancing is required. For indoor (in public), either masks or social distancing is required below the threshold, and masks are required above the threshold regardless of social distancing.
7. ***CONTINUED*** The Development Services Dept. requests a Zone Change from Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC2) to Medium Density Residential for approximately 11 acres, located at 1920 W Center Street. Fort Utah Neighborhood PLRZ20200282
   This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Science vs Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council Meetings - 1 September 2020

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Business

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

   Administration

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



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

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



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

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

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

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

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

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



Action Agenda

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




Adjournment

On Mandates and Public Health

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

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

Here are four thoughts for the occasion.

i. Time to Walk the Talk

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

ii. For Schools, For the Economy, For Fun

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

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

iii. Mask Mandates are like Speed Limits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay safe and be kind.