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

Council Meetings - 31 March 2020

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

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

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

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

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 31, 2020

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

Business

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



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

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



Closed Meeting

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

Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

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



Public Comment

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




Action Agenda

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

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


Adjournment

Council Meetings - 10 March 2020

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 10, 2020

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

Business

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



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

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



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.


Public Comment

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




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

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


Consent Agenda

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


Action Agenda

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


Action Agenda (Provo Municipal Council)

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


Adjournment