Council Meetings - 19 January 2021

I'm feeling pretty good about the meetings tomorrow. Usually, there is something that I'm dreading or am uncomfortable with. Most of what we'll be discussing and deciding on strikes me a positive steps for the City.

Items of interest may include the Google Fiber agreement and the Mill Race agreement, but there really isn't anything too exciting going on there. We'll be talking parking and new developments, which will likely generate the most discussion.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Business

1. A discussion regarding a transfer of $614,197 from the General Fund to the Airport Fund and an appropriation of $124,144 in the Airport Fund for New Destination Marketing and Interfund Loan Interest. (21-017, 21-018)
   
   • Provo City has agreed to contribute $50,000 in marketing costs for each new destination Allegiant flies to from the Provo Airport. Allegiant has recently announced Denver and Orange County as new destinations, requiring a $100,000 contribution from the City to Allegiant for marketing purposes. This will be funded with a $100,000 transfer from the General Fund.
   • On April 21, 2020, the Municipal Council approved a resolution authorizing an interfund loan between the Airport Fund and the Energy Fund for $4,900,526 to purchase land near the Airport. The loan is for 10 years with a fixed principal payment of $490,053 and a variable interest rate equal to the monthly Utah State Public Treasurer's Investment Fund rate. The loan was to be paid back with Airport revenues and if revenues were not sufficient a transfer would be made from the General Fund for all or a portion of the payment. The Airport is currently being subsidized by the General Fund ($141,411 in the fiscal 2021 Budget) and not in a position to make all or a portion of the payment so Administration is recommending a transfer from the General Fund of $514,197 which includes interest of $24,144.
   I'm thrilled that new destinations have been added to the airport. I have some questions about the marketing arrangement.
   
   The Council previously authorized the interfund loan, but we were still hopeful that another funding source could have been identified. Apparently, none was found, so we need to start making good on that commitment and begin paying off the loan. It was still an appropriate decision to space the cost across 10 years. I am hopeful that the airport will begin turning a net profit and will be able to help pay off the loan in future years. But even without that, the economic benefits from the airport make these investments worth it. Presentation only. This item will return to a future Council Meeting. I was mixing this project up with another. As the terminal is completed and Airport usage increases, the Airport will begin to help pay the interfund loan back directly.
2. A discussion regarding the Legacy CIP Fund. (21-020)
   
   • The City received an allocation of approximately $8.5 million from the federal CARES Act to assist in covering extraordinary city costs associated with our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In part, the CARES Act funds were used to reimburse the City of public safety/first responder compensation during the period of March 2020 to December 2020. The net effect of this eligible use of CARES Act funds was to create a surplus in the General Fund.
   • In a recent memo, the Administration has reported on the City's expenditure of the CARES Act grant funds and has proposed the creation of a Legacy CIP fund to allocate the amount received for public safety compensation reimbursement. The Administration would like to review the information with the Council in a work meeting in preparation for a future Council action to appropriate the funds as outlined in the memorandum.
   One of the challenges of federal money is navigating all of the strings attached. The CARES money was both more urgent (had to be spent in a very narrow time frame) and volatile (the instructions for use, based on the official interpretation of the law, kept changing), making it one of the more difficult allotments. I think this is an example of your Provo City government following all of the instructions given by the Feds and also trying to maximize the positive impact of the money.
   
   See the memo for more details. Presentation only. This item will return to a future Council Meeting. Nothing in the presentation changed my assessment described in the preview.
3. A resolution approving an agreement with Utah County regarding funding for the Regional Sports Park. (21-016)
   The Administration negotiated an agreement with Utah County to donate money to the Regional Sports Park. Normally such an agreement would not require Council approval, but one of the terms is for the City to pay a small amount of money back to the County each year for marketing purposes. The County will contribute up to $2.5M for the facility. Provo will return $150,000 to the County for marketing of the facility. County residents will has access to the facility like Provo residents.
   
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on January 19, 2021. See my report for item 6 in the evening meeting.
4. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to sign an amendment to the existing Participation Agreement with Mill Race Partners for the redevelopment of a blighted block in Provo. (21-012)
   The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) previously approved an Owner Participation Agreement with Mill Race Partners to develop an office tower, condominiums for sale and apartments for lease on the former IFA property. The development will also include meeting space and structured parking. Noting the property is also in a federal Opportunity Zone, Mr. Earl and Mill Race Partners has created Mill Race Operating Company, LLC which is a subsidiary of, and completely controlled by, Mill Race Partners, LLC. As is customary for development projects, passive investors are brought in to provide equity capital needed to develop the parcel in a subsidiary. Additionally, the parcel is located within a "qualified opportunity zone" so certain structural accommodations need to be put in place at the advice of tax counsel in order to qualify for those benefits and develop out the area in line with the RDA’s vision. But the qualifications and identity of the participant have not changed at all, given that Mill Race Partners controls Mill Race Operating Company. As far as I can tell, no substantive changes are being made from the City's perspective. This only accommodates the creation of an operating subsidiary necessary for the development company. I will verify that this is true before I vote on it. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on January 19, 2021. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting.
5. A discussion regarding follow-up from the Transportation Retreat and the Slate Canyon Drive speed study. (20-013)
   The City Council held a Transportation Retreat on October 27, 2020. Several questions that were raised in the meeting required more study and follow-up from Public Works. This work meeting item is to address those questions. Staff plan to address Center Street and Slate Canyon Drive. Now that State Street reconstruction is complete, we need to make some progress improving people's experience on Center Street.
   
   There are some significant speeding problems along Slate Canyon Drive. I'm hoping that Public Works has some good ideas about how to address these problems. There are also a number of other streets in Provo with speeding problems. I'm hoping that these solutions can help us on other streets as well. Presentation only. I like the early ideas for design modification for Slate Canyon.
6. A discussion on Provo City Code section 9.80 parking permit program. (21-011)
   At the January 05, 2021, Council meeting, the Slate Canyon Drive Parking Permit Program was discussed. Because of the discussion around the parking permit program and how the process works, it was decided to bring section 9.80 to a work meeting for the Council to review how the process for developing a parking permit area works. Who is allowed to file an application, the steps involved after an application has been submitted, and the responsibilities of the Council at the different decision points. This is a quick refresher for the Council. Presentation only. Parking permit proposals from the public take several steps to implement and must come before the Council three separate times.
7. A discussion regarding changes to a previously rejected rezone proposal that would reduce the number of total units. (PLRZ20190265)
   On November 10, after several hearings by the Planning Commission, the Council voted 6:1 to reject a proposed rezone from Single-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR) in order to build 10 townhomes. The Council indicated that they would be open to hearing a proposal for rezoning to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) with fewer units at a future work meeting. The developer has returned with a new VLDR proposal for 6 units. I'm excited for this proposal. I will encourage Staff to ensure that the spirit of what is proposed is what will actually be built.
   
   A motion to place this item on a subsequent Council Meeting agenda was approved 6:1, with David Sewell opposed. This originally came before us as a request for LDR (low density residential). It had a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission and the CNS staff, despite raising concerns with some of the neighbors. We heard from many of the neighbors that they would be satisfied if we would lower the allowed density of the proposal by rezoning it as VLDR (very low density residential). Once it was clear that there was insufficient support on the Council to rezone it as LDR, I suggested that we rezone it as VLDR in that meeting. (Because the VLDR zone falls between the current zone and the recommended zone, it is considered a compromise that is allowed within the process that has taken place.) Some on the Council were concerned about rezoning it to VLDR if the applicant wasn't interested in proceeding. So we indicated that if the applicant was interested in proceding with VLDR then they could continue in the process rather than starting back over. That is where we are at now. The applicant would like to move forward with a VLDR project and the Council is considering the request again.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at 1724 South State Street, from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190356)
   This item was considered, and ultimately continued, at the November 11, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission asked staff to provide information relative to the following: (1) Commercial development under-performance in the South State area and (2) demographic and housing stock data. The Planning Commission expressed the sentiment that commercial development is not thriving in the South State Street area of the City and request additional information. Speaking of the current commercially zoned property on South State between 900 South and 1860 South, most of it is for heavy commercial (CM Zone) uses. There is approximately 10 acres of land zoned SC2 (Community Shopping Center) and approximately 3.5 acres zoned SC1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center). The property in the SC2 Zone has been in said zone since about 2001 and has yet to develop. The property zoned SC1 has been zoned such since 1998 and a portion of it was developed in 2013 for a gas station. Planning Commission recommended approval. There is not really any new information in the document packet since the last time we heard this. I am hopeful that we'll get some answers in the meeting and will be able to have a constructive discussion. As I said before, there is a lot to like about this proposal.
   
   ***CONTINUED***
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.8 acres of real property, generally located at 950 West 1020 South, from Residential Agricultural (RA) to Residential (R1.7). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200352)
   The applicant is requesting a zone change from RA to R1.7 located at approximately 950 W 1020 S. Concurrent with the zone change request, the applicant is seeking approval of a concept plan for an eight lot residential subdivision. A neighborhood meeting was held for these proposed applications. The CRC staff has reviewed the applications and has no remaining issues. If the rezone is approved the applicant would then submit a subdivision application to the CRC for approval. The surrounding neighborhood is zoned R1.8 which has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet or is zoned RA like the current zone of the property. The lots in this subdivision will all be over 8,000 square feet. The General Plan shows that RA zoning in this area should be replaced with residential infill. Planning Commission recommended approval. It sounds like just about everyone is happy with this proposal. I want to commend the staff on their report. Twice I had questions/concerns from the material I was reading, and both times the report anticipated the concerns and answered them. I'm interested in the narrower road and plan to ask about it.
   
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on January 19, 2021. See my report for item 8 in the evening meeting.



Business

10. A presentation from the Sign Committee regarding the number of digital signs per business and hold times for freeway-adjacent businesses in SC3 zones. (19-102)
    In answer to questions raised during past Sign Committee presentations, Aaron Ardmore will present about the number of digital signs per business permitted in different zones. Hannah Salzl will present briefly about a proposed change in hold times for freeway adjacent businesses in SC3 zones. This was placed on Open City Hall for public input. I raised the question about multiple signs, so I'm definitely interested in the answers that will come. Presentation only. This item will return to the Sign Committee. The committee is proposing an incremental approach that I think is prudent. The enhanced "freeway adjacent" standards would only apply to signs along the freeway frontage.
11. A discussion regarding assignments to boards and committees. (21-014)
    Councilors also serve on different boards and committees, depending on interest and areas of expertise. At the beginning of each year, the Council determines who will serve in which positions. I expect to serve on most of the same committees as I did last year. Usually, assignments change more on the years after an election. Following a discussion and several edits to the draft document of committee assignments, the list of assignments as presented was adopted by unanimous consent. I really want to see if we can make some significant progress on parking and housing affordability this year. These are two of the committees I'll be serving on.



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, January 19 2021

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Popular Annual Financial Report (PAFR) by the Provo City Finance Division. (20-010)
   I always say that the PAFR is required reading material for anyone interested in how Provo City is run and where we raise and spend our money. Presentation only. Provo's budget fared well through the first half of 2020.
   
   

   Public Comment

   Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.
   
   Dial 346 248 7799. Enter Meeting ID 835 8407 9066 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use same meeting ID and enter passcode: 408715.
   
   Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:
   
   Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.
   
   Please limit your comments to two minutes.
   
   State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.
   
   

   Consent Agenda

   Items on the consent agenda are generally routine in nature, have been fully vetted in other meetings, or do not need additional discussion. They are approved together as one item.
2. Approval of minutes
   
3. An ordinance granting Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless a nonexclusive Franchise to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah. (21-020)
   This is a routine franchise agreement. All items on the consent agenda were approved 7:0.




Action Agenda

4. A resolution of intent to create a permit area on portions 1625 North, 300 West, and 380 West. Carterville Neighborhood. (19-108)
   On October 29, 2019, the Council directed that a study be done of the proposed parking permit area for portions of 1625 North, 300 West, and 380 West in Carterville Neighborhood. Staff returned to a Council Work Meeting on November 10, 2020 with the study and their recommendation. This was also posted on Open City Hall for input. I'm not sure why we didn't discuss this in the work meeting. I'm not specifically opposed to a permit program here, but I think the City needs to decide what direction we are taking with parking permits before making this decision. The resolution was amended by several motions, after which it was approved 7:0. Community and Neighborhood Services staff is now recommending some sort of permit program. With this vote, neighbors will be notified that the Council is seriously considering the implementation of a permit program and could pass it the next time it comes before us. CNS staff also committed to working to iron out the details of the permit program parameters.
5. An ordinance approving an amended and restated license agreement with Google Fiber Utah, LLC. (21-008)
   Google Fiber has requested that certain aspects of the existing license agreement be amended regarding high-speed Internet access services and Internet Protocol video services within Provo. I really like this agreement. The fees will be based on Internet services and not the (quickly vanishing) video services. The new structure is far more stable and sustainable. Approved 7:0. This is just one detail in the overall relationship, but it puts this aspect on a more stable and sustainable footing.
6. A resolution approving an agreement with Utah County regarding funding for the Regional Sports Park. (21-016)
   This was item 3 in the Work Meeting. See my preview of item 3 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. This is a great project overall. The County stands to benefit greatly from the hotel room taxes that will increase due to this project.
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at 1724 South State Street, from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190356)
   This was item 8 in the Work Meeting. See my preview of item 8 in the Work Meeting. ***CONTINUED***
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.8 acres of real property, generally located at 950 West 1020 South, from Residential Agricultural (RA) to Residential (R1.7). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200352)
   This was item 9 in the Work Meeting. See my preview of item 9 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. This is a good "next-step" for development in this area.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

9. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to sign an amendment to the existing Participation Agreement with Mill Race Partners for the redevelopment of a blighted block in Provo. (21-012)
   This was item 4 in the Work Meeting. See my preview of item 4 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. This was a beurocratic necessity with no substantial impact to the agreement from the City's perspective.




Adjournment