Call For Candidates

What is a democracy without good choices at the ballot box? I'm not sure what it is, but it certainly isn't healthy. This fall, we will vote for four offices in Provo: three Council seats and Mayor. District 5, which I currently represent, is one of the seats we get to decide on. I haven't decided if I will run again. I've even pondered running for the City-wide seat. But regardless of what I end up doing, we need strong candidates running for each of these four seats. Who do you know that you think would represent you well on the Council? Who would make for a good CEO of Provo? Encourage them to run! Maybe it's you! How wonderful would it be if, come November, we are trying to decide between multiple good options in each of the races? I, and some others on the Council, are very interested in exploring the use of Ranked Choice Voting, or another method, in our elections this fall, that better reflect the people's will and alleviate the worry of the dreaded spoiler effect. We'll have to see what happens in the State Legislature regarding this, but in the meantime, go out and encourage good people to run!

Council Meetings - 16 February 2021

The most interesting items are probably the rezone request of land near Treeside Charter School at the far south-eastern corner of the City, and the question of what to do with money freed up by using CARES money to pay our first responders.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding the progress of the General Plan Update. (20-068)
   Community and Neighborhood Services staff and the consultant, Design Workshop, will give an update on the progress of the update to the General Plan. The General Plan can be a great tool to guide decisions and communicate clearly with Provo's residents and developers what we want our community to be. It needs to be kept up-to-date, and it needs to reflect the will of the people. It also should be followed by elected officials and city employees as we execute our duties. Presentation only. If you are interested in Provo's future, you should be interested in the update of the General Plan. If you are interested in the update of the General Plan, I recommend browsing through the presentation slides, or watch this segment of the meeting.
2. A presentation regarding Library Services' fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. This is the first of numerous presentations and discussions with the Council to help inform the budgeting process. Presentation only. I had a few questions after reading the financial statements but was able to get them answered. I think we have a great library and that it is continuing in the right direction.
3. A presentation regarding the Legal Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. A presentation and discussion of the operations of the Legal Department in preparation for the budget development. Presentation only. It was impressive to see the department's size stay the same over decades while the population of the city has continued to grow.
4. A presentation regarding the Council Office's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. The budget, and budget presentations, include the Council's own Office. Presentation only. We have a pretty small budget, and very little of it goes to anything besides personnel.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide application. (19-102)
   Changing digital signs have been shown to lead to distracted driving, which can increase the risk of accidents. Some residents and local businesses have also expressed a desire for fewer and slower digital signs in order to preserve Provo's aesthetic. The Council’s Sign Committee wants to balance safety and aesthetics with the need to help its local businesses stay competitive. It has drafted proposed amendments to Provo City Code to protect Provo residents, preserve our city’s history and atmosphere, and support businesses. The hold time for digital signs on state roads, which generally have higher speeds, is 8 seconds. The most common hold time in neighboring cities is 8 seconds. The highway minimum hold time is designed so that motorists rarely see more than one message change per sign. To achieve a similar goal in the city, where motorists, cyclists and pedestrians encounter digital signs at lower speeds and in greater numbers, the committee felt that short hold times need to be substantially longer than 8 seconds.
   Provo distinguishes between short hold and long hold areas and prohibits digital signs in primarily residential zones. In short hold time areas, which are predominantly commercial, the primary objective for increasing the minimum hold time is traffic safety. In long hold time areas, there is an additional emphasis on aesthetics to minimize the number of message changes encountered not only by motorists but also by cyclists and pedestrians. The Sign Committee proposes the following amendments, which can be seen in the attached ordinance as Exhibits A and B. Exhibit C includes a list of studies consulted in the Committee's research.
   1. minimum hold times of 1 minute in short hold time areas, 1hour in long hold time areas, 15 seconds for signs in SC3 zones that represent 20 or more tenants, and 8 seconds for signs adjacent to and facing Interstate 15
   2. replacing uses of "high churn" and "low churn" with "short hold time" and "long hold time" 2
   3. revisions to the list of short and long hold time areas and where electronic signs are not permitted
   4. clarification that electronic version of types of signs permitted in the Riverbottoms Design Corridor are also allowed
   5. replacing the graphs that show the maximum sign size permitted by lot frontage with tables that are easier to read
   6. These proposals would apply only to digital signs that are on a business’s property (not signs on public school properties or billboards) and whose message can be changed by electronic means on a fixed display screen composed of a series of LEDs, fiber optics, plasma displays, light bulbs, or other illumination devices.
   The Sign Committee has done some great work on this proposed update. I'm still not convinced about the logic behind allowing 15 second hold times for signs in SC3 zones that represent 20 or more tenants. The rationale given has been to allow these signs to churn more quickly to identify the stores at that location. Still, with a minimum of 20 tenants, it would take at least 5 minutes to show each tenant for 15 seconds. Also, I'm still concerned that there may be some unintended consequences as more and more secondary signs are converted to digital displays. A motion to refer these changes to the Planning Commission was approved 7:0. The item was originally scheduled for the Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 2021, but was continued in advance of the meeting. It'll be good to get this vetted by the Planning Commission. I still have lingering concerns. They may be unfounded concerns, but I need to understand why.
6. A presentation from the Zoning Committee regarding the work they have done over the past year. (21-030)
   The Zoning Committee has been working over the last year on solutions to improve the functionality of Code Enforcement. As part of this work, the Zoning Committee wants to increase the longevity of the personnel in Code Enforcement. Another area of study was best practices and what can be done to improve Code Enforcement generally. The Zoning Committee recommends the following improvements:
   1. fully fund the allowed 6 full-time employees (FTEs) for Code Enforcement
   2. create a Field Supervisor potion (included in the 6 FTEs)
   3. uniforms for Code Enforcement Officers
   4. department branding for at least two vehicles
   5. improved staff training
   Why is our average tenure so low for code enforcement officers? How does we compare with other cities'? Presentation only. I support these ideas but suggested that we need to make sure we are addressing the root of the problem.
7. A presentation regarding Council Handbook training. (21-032)
   Council’s attorney, Brian Jones, will discuss the Council Handbook with emphasis on Chapters I-III, and VIII-IX, focusing on Council powers and rules of ethics and procedure. Periodic reviews and trainings are important to keep the Council running smoothly. Presentation only. I agree that coordination and cooperation between branches are necessary to serve the interests of the people of Provo. And so is being respectful of the vital roles each branch plays.
8. A presentation regarding the Sales Tax Increment post performance payment with Woodside Capital Partners. (21-033)
   In June 2018, Provo City entered into a Sales Tax Increment agreement with Woodside Capital Partners to offset and incentivize the remodel, construction and opening of a new Ross retail store in the East Bay Shopping Center. The store was intended to serve as a magnet to attract other retailers and fill an otherwise low occupancy retail center. This will be heard at the March 2 Council meeting. We've done a lot of property tax increment deals, but very few sales tax increment deals. I am very interested to see how this deal has turned out so far. Presentation only. A sales tax incentive was offered, it attracted a taker, and the complex's economic output has increased. The increase has generated an additional $38k in Provo's portion of sales tax. This $38k is the incentive for this year. Provo will continue only to collect 2018 levels of sales tax for this complex for nine more years.
9. A resolution accepting or denying an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 6.4 acres of property at the intersections of Colorado Avenue, Bullock Lane, and 1860 South. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20210019)
   This is a preview of this item, scheduled to be heard in the Council Meeting this evening. The decision will be to accept or deny the petition to consider annexation, not a decision on whether or not to grant the annexation itself. This appears to be part of the Annexation Plan and seems to be a good location for this use. I currently don't see any reason not to support the petition. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for Council Meeting on February 16, 2021. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 13.07 acres of real property, generally located at approximately 1400 West 890 South from Agricultural (A1.1) to Residential Agricultural (RA(A). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200413)
    Zachary Steele requests approval of a zone change from the A1.1 zone to the RA(A) zone along with a concept plan for one new building lot for property belonging to the Steele family. The accessory apartment overlay (A) zone would allow the property owner to establish an accessory living unit as long as the property is owner-occupied and meets the standards of Chapter 14.30, Provo City Code. The property is currently used for agricultural purposes and has one existing residential unit at 1400 W 890 S. The proposed lot is a half-acre lot just west of that existing home and would abut the recently approved Kelshaw Subdivision on the west property line and front on 890 South. A similar one-lot subdivision and associated rezone was recently approved just south of this proposal, on 990 South, for the Steele family. This new concept plan would provide an additional building lot within the Steele family farm. It should be noted that the A overlay currently requires at least 4 acres and at least 16 dwelling units. This proposal does not meet the minimum number of dwelling units. It is possible that state or local amendments might change that soon. As it stands, the Council can continue the item to a future meeting or rezone the parcel to RA without the overlay zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. I agree with staff and the Planning Commission. I feel that this proposal is also aligned with the West Provo Development Policies, which calls for supporting farmers to farm for as long as they desire to farm. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for Council Meeting on February 16, 2021. See my report for item 6 in the evening meeting.
11. 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 is the second hearing for this item. It was continued from the Council Meeting on December 15, 2020. 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:
    • commercial development under-performance in the South State area
    • 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 requested additional information. Most of the commercially zoned property on South State between 900 South and 1860 South 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 zoned such since about 2001 and has yet to be developed. 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 seem to be so many underlying disputes regarding this property that it is hard to know what to believe. Many of the people speaking against the rezone request refer to issues that I have no information on, and I'm not sure are directly related to the request. As a councilor, I try hard to understand the broader impact of a decision. Still, it is hard to account for the needs of a charter school that has little local oversight. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for Council Meeting on February 16, 2021. See my report for item 8 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

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

Dial 346 248 7799. Enter Meeting ID 883 7568 5942 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use same meeting ID and enter passcode: 196829.

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.
1. Approval of minutes
   
2. A resolution in support of designating Bridal Veil Falls as a state monument or national park. (21-031)
   I like the idea of the Falls being a state monument. All items on the Consent Agenda were approved 7:0. As expected, there was no discussion in the meeting.
   
   

   Action Agenda

3. A resolution transferring $7,879,285 from the General Fund to various Funds and appropriating $5,910,000 of the transferred funds and an additional $10,000 for the purposes described herein. (21-029)
   In August 2020, the City received CARES Act CRF funds from Utah County to be used in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those funds were used primarily to cover expenditures from the Public Safety COVID-19 response, which freed up General Fund balance that could then be used for other purposes. The Administration proposes to use the funds for various capital projects that would benefit the residents of Provo for years to come. These transfers and appropriations will facilitate the funding of those projects. Using the CARES money this way is a prudent and long-lasting way to get value out of the money. I do have some concerns about the cost and reprioritization of the Canyon Road Park development. I also think we should have a good discussion about the remaining $2M and how it will be used. A motion to amend the resolution to (1) change the amount appropriated to the Economic Development CIP Fund from $1,000,000 to $100,000, (2) add “develop or contract for the data tools to” to before “attract a west side grocery retailer” on line 50, and (3) remove the $1,000,000 appropriated to the Parks CIP Fund, was approved 4:3, with George Handley, Shannon Ellsworth, and David Shipley opposed. The final version of the resolution with these changes was then approved 4:3, with George Handley, Shannon Ellsworth, and David Shipley opposed. We had some good discussion, just not about what should be done with the remaining $2M. There was some disagreement about how the $6M that the Administration be appropriated should be reviewed. What passed were the items that there was consensus on (~$4M). All items that any councilor wanted to consider further were left out for further discussion.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide application. (19-102)
   This was item 5 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 5 in the Work Meeting. ***CONTINUED*** As stated in the Results of item 5 in the Work Meeting, this item was referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
5. A resolution accepting or denying an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 6.4 acres of property at the intersections of Colorado Avenue, Bullock Lane, and 1860 South. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20210019)
   This was item 9 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. A resolution to accept the petition was approved 7:0. This annexation has been anticipated for a long time, and it makes sense.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 13.07 acres of real property, generally located at approximately 1400 West 890 South from Agricultural (A1.1) to Residential Agricultural (RA(A). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200413)
   This was item 10 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 10 in the Work Meeting. Approved (without the A overlay as discussed in the Work Meeting) 7:0. There were some questions with the "A" (ADU) overlay. As the State Legislature is actively considering changes to ADUs (accessory dwelling units), the applicant chose to move ahead without the A-overlay as part of the request.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to remove the Design Review Committee requirement for the Critical Hillside (CH) Overlay Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20210014)
   Subsection 14.33A.040(3) of the Code establishes design review requirements for certain uses conducted within the Critical Hillside (CH) Overlay Zone. This subsection reads as follows: “Notwithstanding any other provision in Title 14 or 15, Provo City Code, all proposals for residential and nonresidential developments in the CH Zone, as well as all proposals for main buildings, except for one-family detached dwellings, shall obtain a recommendation from the Design Review Committee.” This subsection requires, among other things, design review for all residential developments. Design review for a development of single-family homes would not be very useful considering there would be no landscaping or architecture to review. Additionally, design review of residential developments, which do not require project plan approval, may lie outside the scope of the Design Review Committee's (DRC) powers and duties established in Chapter 14.04A. Section 14.04.020 of the Code identifies the duties of the DRC, as follows: “The Design Review Committee shall review and make design recommendations regarding the external design of buildings and site plans for all proposed new buildings, structures, and uses which are subject to project plan approval and design review.” The elimination of the subject requirement would allow the Powers and Duties section of Chapter 14.04A to control in the question of when a proposal in the CH Zone must go to the DRC for their recommendation. Other sections of the Code, such as Subsection 15.03.310(5), help to give further direction regarding when a proposal must have design review. Planning Commission recommended approval. I don't fully understand this proposal. I believe the Critical Hillside Overlay Zone is very recent. I understand that some tweaks may need to be made, but I'm not understanding why we would want to remove this review. The documentation talks about single-family homes, but doesn't specify if we are talking about detached or attached. Approved 7:0. I had my questions answered and my concerns addressed. The Council committee that developed the CH-overlay zone was supportive of this proposal.
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 was item 11 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 11 in the Work Meeting. A motion to continue the item for two weeks and request that the developer propose safety remedies for the access issues, was approved 6:1, with George Handley opposed. I was ready to move ahead and approve this rezone, but the more patient councilors prevailed. In the meantime, it appears that some good progress has been made in addressing the congestion concerns, so I'm glad that it was continued.
9. ***CONTINUED*** The Community & Neighborhood Services Dept. requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Chapter 14.20B of the Provo City Code to update development standards of the Freeway Commercial Two (FC-2) Zone. Citywide impact. PLOTA20210026
   This item was not ready to be heard.
10. ***CONTINUED*** Comm. & Neighborhood Services Dept. requests a Zone Change from the A1.20 Agricultural zone to the Freeway Commercial Two (FC-2) Zone for approx. 75 acres, located at approx. 500 W Lakeview Parkway. Lakewood Neighborhood. PLRZ20210025
    This item was not ready to be heard
11. ***CANCELLED*** Forrest Phillips requests a Zone Change from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential for property located at 845 W and 849 W 2000 N. Carterville Neighborhood. PLRZ20200407
    This item was cancelled by the applicant.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 2 February 2021

The items of most interest to me are WM#2 about parking, WM#7 about partnering with the Administration to tackle a problem, CM#7 about the rezone of the vacant Smith's property in west Provo, and CM#8 about the VLDR proposal in northeast Provo.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, February 2, 2021

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 on the appointment of members to the Elected Officials Compensation Commission. (21-026)
   Per Provo City Code 4.04.130 an Elected Official Compensation Commission is appointed every four years to review and recommend compensation for the positions of mayor and municipal councilors. The commission is required to make its recommendations by April and the recommendations, if they are to be accepted, are voted on by the third week of June. The commission members terms expire at that point. Any changes to compensation take effect in January 2022. Three members of the commission are appointed by the Mayor, three members are appointed by Municipal Council, and the seventh is chosen by the aforementioned six members of the committee.
   The following three people have been nominated by the Municipal Council to serve on the Commission:
   Taeya Howell - An Assistant Professor in the Management Department at the BYU Marriott School of Business, Taeya Howell joined BYU in August 2016 after being a Research Scholar at New York University's Stern School of Business. She received her B.A. in Sociology from Washington State University, her J.D. from Brigham Young University, and her M.A. and Ph.D. in Management from the University of Texas at Austin. Prior to pursuing her Ph.D., Taeya practiced law for several years focusing on commercial leasing and corporate bankruptcy. She and her husband are the proud parents of four daughters.
   Laura Cabanilla - A graduate of Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School, Laura Cabanilla is a partner with the Provo law firm Esplin Weight. Her practice consists primarily of family law and criminal defense. Previously she worked as a prosecutor with the Utah County Attorney’s Office. Laura is a former member of the Provo Municipal Council and has been a long-time member of the U.S. Army Reserves. Lt. Colonel Cabanilla completed a 12-month tour of duty in Kuwait in 2014. She and her husband Dave have four adult children.
   Peter Madsen - A professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources at BYU’s Marriott School of Business, Peter Madsen's research focuses on employee health and safety, organizational change management, and organizational learning from accidents, incidents, and near misses. He teaches courses on human resource management, organizational behavior, change management, and crisis management at the undergraduate, MBA, and executive MBA levels. Compensation for elected officials is always an uncomfortable conversation because we have to set the level for ourselves. This process was updated a little over four years ago. It was designed to make the process as transparent and insulated as possible. I appreciate the willingness of these nominees to serve our community in this role. It is obvious that all three are more than qualified. A motion to appoint Taeya Howell, Laura Cabanilla, and Peter Madsen to the Elected Officials Compensation Commission, was approved 7:0. They will serve the community well.
2. A discussion regarding the future of parking policy. (21-028)
   In 2017 the Provo Municipal Council adopted a Strategic Parking Management Plan the mission statement of that plan was “The Provo parking program will strive to develop a superior, customer-oriented parking system, responding to the current and future needs of parkers, including residents, visitors, employees, employers, and property owners through active planning, management, coordination, and communications. The Provo parking program shall be considered an integral component of the community’s economic development strategies and programs.” As part of the plan it has objectives and guiding principles. It has been three years since the plan was adopted and the Council may wish to to review the plan to see if the objectives are being met. We have several perplexing parking problems in Provo. The City has unsuccessfully grappled with parking in Joaquin Neighborhood, just south of BYU, for more than 50 years. We have invested millions of dollars in the construction of parking garages Downtown that currently provide little public value. The public is concerned about the potential for on-street parking congestion when new development is proposed. We don't have a straightforward way to manage on-street parking. There are several congestion "hot-spots" throughout the City that are a headache for the people there. We have been talking about addressing these parking problems the entire time I've served on the Council. Some good steps have been taken, but there is so much more that needs to be done, and we need to be moving with some urgency. As called for in the 2015 Strategic Parking Management Plan, a full-time Parking Administrator is needed to move this forward. Presentation only. The primary purpose was to ask if the Council would prioritize parking and, more specifically, would support hiring a full-time Parking Administrator. Some councilors wanted more time to evaluate the request. The Administration questioned the need for this role to be full-time. I think the lack of progress over the past six years is evidence of the need.



Administration: Mayor's Update

3. A presentation on the Quarterly Report for the quarter ending 9-30-2020 for Fiscal 2021 (21-007)
   Regular presentation of the quarterly report This is the first quarter of the current budget year and is our first look at how the pandemic is impacting it. Through the first quarter, things are looking pretty good. Take a look for yourself. If it's not addressed in the presentation, I'll be asking about Municipal Energy Tax Revenue, Intergovernmental Revenue, Fine Revenue, Water Transfer Revenue, and General Services Expenses. Presentation only. I was able to get all of my questions answered. For a quarter ending in the Fall of 2020, we are doing remarkably well.
4. A presentation on FY 2021 Budget Spreadsheet calculation for Employee Benefits. (21-019)
   Some errors were discovered in the 2021 Budget regarding employee benefits, meaning that the overall 2021 budget will be decreased. I appreciate the way this matter is being handled. Mistakes happen. I'm glad to see that they were caught and are being fixed. And it's always nice when fixing the errors lowers the budget. Presentation only. I appreciated the way responsibility was taken for the mistakes, the causes of the mistakes were identified, and corrections were presented that included preventing these same mistakes from happening again.
5. A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Department Accreditation Process (21-022)
   The Provo parks and Recreation Department achieved Department accreditation. This presentation summarizes the process. There is not much information in the Document Packet, but if I remember correctly, this represents quite an achievement that few Parks and Rec departments around the country reach. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for a presentation at the Council Meeting on February 2, 2021. The accreditation process requires a systematic review of nearly every aspect of the Parks and Rec department against the best practices.
6. A presentation regarding the calendar for the budget process for Fiscal Year 2022. (21-015)
   The start of the Fiscal Year 2022 has started and as part of this process the Administration reviews with the Municipal Council the sequence of the budget process. The budget process starts in January and continues until the budget is adopted in June. Here is the proposed calendar. Perhaps it's just a given, but the thing that seems missing to me is the discussion between the Council and Administration about budget priorities for the coming year. Presentation only. It's a long process to create the budget for the coming year.
7. A discussion regarding the Administration’s proposal to support Council policy priorities. (21-027)
   The Mayor’s Office is proposing to lead dedicated and intensive efforts to address major policy issues that concern the Council. It is envisioned to be used in conjunction with Council Committees and would not replace them. The Administration would work on the issue and make regular reports to the Council during Work Meetings to present what they have learned and get direction from the Council. It is expected that each review would be focused on specific aspects of policy and would last no more than nine months each. I think this is a wonderful idea! Presentation only. With two separate branches of government, I worry that some issues fall into the cracks between policy and implementation. I welcome this opportunity to work closely with the Administration to make sure we are addressing our most pressing needs.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Titles 9, 14, and 15 to make various technical updates and corrections. Citywide Application. (PLOTA2021003)
   Staff in the Community and Neighborhood Services and Development Services departments regularly note code corrections needed throughout their work. Development Services staff has compiled those notes from 2020 and is now requesting various ordinance amendments to correct the code issues found. The majority of the proposed amendments deal with removing references to zones that have been recently repealed (R3, R4, R5, CHDR) and adding recently added zones (VLDR) in Titles 9, 14, and 15 of the Provo City Code. Additionally, staff found language in the Gateway (GW) zone that is not needed in reference to streets that the zone does not abut or becomes repetitive. Specifically, since the GW zone does not border 100 South there does not need to be regulation for that corridor within the zone. Also, the restriction on commercial uses along 100 North is already stated elsewhere in the GW zone chapter, and therefore can be omitted in the referenced Section. Section 9.51.020 referenced repealed zones and was proposed to be amended. However, the Fire Marshall desired to add additional language to match current standards for transport routes, that change was made. Section 14.34.090 incorrectly referenced “Chapter” when explaining height limitations, but should be referencing all of Title 14, that change has been proposed. There are a few pages of City code, with many cross-references. As changes are made, it is almost inevitable that some outdated references will remain. I'm glad our team keeps an eye out for them and proposes these code clean-ups periodically. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for a presentation at the Council Meeting on February 2, 2021. See my report for item 6 in the evening meeting.
9. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 11acres of real property, located at 1920 W Center St., from Community Shopping (SC2) to Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Fort Utah Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200282)
   The Provo City Development Services department is requesting a zone change from the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC2) zone to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone and Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1) for four parcels of land around 1920 West Center Street. The subject property was zoned SC2 approximately 20 years ago for a grocery store. Citizens filed a lawsuit to challenge the zone change and the grocery store was never built. Within the subject property the Dell Cox Family Partnership owns 5.5 acres. Smith’s Food and Drug Centers holds a lease on the Cox property and they own the remaining property. A west-side grocery store is a priority to the city administration and to the citizens of west Provo. The current SC2 zone has had a stifling effect on obtaining a west-side store. Potential grocers are hesitant to move forward with a store if a competing store could be built on the subject property. The city staff has spent years encouraging the property owner to move forward with a grocery store. Since it is apparent a grocery store is not going to happen on the subject property, it is in the city’s interest to rezone the subject property so a grocery store may be located elsewhere on the west side. This is potentially a thorny issue, but I think the narrative that is given is spot on. After a rocky start, the City was patiently waited for more than a decade for Smith's to build a grocery store at the location they own in west Provo. After all this time, if they are not interested in doing so, we will make other plans. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for a presentation at the Council Meeting on February 2, 2021. See my report for item 7 in the evening meeting.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 6.32. Citywide Application. (21-025)
    Staff is updating Chapter 6.32 to reflect State code regulations and to address changing dynamics with mobile food vendors. This should be an interesting discussion. I wonder which of these changes are necessitated by State law. I know the 100' buffer from the entrance of brick and mortar restaurants was a compromise. I'm a bit surprised to see it being proposed for removal. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for a presentation at the Council Meeting on February 2, 2021. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting.
11. ***Continued*** DR Horton requests a Zone Change from A1.5 and Residential Agriculture (RA) to Low Density Residential and General Commercial for 55.48 acres, located at 1562 S 1100 W. Lakewood and Sunset Neighborhoods. (PLRZ20200394)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
12. ***Continued*** 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 continued to a future meeting.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 2, 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 Accreditation for Provo Parks and Recreation. (21-023)
   See my preview for item 5 in the Work Meeting. Presentation only. Congrats to all involved in the effort to secure this prestigious recognition.
   
   

   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 870 3146 6777 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use same meeting ID and enter passcode: 341672.
   
   Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:
   
   Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.
   
   Please limit your comments to two minutes.
   
   State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.
   
   

   Action Agenda

2. A resolution transferring $614,197 from the General Fund to the Airport Fund for marketing and an interfund loan payment to the Energy fund and appropriating $124,144 in the Airport Fund. (21-018) (20-017)
   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. This item was discussed two weeks ago in the Work Meeting. The airport is expanding and will grow in importance to our quality-of-life and the viability of our economy. But it does require some investment up-front to reap those benefits down the line. Approved 7:0. The benefits of developing our airport will provide a great return on our investment, both in financial terms and in the more important terms of quality of life for the people of Provo.
3. A resolution approving a substantial amendment to the program year 2019 Annual Action Plan incorporating additional funds for COVID-19 Public Health Response. (21-024)
   The Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has notified Provo City of an additional expected allocation of $487,563 in CDBG-CV3 grant funds as part of the CARES Act. The City is required to amend its Annual Action Plan in order to use the funding.
   A duly noticed Public Comment Period from January 16, to February 2, 2021 is conducted for citizens, partner agencies, and other interested parties to review and comment on the Plan’s proposed amendment. Electronic copies of the Plan are available for public review at the City’s website. The public hearing on February 2, 2021 will close the Public Comment Period, present the Plan (Exhibit A) to the Municipal Council and public in general, show proposed uses to the recommended projects for CDBG-CV funds (Exhibit B), and an opportunity for the Municipal Council to make final funding determinations for the CDBG-CV3 uses and approve the Substantial Amendment to the Plan. The money will go towards administration, public services, and small business assistance. Approved 7:0. Some of the Federal Covid money is being distributed through the "Community Development Block Grant" program. We approved the proposed changes to our CDBG plan to incorporate this new money.
4. A Resolution of Intent to create a permit parking area on portions of 820 North from 1025 East to 900 East. Foothills Neighborhood. (20-240)
   Foothill resident Brennan Barfuss has requested that the University Garden Parking Permit Area be expanded to include 820 North from 1025 East to 900 East to prevent those who live outside the neighborhood from parking on the street. On February 4, 2020, Provo City Council directed the Community and Neighborhood Services Department to study this proposal and recommend action. This report contains our findings and recommendations. This was discussed at a Work Meeting near the end of last year. The staff is recommending that we do not continue to consider this request. I have to admit that it is kind of odd. It is requesting an extension of a residential parking permit area, but it covers a street that is mostly not residential. Staff instead suggests that we "continue" to enforce the 72-hour limit, but our previous discussions have determined that our enforcement resources are stretched too thin to enforce this regulation effectively. A motion to adopt the resolution failed 0:7, with George Handley, David Harding, Shannon Ellsworth, Bill Fillmore, Travis Hoban, David Sewell, and David Shipley opposed. The applicant no longer wanted to pursue the permit program. I am worried about the discussed alternative approach, which was to continue the enforcement of current parking restrictions, after City officials charged with parking enforcement have said that they are stretched as far as they can go. I don't know how "continue doing what we've been doing" will fix the problems that have been brought up.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 6.32. Citywide Application. (21-025)
   This was item 10 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 10 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. The removal of the buffer I talked about in the preview of the Work Meeting discussion was due to changes to State laws.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Titles 9, 14, and 15 to make various technical updates and corrections. Citywide Application. (PLOTA2021003)
   This was item 8 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 8 in the Work Meeting. A motion to replace the version of the ordinance in the implied motion with a revised ordinance was approved, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. Boring but necessary code clean up. I was able to catch a small error (hence the "motion to replace") that could have caused some headaches in the future. This shows the value of having an independent review by the Council.
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 11acres of real property, located at 1920 W Center St., from Community Shopping (SC2) to Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Fort Utah Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200282)
   This was item 9 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:1, with Shannon Ellsworth opposed. I acknowledge that this is an unusual and relatively drastic step. But I also feel that it is long overdue, and the City has made clear that we are eager to work with the owners if they want to build a grocery store here. But we can't continue to let this property's potential prevent any other grocery store from coming into this part of town.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 1.07 acres of real property, generally located at 50 East 3900 North, from Residential (R1.10) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (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. Here is what I reported after hearing this item in the Work Meeting two weeks ago: 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 proposal's allowed density 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. We indicated that if the applicant was interested in proceeding with VLDR, they could continue in the process rather than start 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. A motion to table this item was approved 7:0. I pushed to vote to approve this rezoning in this meeting, but the majority wanted to give the parties a little more time to try to work something out. I can see some advantages in the delay, and I hope the discussions are productive. I still maintain that LDR is the best zone for this plot, and VLDR is a good compromise.
9. ***Continued***DR Horton requests a Zone Change from A1.5 and Residential Agriculture (RA) to Low Density Residential and General Commercial for 55.48 acres, located at 1562 S 1100 W. Lakewood & Sunset Neighborhoods PLRZ20200394
   This item was continued by the Planning Commission and not ready to be heard.
10. ***Continued***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 continued to a future meeting.




Adjournment