Council Meetings - 30 March, 2021

Police (WM3), Fire (WM2), Parking (CM6), and a rezone (CM5). This should be an interesting set of meetings. And we can't forget a discussion on what method of voting to use this fall (WM9).

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding Administrative Services' fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   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 year ago we made temporary cuts in anticipation of the budget hit between July 2020 and June 2021. Some of these cuts were things like training and travel for training. This made a lot of sense amid the pandemic, but it would be very short-sighted to leave the cuts in place. The people of Provo get great value out of our tax dollars for city services in large part due to the professional and capable city employees who deliver those services. We need to continue to develop and train employees so they can stay on top of industry developments and can continue to provide outstanding service. Presentation only. Perhaps the most pressing need in Administrative Services is in securing our IT infrastructure.
2. A resolution appropriating $105,000 from Wildland Fire Response Revenues into the Fire Department in the General Fund for an employee salary adjustment warranted by a recent salary market study. (21-048)
   A salary market study has recently been performed, which warrants a salary increase in various positions from multiple departments in the City. Administration recommends implementing the proposed increase immediately for the Fire Department only. The impact the increase has on the Fire Department budget for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2020-2021 is $105,000. The Fire Department has unallocated wildland fire response revenue funds that can be used for this purpose in Fiscal Year 2020-2021. An increase for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 for the Fire Department and all other City departments affected by the market study will be part of the regular budget process for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. From what I understand, from reading the provided documents, the annual compensation study shows that Provo is falling behind in several departments. This will be addressed for all affected departments in the upcoming budget for the new fiscal year (starting July 2021). But the Administration is recommending that we use "one-time" revenues from reimbursements for our wildland fire participation that exceeded our costs in order to make the salary adjustments in the Fire Department starting now and not waiting for the new fiscal year. One argument is that we need to compete this May for graduates to help fill the needed positions.
   
   I'm a little concerned about using one-time money this way, and also about how this might be seen by employees in other departments, but this is coming from revenue that was generated by our firefighters going above and beyond their duties to help neighboring areas fight wildland fires. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 30, 2021. See my report for item #1 in the evening meeting.
3. A presentation regarding the Police Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   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. There is very little in the document packet to prepare for the meetings, but the Police Department never disappoints with their budget presentations. Presentation only. Our Police Department does more with less, even when compared with other cities within our state.
4. A presentation regarding the Provo Power Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   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. I participated virtually in the annual conference of the Utah Municipal Power Agency, of which Provo Power is a part. Provo Power presented on their strategic planning efforts and I don't believe I've ever seen a group do it better. Take a look and see for yourself. Presentation only. Our Energy Department is healthy.
5. A discussion of the City's Real Property Holdings and Surplus Property List. (21-045)
   This is the result of a request from the Municipal Council for a presentation on City property and the surplus property list. Most of the properties I recognized, but there were a few that I wasn't aware of. Provo owns more than 1,400 properties, but more than 1,000 of those make up our street network. Presentation only. It turns out that those surprise properties were incorrectly included.
6. A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Needs Assessment Results. (21-046)
   The Parks and Recreation Department is currently updating their master plan. This presentation includes the results from the needs assessment survey that has already been compiled from the community. I agree with the vast majority of Provo residents who are "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the value we get from our Parks and Recreation Department. There is much that goes into providing value, but part of it is carefully listening to the community and planning to meet their needs. Parks and Rec commissioned a representative survey of Provo residents to help shape the future direction of the department. Check out the results and the comparison to 8 years ago. Presentation only. The community survey is just more evidence of the outstanding parks and recreation opportunities that our residents regularly enjoy.
7. A presentation on the need for Provo City sustainability program which includes a Sustainability Director and a Sustainability Plan. (21-048)
   In order to meet the needs of the residents of Provo without compromising the needs of future generations of Provo residents we need to develop a Sustainability Plan. A Sustainability Plan is built on three pillars: the environment, social equity, and economic development. The aim is to balance these three pillars to ensure that they are meeting the goals, needs, and priorities set forth by the Council. Good stewards look after the wellbeing of the present as well as the future. The City organization should strive to provide services to the community in a way that can be sustained. We, as a community, should strive to live in such a way that our children and grandchildren can have at least as good of opportunities as we have. Presentation only. A motion that the Council support the proposal and that the Foothills Protection Committee hear the two proposals outlined and bring their recommendation to the Council of which option to pursue was approved 7:0. I'm excited to hear that we may be able to use grant money to pay to develop a sustainability plan.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding legislative staffing. (21-049)
   This ordinance is intended to clarify the role of the Executive Director as being responsible for all aspects of personnel management in the Council Office, save for his/her own position. The requirement that the Council appoints policy analysts by resolution is a remnant from before the creation of the Executive Director position, which position is appointed by resolution of the Council. While the Council Chair retains overall authority for the Council Office, many duties have been delegated by ordinance to the Executive Director. Currently, the Executive Director's personnel role is essentially managing, supervising, and evaluating but not selecting and if necessary, terminating as other department directors have authority to do. The proposed amendments to the Provo City Code would remove the appointment by resolution requirement for a Policy Analyst and set personnel decisions as a responsibility of the Executive Director. I see this as a simple code clean-up. It is an improvement, but won't have any material impact on the function of the office. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 30, 2021. See my report for item #7 in the evening meeting.
9. A discussion on Rank Choice Voting and the possible use for the 2021 Municipal Elections. (21-047)
   Utah Code Section 20A-4-602 Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project states that a municipality may participate in the pilot project if the legislative body votes to do so. The Council may choose to pass, by majority vote, a motion to do so for the 2021 municipal election and to provide notice to the lieutenant governor and the county clerk. The deadline is the second Monday in May, which is May 10 this year. The Council has two more meetings before that date: on April 20, and May 4. There are three council seats (Districts 2 and 5, and City-wide I) and the mayor's office to be contested in 2021. The Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project allows local governments to conduct elections using the Rank Choice Voting (RCV) Method; there was an effort at the legislature to add other alternative methods this year, but none were adopted. The Council has had several presentations since 2019 in which the operation, possible benefits, and possible consequences of the RCV method have been discussed. In 2019, despite some support for participation, the Council chose to not participate because of prior poor experiences when the county administered Vote By Mail elections. The then-new County Clerk has since demonstrated that the County now runs effective, efficient elections. The City has agreed with the County to participate in Vote By Mail again this year; that agreement stipulates a maximum cost of approximately $210,800 (rounded up) split between Primary and General Elections, which figure is dependent on the number of ballots received. That figure can be reduced by nearly one half if the City participates in the pilot project and holds only the General Election. However, RCV can be used in either the Primary or General elections. While a decision to participate in the pilot project is legislative and is made by the governing body, the decision as to which election will use RCV is administrative and rests with the City's chief election officer, Amanda Ercanbrack. This presentation is a quick overview of RCV leading to a discussion by the Council and possibly a vote on whether or not to participate in the pilot project. I don't believe RCV is the best voting method out there, not by a long shot. But I believe it is significantly better than our current method of plurality voting. Having our election cost roughly half as much would be nice, but this pilot program isn't about saving money, but having a better electoral experience and a voting method that can better measure the will of the people. Our neighbors, Vineyard and Payson, used RCV in 2019. How did they like it? Over 85% of both voters and candidates liked the method and want to use it again. Julie Fullmer, mayor of Vineyard, describes it this way, "Ranked choice voting was a common-sense voting method for Vineyard. Removal of expensive low-turnout primaries encouraged more positive campaigns, saved money, provided better data, and gave our voters more meaningful choices. Ranked choice voting was “better, faster and cheaper,” which is what the government should provide." Presentation only. A motion to place ranked-choice voting on Open City Hall and to bring the results back for discussion and a possible decision at the Work Meeting on May 4, 2021, was approved 6:1, with David Sewell opposed. Read this article if you are curious where I stand on RCV. I'm hoping that when the public learns about RCV and the good experiences that other cities have had with it, there will be strong public support for Provo to participate in the pilot program.



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, March 30, 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 846 6952 2729 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 702882.

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

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

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

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



Action Agenda

1. A resolution appropriating $105,000 from Wildland Fire Response Revenues into the Fire Department in the General Fund for an employee salary adjustment warranted by a recent salary market study. (21-048)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 2 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. Provo Fire Personnel and resources often answer the call to help fight wildfires around the west. This cooperative arrangement helps every participation community. The reimbursement rates for assistance exceed what it costs Provo Fire to provide the help, and money is left over after all our expenses are paid. The Fire Department is asking to use some of this excess to accelerate the upcoming salary adjustments to assist with the recruitment of the new fire graduates this May.
2. A resolution approving the Program Year 2021 Annual Action Plan, second year update to the 2020-24 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, as amended. (21-050)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the update. 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, home ownership and condition of housing stock. The Programs are administered by the Community Planning and Development Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Every year, as Lead Entity for the Utah Valley HOME Consortium, Provo City submits an Annual Action Plan (an update to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD) outlining the goals, objectives and the proposed use of federal CDBG and HOME resources to address housing, economic development, and community development projects to be undertaken. A Public Comment Period (March 20, 2021 to April 20, 2021) 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. The first public hearing on March 30, 2021 will present the Draft of PY-2021 AAP (Exhibit A) to Council members and the public in general. The document includes the proposed uses for CDBG and HOME funds which, to simplify the review of proposed projects, are also included in Exhibits B-for CDBG Capital Projects, C-for CDBG Public Services Projects, and D-for HOME Projects. These exhibits show the proposed funding recommendations made by Advisory Committees who listened to applicant presentations and reviewed and evaluated applications. Copies of the PY2021 AAP Draft are available for public review at the Community and Neighborhood Services Housing Division’s office and electronically at the City’s website. 2 The second public hearing on April 20, 2021 will close the Public Comment Period and provide the Municipal Council an opportunity to make final funding determinations for the HOME and CDBG programs for Program Year 2021, which begins on July 1, 2021 and ends on June 30, 2022. Are parts of Provo and Utah County developing into urban communities? Yes. Do we want these communities to be viable? Yes. Do we want our urban communities to have decent housing? A suitable living environment? Expanded economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons (annual income up to $75k for a family of four)? Yes. Yes. Yes. Is this plan the best way to invest the federal money allocated to us? That is the question! Public hearing only; this was the first in a series of two required public hearings. Most of the money allocated for the area administered by Provo's team is proposed to go to projects outside of Provo. While we definitely want to encourage all parts of the County to do their share in providing opportunities for subsidized housing to be hosted in their communities, there are many ways that we can strengthen and support our low- to moderate-income residents here in Provo without further concentrating subsidized housing here. I asked for a review of the past few years to see if Provo is getting its share of the HOME and CDBG dollars. I have since received the report, and yes, averaged over several years, the money is being distributed fairly evenly based on population.
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210046)
   This is a second hearing for the item. Planning Staff from the Community and Neighborhood Services and Development Services Departments have been meeting with the City Council Sign Committee over the past year in finding ways to improve and update the sign code, specifically in how the electronic sign standards are regulated throughout the City. The Sign Committee has worked through different ideas and moved forward with a proposal that would more clearly define standards for electronic signage and areas where this type of sign should be permitted in Provo. The changes to Title 6 include updating regulations for hold times based on location and the underlying zone. The changes to Title 14 include updating terminology and definitions for hold times, adding residential zones that ban electronic signs, and adjusting corridors that allow electronic displays. In addition to the changes regarding electronic signs, the committee is recommending replacing dated and difficult to manage size charts for signs with new tables which regulate sign size based on lot frontage or wall area. Here is what I said after the first hearing: "Nothing I read or heard when discussing this item changed my support for it. I will be discussing my lingering concerns with the sign committee." Approved 7:0. There was some push back from the sign industry but taken as a whole, this gives more flexibility to businesses to rotate their messages. I still have some lingering concerns that I would like to nail down. Hopefully, I will be able to meet with the Sign Committee soon to get them resolved.
4. An ordinance approving the petition to annex approximately 9.5 acres of property generally located at the intersection of Colorado Avenue, Bullock Lane, and 1860 South. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20210019)
   This item is an annexation request for property located at 1640 S. Colorado Avenue. The subject area is located on the south edge of the current Provo boundaries, on the north side of 1860 South, and on the east side of the Western Metals Recycling property. A portion of two of the parcels to be annexed are already within the City boundary. The total property proposed for annexation equals approximately 9.5 acres. The applicant is the project engineer, but the petition signer is Spencer Wright, representing East Bay Self Storage, LLC. Planning Commission recommended approval. We accepted this annexation application in mid-February for further consideration. I haven't seen anything that would cause me to question whether this annexation is in the best interest of Provo. Approved 7:0. Provo is now just a little bit bigger. This area has long been identified as a spot that should join Provo once it is ready to develop. This will be good for our community.
5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 54 acres of real property, generally located at 3450 W Center Street, from (A1.10) to (M1), (R1.8PD), and (RA). Provo Bay and Fort Utah Neighborhoods. (PLRZ20180197)
   The subject property lies on west Center Street and comprises five (5) parcels. Three (3) of these parcels are contiguous and lie north of Center Street. There are two (2) dwelling sites on this land; however, the majority of the land north of Center Street appears to currently be utilized for agricultural purposes. Two (2) additional, noncontiguous parcels lie south of Center Street. Currently, all this land appears to be used for agricultural endeavors. The proposed residential development is bounded on the north and west by the Provo River and on the south by Center Street. One of the two (2) proposed industrial areas lies immediately to the south and across Center Street. Agricultural land lies to the west of the residential area. The land north and west of the proposed residential area, and across the Provo River, lies in unincorporated Utah County. Planning Commission recommended approval. There is a lot to like about this proposal, but I do have some concerns and questions as well. When I served on the West Provo Development Policies committee we talked about "leapfrog" development. This proposal is almost exactly what I had in mind during those discussions. We even defined it as the rezoning of land that is surrounded by agricultural zoning. That seems to describe this property. As I remember it, when we were discussing leapfrog development in theory, we said that even though the project is good overall, it should wait until development reaches that point ("Require proper integration and sequencing of development" is what we said). So I need to be convinced why this policy shouldn't apply here, or in what way it does apply.
   
   Another concern I have is that the proposal would be for only one housing type. Again, back to the development policies for this area, "require a mix of housing types, lot sizes, and designs to accommodate various stages of life." and "Housing types should be mixed without barriers separating types or densities." I don't see this in this proposal.
   
   Perhaps the last question I have is how is the river frontage going to be used? It would be a shame to hide it, block it, and ignore it.
   
   This item was continued. Several aspects didn't feel settled. Most notably, a development agreement had been discussed and outlined broadly, but nothing had been written yet. The developer indicated that they wanted to hear from the Council first before drafting it. We'll see where it is at at the next meeting.
6. An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 9.81 (Carterville Parking Area). Carterville Neighborhood. (19-108)
   At the January 19, 2021, Council meeting, the Provo Municipal Council passed a Resolution of Intent to create a Parking Permit Area for a portion of the Carterville Neighborhood. The Parking Permit area includes the following streets, 300 West from Cougar Boulevard to 1625 North, 380 West from 1300 North to 1500 North, 1300 North from 300 West to 380 West, 1500 North from 380 West to 300 West, and 1625 North from 300 West to Freedom Boulevard. There are 93 properties that would be affected by the Parking Permit Area. The cost of the permit will be one hundred dollars ($100.00) per permit. The cost to administer the Parking Permit program is two hundred and ninety-seven dollars (297.00) per permit. This is the final step in the process, after conducting a parking study, receiving the recommendation of the Parking Committee, and hearing public input. I have a ton of thoughts on this one. I am unconvinced by the $297.00 figure. $100 seems much closer to the reasonable cost to administer. The original plan discussed visitor passes, which I didn't see in the draft ordinance. Are the permits transferable between vehicles? If there is a worry about over-subscription due to accessory apartments, could we set the limit to be two permits per property rather than two permits per residential unit? Rather than guest passes, could we allow visitors to use the Park Provo app to pay by the hour or pay per night? I'm worried that 11pm is too early to start the restriction. I think the point is to regulate overnight parking. If we start at 11pm we could be catching visitors who are still over watching a movie. 1am seems like a more reasonable start time. And that would also mostly resolve the oddity of having it only regulated between Monday and Saturday. As written, would the streets only be regulated for an hour on Saturday night, from 11pm to midnight? I'm trying to understand the rationale for Monday through Saturday, rather than Monday through Friday or every (non-holiday) night. This item was continued. There are a few aspects that need to be nailed down before we vote on this.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding legislative staffing. (21-049)
   This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 8 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. I consider this a simple code clean-up.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 16 March 2021

There isn't a single discussion on a rezone tomorrow! But there are some heavy deliberations anyway, not all of which I feel we are prepared to have. In particular, I feel that the Legacy CIP proposal and the Parking Garage Reassignment and Amendments may need more discussion before we vote.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding the Customer Service 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. In previewing the documents for the agenda item, I was blown away by the number of calls and walk-ins served by our customer service team. Almost 170,000! That's more than the number of people living in Provo, including children! It also appears that the Department operates on its own enterprise fund, which I think is interesting. Supporting Document Presentation only. An interesting question was posed to the Council for future deliberation. We are at the tail end of steep utility rate adjustments to make up for the 20+ years of no adjustments and under-investment. Typically changes to utility rates happen at the new fiscal year, which for the City is July 1st. July and August are also the peak usage period for several utilities. The question is, should the rate adjustments be delayed a couple of months so the higher rates don't appear at the same time as the seasonal spike.
2. A presentation regarding the Fire Department budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   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. With the City's growth and the cost of inflation, it is remarkable how steady the Fire Department expenses have been. Supporting Document Presentation only. Doing more with less. We do need to make sure we aren't repeating the same mistakes with the Fire Department as we did with our utilities. We have recently invested in the rebuild of the Fire Station in northeast Provo and are currently planning to rebuild the central Fire Station.
3. A presentation regarding the Development Services budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   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. I curious how their experience has been outsourcing some of the building plan reviews. Supporting Document Presentation only. I forgot to ask how their experience has been outsourcing the review of some building plans. I'll have to send an email.
4. A presentation regarding the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   The information is presented to inform the upcoming budget discussions. The supporting document can be found here: https://www.provo.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=18098 See the Full Plan for 147 pages of infrastructure goodness. It's a lot of work to get through, but you'll gain an appreciation for all that goes into providing services to the people of Provo. You'll have a pretty good idea of what the City will be up to for the next 5 years. Presentation only. The original link in our document packet was to last year's plan. I didn't realize it as I read through the massive document. I just thought that it was giving information on current projects to provide context. I learned that it was the wrong version the day before the meetings and read the new document. As frustrating as it was to study the wrong document, it did provide insight into how these plans evolve from year to year.
5. A presentation regarding the Public Works budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   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 utility rate hikes have been steep over the past 5 years to make up for the decades where there were no increases even to keep up with inflation. The budgets are full of deferred maintenance and make-up projects. Presentation only. Much of the discussion focused on Aquifer Storage and Recovery, but we also talked about the Airport, streets, and other things.
6. A discussion regarding Parking Coordinator staffing options. (21-043)
   In the Council Meeting on March 2, 2021, the Council reaffirmed their policies related to parking management. Part of the City's Strategic Parking Plan involves having a full-time parking coordinator. Several years ago, that position was reduced to half-time and was matched with the part-time sustainability coordinator due to budget constraints. The Council expressed an interest in restoring the parking coordinator role to full-time. The Administration has worked with the Council's Parking Committee to evaluate options for accelerating the decision to restore the parking coordinator role to full-time. The goal is to review the options provided by the Administration, select one, and schedule a public hearing/appropriation for March 30, 2021. The Administration has proposed three options to address our vote two weeks ago. The Parking Committee (which I serve on) reviewed the options and equally supported Options 2 and 3. A motion to request that the Administration move forward with hiring a full-time parking coordinator as illustrated in option 3 and to schedule the required appropriation for a Council Meeting as soon as is practicable was approved 7:0. This should capture the current momentum in parking and not deprive Community and Neighborhood Services of the resources they need to accomplish their other roles.
7. A presentation regarding feedback from the Open City Hall survey on trails and a discussion regarding a resolution of support for the Forest Service implementing the plan and maintaining the land for public use. (20-040)
   The Foothills Protection Committee would like to thank the public for their enthusiastic participation in the Open City Hall Provo Area Trails Plan survey. The survey received 438 visitors and 122 responses. Support for the trails plan as proposed by Utah Valley Trails Association was almost unanimous. Based on these responses, there seems to be broad community support for preserving Provo’s natural spaces while making portions of them more accessible to a wide variety of recreational activities. A full summary of the responses can be found in the attachments for this item. The Foothills Protection Committee would also like to propose a joint resolution of support for the Forest Service's continued ownership and preservation of sensitive lands in Provo's canyons and foothills. I support the proposed resolution's general intent, but I have some questions about specifics and wording. A motion to replace the exhibit with the revised version of the resolution was approved. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 16, 2021. See my report for item 4 in the Work 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 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 842 2740 7162 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 361948.

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

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

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

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



Action Agenda

1. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (21-039)
   Mayor Kaufusi has recommended Samantha Curtis, William Toutai, and Larry Hunt to be appointed to the Parks and Recreation Board. I might sound like a broken record, but Provo is as great as it is because of the volunteerism of its residents. This is particularly true of the high-caliber people who serve on our boards and commissions. I'm grateful for their willingness to serve. Approved 7:0. It was a pleasure to meet these individuals, and I know they will serve well.
2. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of J. Brian Jones as the City Attorney for Provo City. (21-044)
   Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Brian Jones be appointed as the new City Attorney for Provo. Mr. Jones has served as the Interim City Attorney since the retirement of the previous City Attorney, Robert West, last year. For as long as I've been here, Brian Jones has served as the part-time legal counsel for the City Council, on loan from the Administration. It is an arrangement that kept our budget low. It is a testament to his integrity that he has served both branches without any confidentiality concerns. I don't know what the plan is for Council counsel going forward. Approved 7:0. I learned that the Legal Department has the statutory responsibility to provide legal counsel to both the Administration and the Council. These last 5+ years, I saw Brian Jones as "on loan" from the Administration. This has caused an interesting shift in my thinking.
3. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to approve an interlocal agreement with Utah County to conduct a vote-by-mail election for the Municipal Primary and General Elections to be held in Provo City in 2021. (21-041)
   Provo City and Utah County will be working together to administer a vote-by-mail election for the 2021 City Municipal Election. The interlocal agreement specifies the responsibilities for each entity. In summary, Utah County will be responsible for printing and mailing ballots, providing staff and equipment to process and count ballots, providing election returns, and providing postal permits for both outbound and return mail. Provo City will be responsible for administering candidate filings, candidate campaign finance reports, submitting all required notices, and proof of all election programming done for the 2021 City Municipal Election. As of January 4, 2021, there are 46,831 active voters in Provo City. The total cost of the election will not exceed $2.25 per voter, per election. The total estimated cost would not exceed $210,739.50. The interlocal agreement contemplates the possibility of RCV, at least for the general election (the wording seems unclear if this also refers to the primary). If a traditional primary takes place, there is no need for RCV in the general election. If traditional RCV is held, there is no need for the primary. RCV could be used in the primary to select the top two candidates, or the traditional primary could be modified to reduce the number of candidates to some number more than two, and then RCV could be used in the general. Would all of these scenarios be covered by this agreement? Nowhere in the agreement did I see it contemplated that a primary wouldn't be held, even if no more than three candidates filed in any race. Would the City still be charged the full amount if there is no primary, regardless if RCV is used or not? Approved 7:0. Entering into this agreement neither commits to nor precludes us from using ranked-choice voting (RCV) in our election this fall. We will be discussing RCV in our next Work Meeting. If we choose to use RCV, then the City Recorder can either hold an RCV primary where two candidates move forward or skip the primary and hold an RCV general election.
4. A resolution outlining support for the continued ownership and preservation of sensitive lands in the foothills and canyons by the Forest Service. (21-040)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 5 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. The area discussed in the resolution, the mountains and canyons just east of Provo, is a beautiful space enjoyed by many to recreate, get away, and reconnect. The Forest Service is doing a great job administering this area. We want to see it kept public.
5. An ordinance amending the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule to set electric service rates for small cell installations in Provo City, Utah. (21-034)
   Small cell wireless facilities being installed by telecommunications companies require electricity from Provo City in order to operate. This ordinance would establish a new rate for small cell installations. This allows us to charge telecom companies for the electricity that they use to power things like 5G antennas throughout the City. Approved 7:0. This is a non-controversial, all-around win.
6. A resolution appropriating $11,979.76 from General Fund sales tax revenues to the Economic Development Division in the General Fund for a contractual Sales Tax Increment post performance payment to Day's Market. (21-038)
   In early 2018, the Economic Development Office worked with Day's Market to craft a post performance sales tax increment agreement to partially reimburse the Day's Market, located on North Canyon Road. The owners of Day's Market were planning an extensive remodel of their aging store and requested that Provo City assist in reducing the construction costs by entering into a sales tax reimbursement agreement on a post performance basis. Days Market would spend approximately $1.3 million dollars on the interior remodel of the store. Similar to other sales tax agreements, Day's would be able to earn back some of their costs if they produced sales above an established base line -- which in this case was set at $39,800. Based on sales tax information and a calculation, they qualify for sales t We appropriated money for a similar agreement two weeks ago. This is just following through with an agreement we have already entered into. Approved 7:0. This is a small price to pay if, the remodel wouldn't have happened without this tax incentive. This is pretty much a giveaway of tax-payer money, if the remodel would have happened without it.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210046)
   Planning Staff from the Community and Neighborhood Services and Development Services Departments have been meeting with the City Council Sign Committee over the past year in finding ways to improve and update the sign code, specifically in how the electronic sign standards are regulated throughout the City. The Sign Committee has worked through different ideas and moved forward with a proposal that would more clearly define standards for electronic signage and areas where this type of sign should be permitted in Provo. The changes to Title 6 include updating regulations for hold times based on location and the underlying zone. The changes to Title 14 include updating terminology and definitions for hold times, adding residential zones that ban electronic signs, and adjusting corridors that allow electronic displays. In addition to the changes regarding electronic signs, the committee is recommending replacing dated and difficult to manage size charts for signs with new tables which regulate sign size based on lot frontage or wall area. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm still not fully comfortable with where our code will be at after these changes are made, but I'm to the point where I can support this proposal and trust that the committee will follow through and address the other outstanding concerns. Per Council rule, this item was continued for a second hearing. Nothing I read or heard when discussing this item changed my support for it. I will be discussing my lingering concerns with the sign committee.
8. A resolution transferring $1,900,000 from the Legacy CIP Fund to various funds and appropriating the transferred funds for the purposes described herein. (21-037)
   The Administration recommends the following transfers from the Legacy CIP Fund: $1,000,000 to the Parks CIP Fund and $900,000 to the Economic Development CIP Fund. The Administration also recommends the following appropriations: $1,000,000 in the Parks CIP Fund for Canyon Road Park and $900,000 in the Economic Development CIP Fund to be used to attract a west side grocery retailer. I wouldn't mind if the Parks LOS (level of service) maps were a bit more finalized, but from what I've seen, I'm comfortable moving forward with the $1M for the Canyon Road Park. I'm not thrilled about the cries for the City to follow through with their promises, when I raised my concerns about what was being said at the time and made clear that I was voting on the written agreement that was before us and not on what may or may not have been discussed verbally.
   
   I still need to be convinced that the $900K is needed and will provide value. I was under the impression that the zone change is what was needed to break the log jam, so why don't we see if that is true before committing public money to grease the skids? I thought that we would have a Work Meeting discussion on the rest of the CARES-freed money before being asked to vote on it in a Council meeting. Approved 7:0. There was some discussion about whether the $900k was actually needed now that we have the right zoning in place. The Administration committed to only spend what was necessary to attract the grocer, so it'll be interesting to see how much, if any, of the $900k is returned.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

9. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to sign an Assignment Agreement and an Amendment to the existing Lease Agreement with Liberty George Provo, LLC for a parking structure in Provo Town Square. (21-042)
   The Redevelopment Agency contributed funding and property for the construction of the parking structure currently behind the Provo Town Square buildings. We also signed a Lease Agreement for the property on which the parking structure is located. The Lease requires the owner of the building to maintain the structure. The current owners plan to sell their property, including the parking structure, to Liberty George Provo, LLC. This resolution would authorize the Chief Executive Officer of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to sign the Amendment and Assignment agreements with Liberty George Provo, LLC for the lease of Agency-owned property for the Parking Structure at Provo Town Square. Wow. I have a ton of questions after having read through the legal documents. I don't pretend to understand all of it, but there are some very concerning aspects. I'm going to need to be convinced that this is in the public's best interest and aligned with the policies and goals of the City. Approved 7:0. The process broke down on this item. We were ill-prepared to make an informed decision, and the timing was such that we did not have a realistic way to not approve the agreements that evening without jeopardizing a much larger deal. The Council needs to investigate what allowed this breakdown to occur and what steps should be taken to prevent it from happening again.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 2 March 2021

The evening Council Meeting is lighter than most, but the afternoon Work Meeting is the typical load. The discussion on the money freed up by the CARES money may be the most interesting one to watch, but I'm excited for the discussion on parking management policy.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding Community & Neighborhood Services fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   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 next three departments will be presenting to the Council regarding their work and their requests for the upcoming budget year. Presentation only. Coming out of the hiring freeze, there are needs to fill positions in Zoning Compliance.
2. A presentation regarding the Parks and Recreation Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   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. Presentation only. The Parks and Rec department was able to thrive even during the pandemic. The biggest fiscal uncertainty for the coming year is how would a hike in the minimum wage affect this department that has over 700 part-time and seasonal employees? Read this Daily Herald article for more details.
3. A presentation regarding Administrative Services for Finance, Justice Court, and Facilities for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   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. Presentation only. These are mostly behind-the-scene operations that are critical in facilitating the delivery of other services to our residents. Their competent execution generally keeps the spotlight focused elsewhere, though changes to operational procedure disrupted the work of the Justice Court.
4. A presentation regarding Fiscal Year 2022 General Fund Revenue Projections. (21-015)
   During the months of January and February, the Finance Division does an analysis of current revenue trends and also works with staff from various departments to calculate fiscal year end projections for the current year General Fund revenues. This is done as part of the budget process and helps guide the development of the next year's budgeted revenue numbers. This effort helps define the parameters that we will be working with during the budget process. Presentation only. Continued improvements in the collection and distribution of online sales taxes allowed Provo to weather the pandemic without too much fiscal disruption.



Administration: Mayor's Update

5. A presentation regarding the Legacy CIP funds and the future allocation of those funds. (21-037)
   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. At the February 16, 2021, meeting while allocating some of the funds there was a discussion on how the Administration made the decision to fund certain projects and not others. As part of that meeting the Council asked for the Administration to return to a future Work Meeting to discuss the process, in addition, discuss how the rest of the funds will be allocated. Regular readers will recognize this item from two weeks ago when the Council appropriated $4M of the $6M that the Administration proposed for the $8M freed up by CARES money. I imagine that we'll be discussing the other $2M that the Administration proposed and the remaining $2M. Presentation only. This item will be brought to a future Council Meeting. I'm thrilled to see a level-of-service map for neighborhood parks in Provo. It highlights some gaps in service in northeast Provo. I still need to be convinced that the $900K for the west Provo grocer will be impactful. The largest outstanding issue is what to do with the remaining almost $2M in one-time money.
6. A presentation regarding a budget appropriation regarding the Sales Tax Increment reimbursement post performance payment to Days Market. (21-038)
   In early 2018 the Economic Development Office worked with Days Market to craft a post performance sales tax increment agreement to partially reimburse the Days Market, located on North Canyon Road. The owners of Days Market were planning an extensive remodel of their aging store and requested that Provo City assist in reducing the construction costs by entering into a sales tax reimbursement agreement, on a post performance basis. Days Market would spend approximately $1.3 Million dollars on the interior remodel of the store. Similar to other sales tax agreements, Days would be able to earn back some of their costs, if they produced sales above an established base line - which is $39,800. Based on sales tax information and a calculation, they qualify for sales tax reimbursement of $11, 979.76 for fiscal year 2020. This is a ten year agreement. The appropriation will be heard at the March 16 Council meeting. This is similar to the sales tax incentive reports we received two weeks ago for the ROSS property. Presentation only. This item will be brought to a future Council Meeting. Again, this is part of an agreement that we already entered into.
7. A presentation regarding the Small Cell Rate/Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. (21-034)
   Discuss a new rate for Small Cell Installations and propose a rate for the electric vehicle charging stations. Small Cell Installations are currently negotiated under contract. It's likely an administrative decision to charge for the electric vehicle charging stations but would like to discuss with the Council. They have been free for four years and it is time to start charging the average residential rate of $0.11/kwh. These seem like reasonable proposals. My bigger concern is the reliability of the electric vehicle charging stations. Presentation only. This item will be brought to a future Council Meeting. Charging stations can be convenient for Provo residents needing an occasional fast charge, but the greatest benefit is to people visiting Provo who need to recharge while they are here. Generally, they are happy to pay a reasonable rate for the electricity they receive, and it makes sense for the City to charge them.



Business

8. A presentation regarding Provo City’s Master Parking Plan. (21-035)
   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 review the plan to see if the objectives are being met. This is a continuation of the discussion that started four weeks ago. The Administration is interested to see if the Council still supports the implementation of the Strategic Parking Management Plan. I will be leading the discussion to verify the support for the Plan and subsequent policies enacted by the Council. If there is still support, I will try to determine if there is support for jump-starting the implementation of these plans and policies. A motion reaffirming the Council’s support of the current parking policies and visioning documents as discussed (2015 Strategic Parking Management Plan, 2017 Parking Vision and Guidelines/Principles, and 2019 Downtown Parking Policy & Downtown Parking Vision) and to signal support to the Administration that they move forward with implementation of these policies immediately was approved 7:0. I am hopeful that we have everyone on the same page now and can make some solid progress on implementing the Strategic Parking Management Plan.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately .30 acres of real property, generally located at 619 N. 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RR) to Professional Office (PO) Zone. North Park Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210022)
   This property, although designated as Commercial in the General Plan, has been zoned RC since 2002. The RC zone was established to “encourage conservation of existing housing by limiting the use of a given lot or parcel to the legal use existing on April 2, 2002.” The property was built as a commercial office space in 1980 and has operated as such throughout its life. The owners inquired of the City what would be needed to remodel the building and provide a new covered entry on the south side of the structure. Development Services staff informed the owners that the current RC zone is very limiting to the use of the land and that a zone change would be beneficial to them and to the City. The surrounding uses include a duplex to the north, an apartment building to the west, and a medical center to the south; all within the RC zone. Across the street to the east is North Park in the Public Facilities (PF) zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. This appears to be a straightforward request. This property should never have been zoned RC. Only now has it become a problem as the owner wants to make a minor improvement to the existing structure. There is no reason I can think of not to support this request.
   
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 2, 2021. See my report on the second item of the evening agenda.



Business

10. A presentation regarding Robert’s Rules of Order. (21-036)
    As part of the ongoing training for the Council, there will be a presentation on Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert's Rules provides rules and procedures that allow a deliberative assembly to make its decisions efficiently, but with all due regard for the rights of the members of the Council. I feel like the Council has a good balance between formality and flexibility that allows our meetings to flow well. Presentation only. These Rules of Order help the Council to operate smoothly, particularly when emotions are running high. Fortunately, we usually keep our emotions in check and can be loosely guided by these formal rules.



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 2, 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.



Action Agenda

1. A resolution regarding the Sales Tax Increment post performance payment with Eastbay Shopping Center LLC (formally 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. As discussed last time, we held the sales tax increment (created by investment into the property) as an incentive. Now that the investment has occurred and the sale tax went up $38k, it is time to appropriate that amount to East Bay Shopping Center, as agreed. Approved 7:0. This is an obligation that we committed to when we entered into the agreement. The amount owed is based on the sales tax increase that they achieve, so the payment amounts aren't known until each year is complete, and then we have to appropriate that amount.
2. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately .30 acres of real property, generally located at 619 N. 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RR) to Professional Office (PO) Zone. North Park Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210022)
   This was item 9 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the afternoon meeting. Approved 7:0. This property never should have been zoned RC, so not only am I happy to rezone it to a proper zone, I joined with the Planning Commission in asking Planning Staff to bring forward a proposal to rezone all similar properties along this stretch of State Street.
3. 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 had a first hearing at the February 16 Council meeting. The developer has proffered an agreement that appears to address concerns regarding traffic congestion and flow at the start and end of the school day. Approved 5:2, with George Handley and Shannon Ellsworth opposed. I feel that there were two key questions: (1) Is this the right development at this location and (2) should the Council hold off on a rezone if there are separate legal or technical issues that could prevent the proposed development from occurring. I voted for the rezone because I believe that (1) this is the right development for this location and (2) it is appropriate to rezone even if there are outstanding issues as long as the developer proffers a development agreement. After all, if the legal issues or the technical issues can't be worked out then nothing changes anyway. This decision allows them to move forward only if all of those outstanding issues get resolved. It reduces the uncertainty for the developer and allows them to address the outstanding issues with greater confidence.
   
   

   Adjournment