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