PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda
12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 30, 2021
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
Business
Closed Meeting
Adjournment
PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda
5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 30, 2021
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
Opening Ceremony
Public Comment
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment