Council Meetings - 1 June 2021

Budget, budget, budget. It's that time of year when a good portion of the agendas and our attention are focused on the budget. I'm also looking forward to the discussions on mixed housing types and RDL fees. Here is a quick look at the proposed budget, in a more digestible form.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, June 1, 2021

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

1. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately .25 acres of real property, generally located at 790 West. 500 South, from Residential (R1.6) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210128)
   Mark Boud is requesting a zone map amendment from the R1.6A zone to the VLDR zone for a two-lot subdivision of land in the Franklin Neighborhood. The current zone, R1.6A, is just short of allowing a lot split since each lot in that zone is required to have a minimum lot area of six-thousand square feet and the total lot area of the existing lot is just over eleven-thousand square feet. With the VLDR zone each lot would only need an area of five-thousand square feet. The concept Mr. Boud is proposing shows a new single-family home on each new lot, with one facing 500 South and the other facing 800 West. The proposed lot lines shown would meet lot standards for the VLDR zone and allow the existing garage on the property to remain. Planning Commission recommended approval. Development Services Staff and the Planning Commission continue to recommend a steady stream of rezoning requests in the Franklin Neighborhood that call for rezoning R1.6A to LDR or VLDR. I continue to be uncomfortable with these recommendations because I feel that these proposals are not aligned with the relatively new Franklin Neighborhood Plan. I actually voted against adopting the Franklin Neighborhood Plan because I didn't think it included enough areas of LDR. But the residents fought against any more LDR and the rest of the Council agreed with them. So I actually agree that this request is a good thing, but out of principle, I think we should follow the adopted plan. If the plan is wrong, then it should be updated. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 1, 2021.
   

   Business

2. A presentation regarding the Fire Master Plan. (21-069)
   Provo City Fire and Rescue have been working on a Fire Master Plan, the work is completed Chief Miguel and Bill Boyd, from Emergency Services Consulting International, will be presenting the 2021 Fire Department Master Plan. This is a 157-page report, but I have to say it is a more interesting read than many similar reports. I have not had time to read it fully, but I will before we actually vote on it at a future date. Presentation only.
3. A presentation regarding Provo 360. (21-065)
   Since its launch in 2013, the City's project team has been working on Provo360, a software upgrade which would facilitate the integration of various City services and also help residents access those services more easily. The program is expected to enhance the customer experience, improve efficiency, increase transparency, empower stewardship, and promote innovation. The Provo360 project is intended to have a 10-year adoption plan. This item is to provide the Council with an update on Provo360 implementation. It's crazy to think that it has almost been ten years that we've been implementing the conversion. How much of our system even existed ten years before we started the conversion? Presentation only.
4. A presentation regarding proposed changes to the FY 2022 budget initiated by the Council at the May 25, 2021 Work Meeting. (21-015)
   In regard to action taken by the Council in the May 25, 2021 Work Meeting, changes are proposed for adoption in the final version of the Budget for FY 2022. The Provo City Budget for FY 2022 will receive two public hearings: the first on June 1st and the second on June 15th. The proposed changes are: 1. One parking officer and one part-time support staff and add Parking revenue to match the expense. 2. Include $21,250 in the budget for the two CNS supplemental requests. I am hopeful that these changes will allow our parking and zoning compliance officers to get a better handle on violations occuring across our community. Presentation only.
5. A presentation regarding changes to the FY 2022 Provo City Fee Schedule (21-015)
   As part of the FY 2022 budget the Council needs to adopt a Consolidated Fee Schedule. The Consolidated Fee Schedule is an exhibit for the ordinance adopting the FY 2022 Provo City Budget. The Fee Schedule includes all the rate increases for Provo Utilities as well as any other fees that will be increasing in the coming fiscal year. This presentation is for the purposes of discussing any proposed changes. The vast majority of fees and rates are staying the same. The most significant changes are in wastewater (~10%). There is another adjustment to culinary water as well (~5%). Presentation only.
6. A presentation regarding a Local Government Disaster Fund. (21-066)
   There has been a discussion about creating a Local Government Disaster Fund as authorized in UCA 53-2a-605. Creation of a Local Government Disaster Fund would be used to fund the services and activities of the local government in response to a declared disaster within the boundaries of the local government, the aftermath of the disaster within the boundaries of the local government, and emergency preparedness (it cannot spend more than 10% of the money budgeted to be deposited during a fiscal year for emergency preparedness). The State's Disaster Recovery Fund will make loans to local governments on preferential rates depending on the amount reserved in the fund over the five previous fiscal years; the local government must reserve at least 50% of the amount authorized in UCA 53-2a-605 over the previous five fiscal years to qualify for a loan. That number is based on a percentage of the total estimated revenues of the local government for the current fiscal period that are not restricted or otherwise obligated. There are a few issues that might be discussed: 1. Creation of a Local Government Disaster Fund itself 2. How to fund it. 3. How much should the fund balance should be. If the Council decides to create the Disaster Fund the Finance Department would be asked to come back to the Council in a future meeting to discuss the funding options as well as what the maximum fund balance should be. I support the creation of a Disaster Recovery Fund. I think it is prudent for the State to require such a fund of local governments before State loans will be made. This encourages local governments to be self-reliant and not just expect the State or Federal Governments to fix things when there are problems. On the local side, I think it is prudent for the City to establish and maintain a Recovery fund in order to be prepared to respond to emergencies. Presentation only.
7. A presentation regarding Property Taxes (21-064)
   As part of the FY 2022 budget discussions, a suggestion was made that additional police officers could be added if the city were to increase property tax revenues by increasing the certified tax rate by some amount. It was noted that property taxes have not been raised for several years and that the property tax portion of total general revenues is diminishing in significance. Staff will present an overview of state laws governing property tax increases (Truth in Taxation), an estimation of the amount of property in Provo City that is subject to property tax, and projected revenues a rate increase would generate. Should the Council wish to increase property tax revenues by increasing the certified tax rates, a motion to make the changes and to initiate a truth in taxation process will be needed. Because of Utah's "Truth in Taxation" laws, property tax rates generally fall unless city councils proactively adjust the tax rate. Provo has only done one such "adjustment" in the last couple of decades. Our certified property tax rate for that goes towards the General Fund has dropped 33% from 1998 to 2016. A motion to continue to collect information about proceeding with the Truth in Taxation process for an inflation compensation adjustment to property tax rates was approved 7:0.
8. A discussion regarding the Residential Dwelling License Program. (21-063)
   Currently the cost for a Residential Dwelling License (RDL)is $20.00 (twenty dollars) and no more than $60.00 (sixty dollars), the difference is determined by how many properties a license holder has. There are 2,713 RDL’s in Provo that are projected to generate $150,000 for FY 2022. The cost associated with administering the program is estimated to be $100.00 (one hundred dollars) per license. We are asking the Council for direction in reevaluating how costs for the licenses are assigned to ensure that the program is operating at a cost recovery model and not taking funds from the General Fund. A Residential Dwelling License is basically a business license, and supports and helps regulate a commercial activity. I agree that the fees should cover the cost of the program, and I would support using these fees to increase the frequency that inspections take place. Too often, we hear complaints that rental properties fall below minimum health and safety standards. A motion to request staff assistance in drafting a proposal for adjusting the RDL fees to make the fee revenue-neutral was approved 7:0.
9. A discussion regarding Budget Intent Statements for FY 2022. (21-015)
   The Council has had previous discussions concerning budget priorities, carryover funds, supplemental requests and the use of federal recovery funds. In creating a Budget Intent Statement, it gives the public and the administration an understanding how the Council thinks revenue should be spent and the priority given to programs within the City. In this item, staff will present and discuss the various parts of the proposed budget ordinance and seek direction on any changes requested or proposed by the Council. Any additional intentions should also be discussed at this time. The main thing that I learned from the Carry-over Committee is that we should be setting some goals and metrics when we appropriate new money and ask the reports on the impact that that money had. Presentation only.
10. A presentation from the Foothills Protection Committee. (21-068)
    Currently, Community and Neighborhood Services is overseeing a General Plan update. Recently the Council approved an expenditure to expand the Scope of Work for the contractor on the General Plan to include a section on Sustainability. The Foothills Protection Committee is making a presentation regarding the possible expansion of the Scope of Work for the General Plan to include sections covering plans for the Foothills and Canyons, Gateways, and possibly Lakes and Rivers. We've been discussing this for a while, and I've liked where it has been headed. It feels like we've almost worked out the details. Presentation only.
11. A presentation regarding the Intent Statement for the Southwest Area Plan. (21-067)
    This will be a discussion about the Southwest Area Plan and the policies developed by the Westside Planning Committee. As development keeps happening in the Southwest Area of Provo we need to look at the policies that govern this area these include the General Plan, Westside Development Policies and the Southwest Area Future Land Use Map, to ensure that development in this area proceeds in a manner that is consistent with adopted Council Policies. In 2017 the Council adopted the "Westside Development Policies," and later, a Future Land Use map was created, which visualized how these policies would be applied. Since then, there has been some disagreement about how "granular" the policy on housing-type mixture should be. This Intent Statement would clarify the Council's position on this issue and also touches on two related issues. Presentation only. This item was continued to the Work Meeting on June 15, 2021.



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, June 1, 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 828 4735 9319 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 650034.

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 $140,000 in the Ice Sheet Fund for Replacement of a Zamboni. (21-058)
   With the support of the local leaders, a lot of hard work, and our ability to operate in a safe manner throughout the COVID year, the Peaks Ice Arena was able to exceed revenue goals by a substantial amount. In 2010 and 2011, the Peaks Ice Arena acquired two Zamboni machines for the purpose of ice resurfacing. Industry standard, hours of usage, and potential health concerns, all suggest that it is time to replace one of the Zamboni machines. Parks and Recreation would like to appropriate $140,000 of these additional revenues towards this operationally critical equipment replacement. Both ice resurfacing machines were purchased within a year of each other. The hours for both machines suggest that they have had good usage and are at an appropriate age to sell back to the manufacturer. The 520 model has 5,406.7 hours and the 545 model has 6,549.3 hours of usage. Similar equipment used in the parks department is replaced roughly every 2,000 to 4,000 hours or every seven years.
   
   Both of the Peaks Zambonis have been in use for the past ten years and are over the amount of hours standard in replacement cycles. In the summer of 2019 we had a complete engine rebuild of the 520 machine. The Zambonis are kept up to date on their routine maintenance, nevertheless, parts do break and repairs are needed to keep them continually running. In a year we average over 2,700 ice resurfaces per Zamboni. As the machines age, the amount of upkeep, down time and cost increase. Currently, in their well maintained and functional state, we could also see a cost benefit of trading in a Zamboni.
   
   In recent years, there is a growing concern with running fossil-fueled equipment indoors. The emissions from the burning fuels indoors have been linked nationally to respiratory issues for some. In many north eastern states there are emissions rules and regulations requiring testing and appropriate emission checks in order to continue operations. With the increased cost of maintenance, the health benefits from moving to an electric machine and the financial ability to do so, there couldn’t be a better time to purchase a new Zamboni for the Peaks Ice Arena. In order for us to continue providing the expected arena operations at an “Olympic Level” in a safe and appropriate manner, we 2 are proposing replacement of one ice resurfacer for a newer electric model. Our end goal is to offset the purchase of a second Zamboni for another three to four years so both machines will not have to be replaced at the same time. Staggering the purchases and allowing us to run two reliable machines. We saw this two weeks ago in our Work Meeting. I support the request and feel it is the responsible thing to do on several fronts. Approved 7:0.
2. An Ordinance Adopting a Budget for Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2021 and Ending June 30, 2022, in the amount of $303,469,053. (21-015)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. I highly recommend the FY'22 Provo Citizen's Budget Document which tries to present the budget in a more user-friendly way. Public hearing only. This item is scheduled for a second public hearing at the Council Meeting on June 15, 2021.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

3. A Resolution Adopting a Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2021 and Ending June 30, 2022, in the amount of $1,184,648. (21-015)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. The RDA version of the previous item. Public hearing only. This item is scheduled for a second public hearing at the Council Meeting on June 15, 2021.




Stormwater Service District Governing Board

4. A Resolution Adopting a Budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the Amount of $5,068,938 for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2021 and Ending June 30, 2022. (21-015)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. The SSD version of the previous item. Public hearing only. This item is scheduled for a second public hearing at the Council Meeting on June 15, 2021.




Action Agenda

5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately .25 acres of real property, generally located at 790 West. 500 South, from Residential (R1.6) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210128)
   This was item 1 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item 1 in the work meeting. A motion to substitute the version of the ordinance to include a development agreement was approved, after which the ordinance was approved 6:1, with David Harding opposed.




Adjournment

Passing the Baton (eventually)

I have decided against seeking another term on the Provo City Council. This was a difficult decision for me, made after a lot of soul searching and conversations with family, friends, and colleagues.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have long advocated for multiple good options on the ballot for voters to choose from. I hope that this announcement will encourage others to step up and "toss their hat in the ring."

It is a special honor to be elected by one's neighbors to represent them in the legislative process. We need city councilors who are wise, diplomatic, and will work for the good of the people of Provo. But before we can elect such a person, they need to be on the ballot. There are only two weeks is only one week until the close of the filing period. Who do you think would make a good councilor? Encourage them to run. Consider a run yourself. I'm happy to meet with any interested potential candidate to discuss what it is like.

My term runs until the end of the year, and by not running I'll be able to focus on completing some multi-year efforts, or at least getting them on a clear path to success. I'll be updating this "Final Year Dashboard" to track how these efforts progress during this final year. I hope to have more green checkmarks than red x's by the end.

There will be plenty of time for goodbyes at the end of the year. Right now there is still a lot of work to be done.

[edit: Sorry, I had lost track of time, there was only ONE week until the close of the filing period. The filing period is NOW OPEN --1 Jun 21]

Council Meetings - 18 May 2021

The one-week candidate filing period for Provo's mayoral and council races opens at the beginning of June. Who would you like to represent you and lead the city's administration? Encourage them to run or consider making the run yourself!

Budget, budget, budget, that's the theme this time of year. I am also looking forward to the report on how the utility billing issues were handled and the update on the Google Fiber agreement. I'm thinking that the cannabis proposal would be the most controversial, but I really haven't heard any feedback either way from the public.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding utility billing. (21-062)
   During the October 6, 2020 Work Meeting the Council received an update to the issues surrounding the implementation of the new billing system. The new system had caused some errors with utilities billing and the Administration was working on correcting those errors. This is a follow up to those discussions and an update on the utilities billing system. I know there was a lot of frustration among utility customers who faced billing errors and difficulties. I appreciate the Administration taking accountability to identify, resolve, learn from, and report back on the issues. Presentation only. Based on the feedback I received when I reached out on social media, this troubled chapter is mostly behind us. I appreciated how the Administration took accountability for the problems, investigated the root causes, and documented the lessons learned. No government body is perfect, or any other organization for that matter, but this approach helps Provo City provide good value and customer experiences for our residents.
2. A presentation regarding Google Fiber. (21-008)
   Provo City and Google Fiber entered into a purchase and operational agreement in 2014 under the John Curtis Administration. As a part of that agreement, free basic service was provided to all Provo residents for a period of seven years. That seven-year arrangement is beginning to terminate, and Google Fiber is transitioning to other service offerings. We last discussed Google Fiber in a public meeting in January. Though the looming end of the contract wasn't the main focus of January's item, it was talked about. This appears to be a follow-up discussion, and hopefully, we will have more details. As I said back in January, I feel that Google Fiber has been a good partner in our community, and I look forward to further collaboration in areas that will benefit the people of Provo. Presentation only. The new fee structure between the City and the Utility is sustainable. The cable-like TV service is phasing out for streaming services. Customers of the 7-year-free, 5/5 service are being encouraged to migrate to the $30/month, 50/50 service.
3. A Resolution Appropriating $140,000 in the Ice Sheet Fund for Replacement of a Zamboni. (21-058)
   With the support of the local leaders, a lot of hard work, and our ability to operate in a safe manner throughout the COVID year, the Peaks Ice Arena was able to exceed revenue goals by a substantial amount. In 2010 and 2011, the Peaks Ice Arena acquired two Zamboni machines for the purpose of ice resurfacing. Industry standard, hours of usage, and potential health concerns, all suggest that it is time to replace one of the Zamboni machines. Parks and Recreation would like to appropriate $140,000 of these additional revenues towards this operationally critical equipment replacement.
   
   Both ice resurfacing machines were purchased within a year of each other. The hours for both machines suggest that they have had good usage and are at an appropriate age to sell back to the manufacturer. The 520 model has 5,406.7 hours and the 545 model has 6,549.3 hours of usage. Similar equipment used in the parks department is replaced roughly every 2,000 to 4,000 hours or every seven years. Both of the Peaks Zambonis have been in use for the past ten years and are over the amount of hours standard in replacement cycles. In the summer of 2019 we had a complete engine rebuild of the 520 machine. The Zambonis are kept up to date on their routine maintenance, nevertheless, parts do break and repairs are needed to keep them continually running. In a year we average over 2,700 ice resurfaces per Zamboni. As the machines age, the amount of upkeep, down time and cost increase. Currently, in their well maintained and functional state, we could also see a cost benefit of trading in a Zamboni.
   
   In recent years, there is a growing concern with running fossil-fueled equipment indoors. The emissions from the burning fuels indoors have been linked nationally to respiratory issues for some. In many north eastern states there are emissions rules and regulations requiring testing and appropriate emission checks in order to continue operations. With the increased cost of maintenance, the health benefits from moving to an electric machine and the financial ability to do so, there couldn’t be a better time to purchase a new Zamboni for the Peaks Ice Arena. In order for us to continue providing the expected arena operations at an “Olympic Level” in a safe and appropriate manner, we 2 are proposing replacement of one ice resurfacer for a newer electric model. Our end goal is to offset the purchase of a second Zamboni for another three to four years so both machines will not have to be replaced at the same time. Staggering the purchases and allowing us to run two reliable machines. It is great to talk of higher than budgeted revenues, and I love to see the hard work of our Parks and Recreation staff paying off in the value that Provo residents get out of these facilities. How great is it to be able to fund purchases like this from revenues over the budget? But we are very conservative with both our projected revenues and our budgeted expenses. In addition to knowing that this is being requested from "additional revenues," it will be helpful to understand how the Ice Arena revenues compare to the expenditures. I have other questions: which of the two machines would be replaced first (the one with higher mileage or the one without the rebuilt engine)? And would the new, electric Zamboni split the ice time evenly with the old one, or, because of indoor air quality concerns, would the older Zamboni just act as backup? Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on June 1, 2021. If I understood the presentation correctly, the Ice Sheet doesn't have an operational subsidy.
4. A discussion regarding Elected Officials Compensation. (21-026)
   At the April 20, 2021 Council Meeting, the Chair of the quadriennal Elected Officials Compensation Commission reported its recommendations on Mayoral and Council member compensation. Report. Based on a review of Mayoral and Council member compensation for Utah cities with greater than 85,000 population and recognizing the complexity of leading city like Provo, which includes a wide range of services, the Commission recommended that the Mayor's salary be raised to $130,000 per year, and that the Council member salary be raised to $21,000 per year. The Commission also looked at the expenses stipends paid to Council members and proposed an increase to each kind. The general expense paid to all council members increases to $125 per month, the communications expense rises to $150 per month, and the stipends paid to the Council Chair and Vice Chair increases to $125 and $85 respectively. If the Council adopts ordinances adopting these recommendations, the new compensation levels would affect pay and expenses beginning in January 2022. The Council may also reduce or refuse any changes. The proposed increases are reflected in the Mayor’s tentative proposed budget for FY 2022. I've actually received more public feedback (1) suggesting the compensation is still too low than people (0) arguing for lower compensation. It still feels weird to receive any compensation because all of my former civic roles, neighborhood chair, school community council, various committees, and task forces, have all been strictly unpaid volunteer work. But there is no question that this "part-time" role as city councilor has taken far more time and effort and has taken not just "personal" time but time away from my "day job." I am a big fan of the process we have in place for a thorough review by the Elected Officials Compensation Commission made up of respected individuals from our community. I will support their recommendations. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 18, 2021. See my report for items 2 and 3 in the evening meeting.
5. A discussion on the tentative budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. (21-015)
   Each year, the Stormwater Special Service District submits a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. This year, the expected FY2022 budget for the Stormwater Service District is $5,729,347. This will be heard at the evening Council meeting. Because Stormwater is technically a separate "service district" (though its boundaries are the same as the city's), their budget is separate from the main budget. But that doesn't affect how it gets evaluated. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 18, 2021. See my report for item 6 in the evening meeting.
6. A discussion on tentatively adopting a tentative budget for Redevelopment Agency of the Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. (21-015)
   Each year, the Redevelopment Agency submits a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. This year, the expected FY2022 budget for the Redevelopment Agency is $1,184,648. This will be heard at the evening Council meeting. Because the Redevelopment Agency is technically a separate entity, their budget is separate from the main budget. But that doesn't affect how it gets evaluated. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 18, 2021. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting.
7. A discussion on tentatively adopting the tentative budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. (21-015)
   This is a step in the budget process as required by Section10-6-111(3) of the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities. Upon completion of this step, the Council will then have public hearings on June 1, 2021, and June 15, 2021, where they will formally adopt the budget, unless the Council opts for a Truth-in-Taxation meeting. In that case, the timeline would be extended into August. The expected amount for the Provo City Budget adoption is $331,746,989, with the General Fund expected to be $73,462,814. This will be heard at the evening Council meeting. This is such a massive undertaking, but I feel that we are making good progress. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 18, 2021. See my report for item 4 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 18, 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 826 1222 9774 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 380412.

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 $112,162 in the Ice Sheet Fund from Ice Sheet Fund Balance for Turf Replacement at Peaks Ice Arena. (21-058)
   The turf field at Peaks Ice Arena is the only public indoor turf field in Provo. Patrons are able to train year-round on the synthetic turf field. It is an ideal space for soccer, lacrosse, football, baseball, and other activities. The turf field at the Peaks Ice Arena generates close to $200,000 annually. The turf field is 200 ft. by 80 ft. Installed approximately 10 years ago, the turf is in need of replacement. The seams are separating causing potential safety hazards and the beads are hardening and losing their cushion. Given the industry standard for a field of this kind, we are well past the lifespan of the material. We would like to use fund balance to replace this indoor turf at the arena with a newer and safer surface. This turf diversification and annual revenue is key to the successful operation of the arena. We heard this item two weeks ago in the Work Meeting. I support the request. It is interesting to compare this funding method to the funding method for the new Zamboni that will be proposed in the Work Meeting earlier in the day. Approved 7:0. This money is coming out of a fund set up for this kind of maintenance and replacement.
2. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Mayoral Compensation. (21-026)
   This was item 4 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 4 in the earlier Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. We have a robust process in place with the Elected Officials Compensation Commission, and I voted to implement their recommendations.
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Municipal Council Members' Compensation. (21-026)
   This was item 4 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 4 in the earlier Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. We have a robust process in place with the Elected Officials Compensation Commission, and I voted to implement their recommendations.
4. A resolution tentatively adopting the tentative budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. (21-015)
   This was item 7 in the Work Meeting. The tentative adoption just signals to the public that this is the budget that we are working from. We will have two more public hearings before we consider final adoption. A motion to amend the implied motion to refer to a new resolution with an adjusted budget total was approved 7:0, after which the implied motion to adopt the resolution was approved 7:0. We "tentatively adopted the tentative budget" after a few minor clerical corrections. The tentative budget has been described as signaling to the public that this is the budget draft that we will be working from as we go into the two public hearings in June before adopting the final budget.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

5. A resolution tentatively adopting a tentative budget for Redevelopment Agency of the Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. (21-015)
   This was item 6 in the Work Meeting. The tentative adoption just signals to the public that this is the budget that we are working from. We will have two more public hearings before we consider final adoption. Approved 7:0. We "tentatively adopted the tentative budget" after a few minor clerical corrections. The tentative budget has been described as signaling to the public that this is the budget draft that we will be working from as we go into the two public hearings in June before adopting the final budget.




Stormwater Service District Governing Board

6. A resolution tentatively adopting a tentative budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. (21-015)
   This was item 5 in the Work Meeting. The tentative adoption just signals to the public that this is the budget that we are working from. We will have two more public hearings before we consider final adoption. A motion to amend the implied motion to refer to a new resolution with an adjusted budget total was approved 7:0, after which the implied motion to adopt the resolution was approved 7:0. We "tentatively adopted the tentative budget" after a few minor clerical corrections. The tentative budget has been described as signaling to the public that this is the budget draft that we will be working from as we go into the two public hearings in June before adopting the final budget.




Action Agenda

7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 14.20B. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210026)
   The applicant is requesting an ordinance text amendment to update the current Freeway Commercial Two (FC2) zone specifically to apply to two parcels located north and south of Lakeview Parkway which is currently zoned as A120 and vacant. The proposed amendment will apply to all FC2 zones. The Southwest Neighborhood Land Use Plan encourages this type of development at the location. Planning Commission recommended approval. My understanding is that Planning is now proposing a separate FC3 zone for this area, which leaves FC2 unmodified for the area that currently has that designation. A motion to amend the implied motion to refer to a new ordinance which enacted Chapter 14.20C, rather than amend Chapter 14.20B, was approved 7:0, after which the implied motion to adopt the ordinance was approved 7:0. I had a good meeting with Planning in between the last meeting when this was continued and this meeting. They proposed creating a new zone for the University Avenue interchange rather than modifying the current zone near the Center Street interchange. This alleviated my concerns.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 75 acres of real property, generally located at 500 W. Lakeview Parkway, from Agricultural (A1.20) to Freeway Commercial Two (FC-2). Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210025)
   The applicant is requesting a zone change from Agricultural A1.20 zone to the Freeway Commercial Two (FC2) zone. The proposed rezone is to provide commercial development opportunities north and south of Lakeview Parkway adjacent to the 1-15 off-ramp. The Southwest Neighborhood Land Use Plan encourages this type of development at the location. Customarily, rezone requests are associated with a specific development proposal and are concurrently processed with some project application. In this case, however, no pending development proposal is associated with the rezone request. Rather, this is a proactive measure to alert the development community of the specific types of development that the City does and, equally important, does not want to see on the subject site. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is tied to the previous item. A motion to amend the implied motion to refer to a new ordinance which changed the Zone Map Classification to FC-3, rather than FC-2, was approved 7:0, after which the implied motion to adopt the ordinance was approved 7:0. Once the new zoning was in place, we applied it to the proposed area.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding conditional uses in the Freeway Commercial (FC1) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210000262)
   Brittany Johnson is requesting an ordinance text amendment to the conditional use section of the FC1 zone to add a new conditional use of cannabis production (with certain restrictions). Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. Some good conversations have been happening in the past two weeks, so it'll be interesting to see how this one goes. I know some individuals benefit from medical cannabis. But I also know enough to know how little I understand about all of the forces shaping this issue nationally and at the state level. I would be happy to allow other communities to lead out on this issue. The implied motion to adopt the ordinance failed 3:4, with David Harding, Bill Fillmore, Travis Hoban, and David Sewell opposed. This would have made Provo more attractive for the production and distribution of medical cannabis. We already have one of two distribution centers in the County. I didn't think it was wise to encourage Provo to be a medical cannabis hub.
10. ***CONTINUED*** Tim Metler requests a Zone Change from the RC zone to the Campus Mixed Use (CMU) zone, located from 46 W to 90 W 800 N, to allow for a 63-unit apartment complex. North Park Neighborhood. PLRZ20210112
    This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 4 May 2021

Ranked Choice Voting is something the Provo City Council has been discussing for three years. Tomorrow is our last opportunity to decide to use it in the 2021 election. I wrote a whole other blog post on it today (which is why this post is going up so late).

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, May 4, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding the Quarterly Report for the 2nd Quarter of Fiscal 2021. (21-007)
   A high-level overview of the financial results of the 2nd Quarter of fiscal year 2021. No documents were included for preview. We are presented with these overviews each quarter. Presentation only. This covers the last three months of 2020. With our aggressive yet surgical cuts and our stronger-than-expected economy, Provo City finances continue to be strong.
2. An appropriation of $112,162 in the Ice Sheet Fund for Turf Replacement at Peaks Ice Arena. (21-058)
   The turf field at Peaks Ice Arena is the only public indoor turf field in Provo. Patrons are able to train year-round on the synthetic turf field. It is an ideal space for soccer, lacrosse, football, baseball, and other activities. The turf field at the Peaks Ice Arena generates close to $200,000 annually. The turf field is 200 ft. by 80 ft. Installed approximately 10 years ago, the turf is in need of replacement. The seams are separating causing potential safety hazards and the beads are hardening and losing their cushion. Given the industry standard for a field of this kind, we are well past the lifespan of the material. We would like to use fund balance to replace this indoor turf at the arena with a newer and safer surface. This turf diversification and annual revenue is key to the successful operation of the arena. This makes a lot of sense to me. My only questions are if we have sinking funds to help pay for this time of facility systems maintenance and replacement and if so, how this project fits into that. Presentation only. This item will be returning to the Council Meeting on May 18, 2021. The money will not be coming out of the General Fund balance, but out of the balance of a fund specific for the Ice Arena, so it fits quite nicely into efforts to make the long-term operations and maintenance funding of these facilities more transparent and potentially self-sustaining.
3. A presentation regarding the different types of Fund Accounts the city uses to pay for projects, services, debt and other functions required of the city. (21-015)
   During the budget process the Council has heard about revenues and expenditures being transferred between different Fund Accounts. This presentation is to give the Council information on how revenues from different sources are deposited into Fund Accounts and then transferred out to pay for goods and services required by the city. Five and a half years into my service on the Council and I'm still gaining a deeper appreciation for the nuances of municipal finance. I'm grateful to have been able to lean on the expertise of fellow councilors, but more and more I'm able to follow it on my own. Presentation only. I continue to gain a more nuanced understanding of City finances.
4. A discussion regarding proposed changes to the Council Handbook. (21-060)
   The Provo City Municipal Council Handbook serves as a guide to the Council, its processes and procedures, and is generally consistent with City and State Code. This item is to address four proposed changes:
   1. Require the request of two Council members instead of one to continue an item to the next regularly scheduled meeting;
   2. Address the changed relationship between the City Attorney and the Council;
   3. Enable the funding of other professional services using monies budgeted for the retention of separate legal counsel; and
   4. Update the Council Office hiring process consistent with changes to the Executive Director’s duties.
   I'm supportive of these proposed adjustments. I'm a little confused on the third proposal. I might be missing something, but if we can use funds appropriated for the retention of separate legal counsel for other professional services, then why would we continue to refer to them as funds appropriated for the retention of separate legal counsel? The proposed Council Handbook changes were adopted 6:0, with Shannon Ellsworth excused. To answer my question going in, the legal counsel use is expected to be the primary use and other uses have more rules and steps before approval.
5. A presentation regarding the Sustainability Committee's Annual Update. (21-059)
   Robert Mills and Don Jarvis are planning on a 30 minute discussion on sustainability at a work meeting. Attached is the Citizens' Sustainability Committee Report for 2020 to pass on to the Council in preparation for our discussion. Also, Robert will report on his work as acting Sustainability Coordinator and chair of the Employees' Sustainability Committee. Only the Sustainability Report for 2020 was attached. The amount of progress accomplished by the efforts of volunteers in partnership with the City is remarkable. Presentation only. A lot of good work is being done by a lot of good people.
   
   We had a good discussion about the definition of "sustainability" and what it means to the public. I like this definition, derived from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, "building our community to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." It's really about being good stewards so that our children and grandchildren can inherit a community that is at least as good as the one we inherited. This extends to far more than the environment, to things like the public debts that we are running up.
6. A discussion regarding the hiring of a contractor to complete a Sustainability Plan as part of the General Plan update. (21-059)
   At the March 30, 2021, Work Meeting the Council heard a presentation from Councilor Handley regarding the need for Provo City to have a Sustainability Program. As part of that program, it was discussed about having a Sustainability Plan, and having that plan included as part of the General Plan update process that the city is currently undertaking. It was decided that the Foothills Committee should investigate the different options for having the work completed. After several meetings, the Foothills Committee is making their recommendation regarding the hiring of a contractor to complete a Sustainability Plan as part of the General Plan update. It appears that we will be able to use grant funding to develop the Sustainability Plan for Provo. A motion to approve the proposal from Design Workshop for the change order to do a sustainability plan for Provo City was approved 7:0. This effort will be rolled into the current project to update the City's General Plan.
7. A presentation on Provo City's progress on General Plan goals. (21-061)
   Staff surveyed department directors about progress on the General Plan goals during 2020 and will be providing a summary report indicating changes since 2019. This is such a dense document that it is daunting to even read. Many of these goals are pursued on an ongoing basis by the departments in the City. There are plenty where elected officials (either or both the Mayor and councilors) would need to put some time and effort championing in order to make real progress on, but we only have so much bandwidth and any additional focus on something new will take away from the focus of current items. Presentation only. These implementation goals will need to be revisited once the City's General Plan is updated.
8. A discussion on Rank Choice Voting and the possible use for the 2021 Municipal Elections. (21-047)
   The presentation is a quick overview of the ranked choice voting survey, leading to a discussion by the Council and possibly a vote on whether or not to participate in the pilot project. As a long-time proponent of migrating to better voting methods, I was thrilled to see the level of support shown by the respondents of this survey. I wrote a whole separate blog post with a quick summary of results and responses to some of the comments shared by the respondents. A motion to participate in the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project failed 2:5, with David Shipley, Bill Fillmore, Shannon Ellsworth, David Sewell, and Travis Hoban opposed. I took this loss hard. The rules of our elections shape the feel and nature of our campaigns and elections. There are significant negative impacts to the health of our representative form of democracy because of the plurality method we use in our elections. Ranked Choice Voting isn't perfect, but is far superior to our current method. I still haven't decided if I'm running for re-election this fall, but this loss has made that decision more difficult. More than anything, I want voters to have multiple good options to choose from on the ballot in every race. But the risk of vote-splitting in the primary means having two good but similar candidates hurts both of their chances to move onto the general election. While I was under the hope that we would be using RCV in the primary, I could boldly encourage everyone to consider a run or find someone to run that they think would represent them well. But without RCV, there is a perverse strategy against having many candidates that you like and only a couple that you dislike.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 14.20B. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210026)
   The applicant is requesting an ordinance text amendment to update the current Freeway Commercial Two (FC2) zone specifically to apply to two parcels located north and south of Lakeview Parkway which is currently zoned as A120 and vacant. The proposed amendment will apply to all FC2 zones. The Southwest Neighborhood Land Use Plan encourages this type of development at the location. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is an interesting proposal, and I'm interested to learn more about it. I generally welcome the reuse of zones developed with one area in mind in other areas. The closer the characteristics of the two areas are, the more likely that a zone can be successfully applied to the new area. It is not surprising that some tweaks may need to be made to make it applicable to the new areas.
   
   This proposal is to apply a zone developed as a transition between the freeway and historic Center Street to an area west of the University Ave exit. These areas are quite different. And I'm concerned that the tweaks include changing a maximum building height from 3 stories/50 feet to 15 stories/150 feet. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 4, 2021. See my report for item 2 in the evening meeting.
10. An ordinance amending the General Plan Southwest Area Future Land Use Map designation for approximately 10 acres of real property, generally located approximately at 1850 South 500 West, from LDR to Commercial. Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLGPA20210058)
    The applicant is requesting a general plan amendment to update the current Southwest Future Land Use Map from LDR to Commercial. The proposed amendment will redesignate one parcel approximately 10 acres in size. Planning Commission recommended approval. I think this is a companion item to the last item. I have mixed feelings about it. I'm open to hearing the arguments, though. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 4, 2021. See my report for item 3 in the evening meeting.
11. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 75 acres of real property, generally located at 500 W. Lakeview Parkway, from Agricultural (A1.20) to Freeway Commercial Two (FC-2). Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210025)
    The applicant is requesting a zone change from Agricultural A1.20 zone to the Freeway Commercial Two (FC2) zone. The proposed rezone is to provide commercial development opportunities north and south of Lakeview Parkway adjacent to the 1-15 off-ramp. The Southwest Neighborhood Land Use Plan encourages this type of development at the location. Customarily, rezone requests are associated with a specific development proposal and are concurrently processed with some project application. In this case, however, no pending development proposal is associated with the rezone request. Rather, this is a proactive measure to alert the development community of the specific types of development that the City does and, equally important, does not want to see on the subject site. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm realizing that these three items are part of one big effort. I'm not sure how eliminating the current swath of low density residential on the Future Land Use Map would provide additional transitional setback between the existing neighborhood and the commercial development. Couldn't the low density residential act as that transition? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 4, 2021. See my report for item 4 in the evening meeting.
12. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 0.23 acres of real property, generally located at 734 West 300 South, from Residential (R1.6A) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210059)
    The applicant is requesting to rezone his property from R1.6A to accommodate a subdivision of the property located at 734 W 300 S into two lots. The proposed lots would be smaller than the minimum lot size requirement of the existing zone so the rezone to LDR is needed to accommodate for the smaller lots. The existing single-family home would remain on one of the lots and the other lot would accommodate a new single-family home to be built. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm torn on this question as well. I think we are pushing it by creating a 4000 sqft lot in what is currently an R1.6 zone (which requires 6000 sqft) with no contemplation of this type of change in a fairly recently created neighborhood plan. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 4, 2021. See my report for item 4 in the evening meeting.
13. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding conditional uses in the Freeway Commercial (FC1) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210000262)
    Brittany Johnson is requesting an ordinance text amendment to the conditional use section of the FC1 zone to add a new conditional use of cannabis production (with certain restrictions). Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. I think we should proceed with caution. Do we want to encourage Provo to become a cannibis hub? I have little confidence that recreational cannibis won't be legal sometime in the future. I'm wary of opening a door that we may regret later. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 4, 2021. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 4, 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 876 0822 1940 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 050187.

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 presentation regarding the FY 2021-2022 Tentative Proposed Budget (21-015)
   Over the last few months, the Council has heard presentations from department directors, administration, and finance staff regarding the fiscal year 2021- 2022 budget anticipated revenues, budget needs, and supplemental requests. The Administration has reviewed all pertinent information along with Council's priorities for fiscal year 2021-2022 and presents this tentative proposed budget for the Council's consideration. It is anticipated that the proposed budget will be tentatively adopted on May 18, 2021, and that the final proposed budget will be adopted on June 15, 2021. Public hearings for the budget will be held during the June 1, 2021, and June 15, 2021, Council Meetings. We won't actually get to see the document until the evening Council Meeting. Traditionally we have voted to tentatively adopt the proposed budget at the following meeting and then we will have a month before the budget needs to receive final adoption. Presentation only. There is an odd feeling for this budget cycle. Last year we were at the start of a pandemic and weren't sure how bad it would get. There was so much uncertainty. This year we are at the end of a pandemic and weathered the storm quite well on the whole. The federal government has delivered large amounts of one-time money and is poised to continue to do so. The trick will be to decide how to use that money to provide the greatest value to our residents, who will be paying it back in the form of federal taxes. But our regular, ongoing revenue, is tight and we have some tough decisions to make on which of our pressing needs we want to address.
2. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 14.20B. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210026)
   This was item 9 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. This item was continued by Council rule. The FC2 (Freeway Commercial 2) zone was specifically created for a small area just east of the Center Street interchange. This proposal was to apply it to some land just west of the University Avenue interchange. Several changes were proposed that would make the zone fit with the plan for the area around the University Avenue interchange, but I wasn't convinced that the changes would be good for the Center Street interchange area. At the very least, I don't think the proposal had been sufficiently brought to the public's attention to discuss what impacts the change might have. For example, the limit on the maximum building size was proposed to be increased from 3 stories to 15 stories. I felt that the community should have a chance to become aware and weigh in on such a change.
   
   In subsequent discussions, it was decided that a new zone, FC3, would be created for the area near the University Ave interchange, and no changes are proposed anymore for the area near the Center Street interchange.
3. An ordinance amending the General Plan Southwest Area Future Land Use Map designation for approximately 10 acres of real property, generally located approximately at 1850 South 500 West, from LDR to Commercial. Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLGPA20210058)
   This was item 10 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 10 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. I regret my vote on this one. It had already been a long day and it was shaping up to be a long evening. I worried that constantly being the near-lone voice of opposition to these proposals was using up any political capital that I might have. I had spoken against the proposal, but, in the rotation of calls for votes, it was my turn to vote last and there were already 6 votes in favor, so I went along. My vote wasn't going to change the outcome, and I had serious concerns on later items that I wanted to keep some good will for. But, like I said, I regret my vote on this. We made a change to a carefully crafted and balanced plan, without looking more holistically to how it would impact the plan or our broader housing goals. The plan was balanced to average 4 units to the acre across southwest Provo. We made a change to reduce the number of units, in an area where the roads and other infrastructure could best accommodate them, with no plan for how these units would be absorbed elsewhere. No more commercial was created by the change. The transition from commercial to single-family detached land uses was planned to be single-family attached and now plan is for that transition to be empty space. We just traded housing opportunities for nothing -- empty space behind businesses. Some argued that it wasn't the optimal place to put single-family attached homes. But in a time when home prices have basically doubled in the past few years and our own children are being priced out of our city, we just said that we would prefer to have empty space buffering between existing homes and planned commercial than have (relatively) reasonably-priced homes that is near commercial, near a freeway interchange, near transit, and near schooling and employment opportunities. It may not be the ideal location, but it was pretty close, and it would have been appreciated by the people and families that would have located there.
4. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 75 acres of real property, generally located at 500 W. Lakeview Parkway, from Agricultural (A1.20) to Freeway Commercial Two (FC-2). Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210025)
   This was item 11 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 11 in the Work Meeting. This item was continued by Council rule. Without the buffering rules that were part of the proposed changes to the FC2 zone that were continued two items before, this rezone would have grown the commercial opportunities into the "buffer" area around the existing residential.
5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 0.23 acres of real property, generally located at 734 West 300 South, from Residential (R1.6A) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210059)
   This was item 12 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 12 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. I'm still torn on this item, and am unsettled on whether I should have voted for it. I don't think that this rezone fits with the approved neighborhood plan. It's not too far from the spirit of the plan, but doesn't follow the letter of the plan. I think it will allow for a nice addition to the neighborhood, but the proposal could have been pretty much accomplished by using the existing ADU opportunities. I'm not concerned about this proposal, but I question the precedent of acting in opposition to our plans.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding conditional uses in the Freeway Commercial (FC1) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210000262)
   This was item 13 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 13 in the Work Meeting. This item was continued by Council rule. I probably shouldn't bring other meeting items into this, but where the Council wanted to be extra cautious with RCV and let yet another election cycle pass while sitting on the sideline to see how it played out in yet more neighboring communities, there was less sense of "let's let other communities lead out on making cannabis production and distribution easy and attractive in their cities."




Adjournment

Reviewing the Ranked Choice Voting Responses

The State of Utah is allowing cities to choose to use a different voting method, called Ranked Choice Voting, in elections this fall. This was an option two years ago and two cities opted in and had a positive experience.

Provo is considering whether we will participate in the program this fall. We put this item on Open City Hall to solicit feedback from the community. (We are well aware that this is not a scientifically valid or statistically representative survey. This is just one tool that we use to gather feedback. And the results are just part of the information which we will consider when making our decision.)

I'll briefly share some overall results below (you can see all of the results here). But I am mainly writing this blog post to respond to some of the comments shared by the public in the free-response sections of the survey.

After a brief explanation of the mechanics of Ranked Choice Voting, respondents were asked "How supportive would you be if Provo changed to Ranked Choice Voting (1 is not supportive at all, and 10 is very supportive)". Then four arguments made by people who support RCV were presented and the respondents were again asked to indicate their support. Finally, four arguments made by people who oppose RCV were presented and respondent support was gauged one last time. Here are the results of the registered respondents (unregistered respondents could vote multiple times. I look at all of the results, but I put the most weight behind the registered responses):

The Arguments For moderated the opposition slightly and moved a few neutral people toward support. The Arguments Against moderated the support somewhat and moved a few supportive people to be more neutral. But all-in-all, the post-explanation arguments didn't change support much.

Here is a simpler way to look at it. I combined the bottom three numbers, the middle four options, and the top three:

The takeaway is that, of the people who were aware of the survey and who decided to submit a registered response, there is overwhelming support for Provo using RCV in this fall's election.

But, again, the main purpose of this post is to respond to some of the comments in the free-response sections. The sections followed these two questions: "Are there any thoughts you would like to share about Provo City Elections?" and "Are there any thoughts you would like to share about Ranked Choice Voting?"

Some of the responses are similar to another comment or two. Some of these responses are similar to dozens of other responses.

Candidates for Office

"I am grateful we have people who are willing to run."

I am too. It's not easy to put yourself out there, but we need people to step up!

"The municipal elections are really the only set of elections I look forward to and trust to have direct impacts on my everyday life. As population pressures within Utah Valley continue to push the city to look forward and evolve to meet ongoing and future needs, I have great respect for all of those willing to dedicate time and effort to run for office and make real differences in how our wonderfully imperfect, but optimistic and energetic city develops."

"Our wonderfully imperfect, but optimistic and energetic city" what a colorful description of Provo!

"Not enough good, experienced people run for office."

I totally agree. What are you...what am I...what are we doing about it?

"I dream of a day when I have a candidate to vote for in local elections who actually shares any of my values."

Any values? That seems a bit dramatic. If you feel that passionately, I hope you are encouraging people who share your values to run, or are considering a run yourself. Perhaps other people feel the way you do. It is easy to complain. What are you willing to do about it?

Publicizing the Election and Gathering Candidate Information

"Making people aware of election regulations/dates as well as elected positions open to run for early (even just on social media) would hopefully help people be more engaged in our electoral process."

I agree. Regular readers of my blog know I'm constantly trying to get the word out and encourage people to run. Here are a couple of other examples. This is the most recent post on the Council's Facebook page. Here is election information on the City website. I'm not saying this is enough, but these are resources that you and others in the public can share to help get the word out.

"It would be great if Provo city could facilitate getting more information out about the candidates in a central location, and publicize that availability.. That is, not to evaluate the info, just to have a central location where voters could look for position papers, etc."

The City has had a slightly different approach to assembling information on candidates in each municipal election I've participated in (either as a voter or a candidate). There is definitely a balance between helping to inform and becoming involved. Should the City sponsor a debate? What if a candidate feels the debate questions favored their opponent? You get the picture.

Pushback against the Arguments Against

"It doesn’t ‘allow extreme voters to decide the election’. It gives more of a voice to everyone. And saying the least supported candidate can be elected is literally the opposite of what it’s about. Did they watch that video? It might not be the ‘front runner’ elected, but it would almost always be the candidate with the most support."

"Ranked-choice voting is the superior method of aggregating the preferences of constituents! This way, we can ensure that public officials and decisions always reflect the view of the majority of the voters. I would also push back against the bullet point on the arguments against ranked-choice voting that says ranked-choice could end up with the candidate with the least amount of support winning. That point is very far from the case. If anything, ranked-choice voting ensures that the candidate with the least amount of support does not win."

"Marking the ballot could be confusing. That is a fair point. But a strong education campaign and the ability for people to exchange a spoiled ballot for a clean ballot--as is currently the case--would alleviate many of those problems. But the other arguments against Ranked Choice Voting are hard to agree with. For instance, the least supported candidate would be eliminated in the first round of voting, so it is hard to see that candidate receiving a majority of the votes. It would be helpful to see mock elections using ranked choice voting to show some of the project outcomes and how likely those various outcomes would be: more extreme candidates winning, more moderate candidates winning, the least supported candidate winning."

"After looking on the web at the arguments against...I can't find anyone to explain to me how it could allow an extreme voter to decide the election, or how a fringe candidate could win. From the information I have read, I like it. I am all for it."

"At least half of the arguments against RCV are false, in my opinion. I understand RCV and the biggest reason to implement it is to put a halt to negative campaigning. Candidates who want to woo supporters of other candidates to win their second choice vote wouldn't want to alienate them with attack ads."

I support using RCV in the municipal elections this fall. Most of the respondents and commenters were in favor as well. So understand my bias. With that said, I too was underwhelmed by the Arguments Against. To be fair, the survey presented them as the arguments made by opponents of RCV and didn't provide any analysis or opinion on the validity of the arguments. I found myself, though, heartily agreeing with many of these comments about the absurdity of the Cons as I went through them. Most of the arguments are based on hypothetical scenarios which are SO unlikely compared to the shortcomings of our current system, where we regularly see concerns over vote splitting in almost every election cycle in Provo. Here is one example: imagine an election with three candidates, two are well supported by the public and one is a fringe candidate that only appeals to a few voters. Now imagine if the electorate was so evenly split between the "mainstream" candidates that the difference in votes is less than the support garnered by the fringe candidate. In RCV, the fringe candidate is eliminated, but instead of those votes being removed from consideration, the fringe voters' second choice is now counted and if they are uniform enough to bridge the gap between the two mainstream candidates, it could be argued that the fringe voters decided the election. This ignores the fact the winner would have to attract sufficient support from the rest of the electorate to be in the position that the "fringe" votes make the difference. And it also ignores the fact that the winner is preferred by the majority of all voters over the runner-up. Even in this extremely unlikely scenario, I would argue that RCV still performs as advertised.

Thoughts on RCV

"Ranked choice voting may not be perfect but it is far superior to our current system. When a better voting system than our current one comes along, it's best to make the switch."

I agree.

"One shortcoming of RCV that you haven't mentioned is that you cannot begin counting without all the ballots being available to count. This will delay reporting of election outcomes."

This is a challenge, for sure. Already vote-by-mail has delayed election results reporting. It is possible to report interim results. Most of the time they won't change as more ballots trickle in, but there is definitely more potential for major shifts in the results as less supported candidates are eliminated in a different order. Probably the best way to handle this would be to only announce the number of first-choice votes each candidate has received and wait until all ballots are scanned before running the run-off calculations.

"I oppose ranked voting. After I find the candidate I prefer the most I don't want to take more time to rank the candidates that I do not prefer."

The ballots will allow you to rank as many or as few candidates as you would like. You are totally fine to mark just your most preferred candidate.

"Ranked choice voting is one of the few available methods to help us move to a more nuanced election. I’m tired of the duopoly. I’d like to adopt ranks choice voting. The biggest challenges that are unique to an ranked system in my opinion is not voter education (that’s a problem in every election) but transparency. We would need to clearly communicate the percentages of the vote and how whomever won was able to win."

Take a look at these results, published after the County Republican Party used RCV to select a replacement for Tanner Ainge, who stepped down from the County Commission in the middle of his term. This is the level of transparency that we can expect.

Miscellaneous

"I was completely against mail-in voting and now I'm sold. As a result, I'm open-minded about ranked choice voting."

What an honest and thoughtful comment. I personally was never completely against mail-in voting, but I mourn the loss of one of the last communal civic rites. I loved standing in line, waiting to cast my ballot, talking with my neighbors, and waving at people from all walks of the community as they came and went from Dixon Middle School (where my precinct voted). It was a moment of civic duty and a shared experience.

"If I remember correctly, municipal elections are non-partisan. I strongly support any effort to keep them that way."

You are correct. And this is a point that several commenters seemed unaware of. I, too, strongly support keeping our municipal elections non-partisan.

"Ranked choice would be much more reflective and representative of the diversity in our population."

I definitely support Provo using RCV in our elections this fall. I believe it is superior to our current system for allowing the electorate to express their will. But the version of ranked choice voting that is available to us by the State, called Instantaneous Runoff Voting (IRV), isn't designed to be proportionally representative. Other RCV systems, like Single Transferable Voting (STV), are designed to be proportionally representative, but (1) aren't available to use right now, and (2) would require changes to our districting.