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