Council Meetings - 21 September 2021

I think the housing crisis is the main theme for tomorrow's meetings (yet again). But this most public feedback has been regarding the proposed water feature for the new City Hall.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Business

1. Fiscal Year 2021 Carryover Report to Council. (21-100)
   At the close of each fiscal year, the Finance Division compiles a carryover list detailing budget amounts from the old year that should be "carried over" into the new year. The carryover list includes the following: 1) Budget to cover encumbered invoices that were not paid by June 30th. 2) Old year balances for CIP funds, grants, vehicle replacement accounts, the Parks Capital Equipment account, and the Facilities Capital Equipment account. 3) Surplus budget for specific purchases or projects. The final carryover list is approved by the Mayor and then presented to the Council in a work meeting each fall. I feel that this report keeps getting better each year and appreciate the collaboration with the Administration. I'm still crunching a few numbers, but so far, my only question is if the "ongoing" projects were the same projects for which the money was originally allocated. Presentation only.
2. A resolution appropriating $8,772.09 from General Fund sales tax revenues to the Economic Development Division in the General Fund for a contractual Sales Tax Increment post performance payment to Day's Market. (21-038)
   In early 2018, the Economic Development Office worked with Day's Market to craft a post performance sales tax increment agreement with Day's Market, located on North Canyon Road. The owners of Day's Market were planning an extensive remodel of their aging store and requested that Provo City assist in reducing the construction costs by entering into a sales tax reimbursement agreement on a post performance basis. Days Market would spend approximately $1.3 million dollars on the interior remodel of the store. Similar to other sales tax agreements, Day's would be able to earn back some of their costs if they produced sales above an established baseline -- which in this case was set at $39,800. Based on sales tax information and a calculation, they qualify for sales tax reimbursement of $8,772.09 for fiscal year 2021. This is a ten-year agreement. Like the project that we reviewed last week and will approve in the evening meeting, this is necessary to fulfill a contract that we already agreed to. I don't see a real choice to be made here, but I think there is value in seeing how these agreements we made previously are playing out. So far, the sales tax receipts have average 20% more after the project than before. The portion of the sales tax increase that goes directly to the City is roughly $10k per year. All of it is being reimbursed back to the business. The business will get all of the increase in sales tax reimbursed back to it, unless the amount jumps to around 100k per year for the remainder of the ten years. If the increased sales tax goes over $700k in the ten years, then the City gets to keep 50% of the amount of $700k. It appears extremely unlikely that we will reach that $700k mark. It looks like the City will get $398,000 over ten years based on the City's portion of the sales tax received in 2018 (before the project). Any increase will go to the business. After two years, it looks like the total reimbursement will be around $100,000 over ten years. Will this turn out to be a good deal and a wise decision for the City? To say for sure, you would need to know what would have happened if we hadn't entered into this agreement. If the sales tax would have increased anyway, even just with inflation, then we have lost sales tax revenue overall. If the business would have closed down or moved elsewhere, then this $100,000 was a great investment. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 12, 2021. We are contracted to pay this amount.
3. A discussion on towing fees (21-105)
   In 2013, the City adopted City Municipal Code 9.31.110 which included a limitation on the maximum fees and charges a towing company operator may charge for: (i) booting or otherwise immobilizing a vehicle, and (ii) towing a vehicle. The fee limits in question only apply to patrol type tows at residential properties. Provo does not impose a fee cap for any consent tows or for non-consent tows (1) at non-residential properties or (2) at residential properties where the property manager or designee calls for the tow. In 2013, in an attempt to prevent predatory towing, Mayor Curtis proposed, and the Council approved, rules requiring patrol tows of residential properties to be done under a contract that meets certain requirements. One of those requirements is a cap on the fees. A local towing operator is requesting a change in the rates to help address cost increases (vehicle, employment, insurance, equipment, etc.). Options include: 1) reject the request for a change; 2) remove the cap; or 3) change the cap to: (i) a new fixed dollar amount, or (ii) a percentage of the state maximums. I applaud the Administration and Council's efforts in 2013 to address "Predatory Towing" that many in the City felt was a huge issue. Since 2013, the problem has gotten marginally better, but remains a major concern and hassle for many in Provo. I think we should continue to encourage other forms of private parking enforcement (like "call-in towing") and don't feel a strong need to allow for higher fees for "patrol towing". Presentation only. It didn't seem to me that the Council was interested in making any adjustments.
4. A presentation on updates regarding City Council communications. (21-103)
   The Council's Community Relations Coordinator manages communications for the Council office and coordinates the City's Neighborhood Program. This update will show the Council and the public what efforts are being made to get information out to the public and to invite engagement. Communication is key! Presentation only.
5. A presentation from the Housing Committee regarding an ordinance change for ADUs to comply with Utah State Law. (21-102)
   In the 2021 Utah General Legislative Session, lawmakers passed a bill regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and conditions of their permitted use in cities throughout the state. All cities in Utah must adjust their city ordinances accordingly to align with the new state law. I support allowing ADUs on single-family-detached properties throughout the entire City, when the right conditions exist on the property, when built to certain standards, and when our enforcement capabilities can reasonably ensure compliance. The state has passed a new law that preempts local control and makes it so that internal ADUs are allowed in any single-family-detached home. The state allows most cities to exempt up to 25% of their residential area from this new law, and allows a few college towns like Provo to exempt up to 67%. Unfortunately, it appears the state law doesn't allow as many conditions to be placed on ADUs which worries me that we may get some ADUs that have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. Presentation only. This issue has been referred to the Council’s Housing Committee for further review. We need to deal with this soon.
6. A presentation from the Kem C. Gardner Institute: "Affordable Housing and Housing Affordability" (21-094)
   The State of Utah's population reportedly grew 18% in the last decade. Along with that growth has been a growing housing crisis, both in affordable housing and housing affordability. Factors contributing to this housing crisis include local and state housing policies, a global pandemic, and disrupted supply chains among several other things. Market conditions assuredly affect the state's housing stock greatly, but so do local, state, and federal housing policies. Presentation only. Good conversation.
7. A presentation on the housing development process with varied and mixed housing types. (21-080)
   As part of a series of presentations and discussions on housing development, this presentation's goal is to demonstrate a basic proforma regarding mixing housing types, which all have different values, with no increase in density permitted and how these varied housing types also contribute to a community's larger economy. We have been talking about this issue for the entire 6 years I've been on the Council. Presentation only. Great presentation. I wish all developers in Provo were as creative and sensitive to impacts as these presenters are. They suggested that projects over 5 acres should be able to have multiple housing types.
8. A presentation on Provo's Sustainability Committee's request for Council support of a program providing rainwater harvesting barrels to citizens for a discounted rate. (21-101)
   Utah Rivers Council (URC) runs discounted sales of 50-gallon rainwater barrels. They are black recycled plastic, with a bottom spigot, at a $149 retail cost or $83 for the city. Most cities order and subsidize a specific number of barrels by $33 each in order to sell to residents for $50 each. Some cities do not subsidize and their residents pay $83 a barrel. With either option, URC sets up a purchase portal, does 2-3 rounds of press releases, and the city advertises via its social media for 6-8 weeks. A truck delivers all barrels to a distribution event, purchasers get a time slot, and volunteers load them into purchasers’ vehicles. The best time for such a campaign would be March/April 2022. The Sustainability Committee urges the city to participate and suggests using $5,000 to provide a $33 per barrel subsidy for 150 barrels. If more people want them, they can pay $83 and get one without the subsidy. I'm intrigued by this idea. Apparently, the price per container is going up by $8 this year. Presentation only. The Council referred this issue to the City Administration. Years like this one illustrate why we need to be careful with how we use water.
9. A presentation on facility and construction updates specifically regarding traffic challenges in the Timpview neighborhood from Provo City School District. (21-104)
   As Provo City School District continues their renovations on Timpview High School, various traffic challenges in the surrounding neighborhood have risen. Provo School district is requesting help from the city to help alleviate the stress on the traffic flow in the area. I'm not sure why this needs to be done in a Council meeting. It seems that this is an Administrative matter. I imagine the City would be happy to coordinate to help alleviate traffic. Presentation only. The Council referred this issue to the City Administration. I appreciate the cooperation between the City and the District.



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. None requested.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Provo City Justice Court Annual Report. (21-099)
   No support documents were provided. Presentation only. Judge Romney and his team run an exemplary Justice Court.




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 897 9020 4420 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 584295.

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

2. Appointment of Amanda Ercanbrack as Director of Customer Service. (21-039)
   Requesting advice and consent to the appointment of Amanda Ercanbrack as director of the City's Customer Service Department. She will replace Karen Larsen, who recently announced her retirement. Ms. Ercanbrack began her career with the City in customer service and has also served as the Deputy City Recorder and the City Recorder. I've been thoroughly impressed by the professionalism, helpfulness, and abilities of Ms. Ercanbrack over the years I've interacted with her. I can't think of a better person for the job and expect great things from her. Approved 7:0. I'm continually amazed at the caliber of individuals who choose to work at Provo City. It is a testiment to the good people who live and our community and the community is blessed by their service.
3. A resolution appropriating $400,000 for City Hall Public Art. (21-102)
   The City Council is working on the creation of a Percent for Public Arts program, whereby a determined percentage of a total project budget is set aside for public art. Since the program is not yet adopted, the Council is considering whether to ensure sufficient funding for public art in the new City Hall project, which is expected to be completed early in 2022. As building costs have risen the project leadership cut a significant arts piece, an artistic water feature, from the project to retain sufficient contingency funds for the remaining work. Appropriating funds now for public art would meet the aims of a Percent for Arts program and would enable the proposed feature to be installed now without having to tear up the plaza later. Should the contigency fund be sufficient in the final accounting to cover this feature, it is intended that any unused funds appropriated pursuant to this action would be returned to the General Fund. The architect and/or the project manager will participate in the presentation and discussion. Here are some answers that the Administration provided to Council questions. I support incorporating public art as we build public buildings. I'm a bit torn on this particular proposal. It's not my favorite peice, but trust other's expertise in art over my own. It will be a part of our City Hall so I feel that the Council may have a greater interest in it than other public buildings. My biggest concern is that is doesn't degrade the use of this plaza as a public gathering space. I have heard concerns from the public about several aspects from its consumption of water (10 gallons per week, which is equivalent to the water used for one person brushing their teeth) to the cost ($600k, which seems high to me, but is an investment in a peice of art for the life of the building). Approved 5:2, with Councilors Shannon Ellsworth and Travis Hoban opposed. I support public art and think this budget is appropriate for a project of this scope. I'm not convinced that this is the best project that could have been proposed, but I trust the process that has lead us to this point and that is why I voted the way I did.
4. A resolution appropriating $39,982 in the General Fund and $83,296 in the Energy Fund to correct elements of the fiscal year 2021–2022 budget. (21-015)
   Provo has a large budget, and after reviewing it and working with various departments, we've identified a few corrections that will require an appropriation. This was item 1 in the 7 Sep Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. Mistakes are understandable in documents as large and complicated as our budget. I applaud the way that our Finance team handled this so transparently.
5. A resolution appropriating $12,855 in the Economic Development Division in the General Fund for a sales tax increment post performance payment to Parkway Village. (21-097)
   On November 15, 2016, the Municipal Council approved a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between Provo City and Parkway Village LLC. The Council was presented with a request to reimburse the ownership group for certain extraordinary costs associated with the removal of an existing occupied retail pad, participation of the installation of a new traffic signal and the construction of a replacement retail pad. The reimbursement would be funded through retail sales tax increment above the established predetermined sales tax revenue actually generated by the retail center as of a certain date. The baseline revenue was established at $136,476, which represents 1/2 of 1% of total sales generated at the center or that portion of sales tax revenue received by Provo City from the retail center, as provided by the State of Utah. Provo City will continue to receive the baseline amount of $136,476. The developer/owner will receive an annual reimbursement against their actual out-of-pocket expenses, any additional sales tax revenue above the baseline amount of $136,476. The term of the agreement runs for 10 years. In that time the developer/owner will be able to be reimbursed for up to 1/2 the out-of-pocket costs for the expenses. The target reimbursement amount is $1,053,395.86, which is half of the total out-of-pocket expenses ($2,106791.72). As this is the second payment in the 10-year agreement ($12,855) which represents that amount over the baseline of $136,476, it is not likely that full reimbursement amount will be achieved This was item 2 in the 7 Sep Work Meeting (and similar to item 2 in the earlier meeting). Approved 7:0. We are under contract for this payment, but the Council still needs to approve it.
6. ***CONTINUED*** Consideration of an amendment to Title 15 regarding the process and requirements for appeals related to impact fees. Citywide. (PLOTA20210273)
   This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment