Council Meetings - 30 March, 2021

Police (WM3), Fire (WM2), Parking (CM6), and a rezone (CM5). This should be an interesting set of meetings. And we can't forget a discussion on what method of voting to use this fall (WM9).

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding Administrative Services' fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. A year ago we made temporary cuts in anticipation of the budget hit between July 2020 and June 2021. Some of these cuts were things like training and travel for training. This made a lot of sense amid the pandemic, but it would be very short-sighted to leave the cuts in place. The people of Provo get great value out of our tax dollars for city services in large part due to the professional and capable city employees who deliver those services. We need to continue to develop and train employees so they can stay on top of industry developments and can continue to provide outstanding service. Presentation only. Perhaps the most pressing need in Administrative Services is in securing our IT infrastructure.
2. A resolution appropriating $105,000 from Wildland Fire Response Revenues into the Fire Department in the General Fund for an employee salary adjustment warranted by a recent salary market study. (21-048)
   A salary market study has recently been performed, which warrants a salary increase in various positions from multiple departments in the City. Administration recommends implementing the proposed increase immediately for the Fire Department only. The impact the increase has on the Fire Department budget for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2020-2021 is $105,000. The Fire Department has unallocated wildland fire response revenue funds that can be used for this purpose in Fiscal Year 2020-2021. An increase for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 for the Fire Department and all other City departments affected by the market study will be part of the regular budget process for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. From what I understand, from reading the provided documents, the annual compensation study shows that Provo is falling behind in several departments. This will be addressed for all affected departments in the upcoming budget for the new fiscal year (starting July 2021). But the Administration is recommending that we use "one-time" revenues from reimbursements for our wildland fire participation that exceeded our costs in order to make the salary adjustments in the Fire Department starting now and not waiting for the new fiscal year. One argument is that we need to compete this May for graduates to help fill the needed positions.
   
   I'm a little concerned about using one-time money this way, and also about how this might be seen by employees in other departments, but this is coming from revenue that was generated by our firefighters going above and beyond their duties to help neighboring areas fight wildland fires. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 30, 2021. See my report for item #1 in the evening meeting.
3. A presentation regarding the Police Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. There is very little in the document packet to prepare for the meetings, but the Police Department never disappoints with their budget presentations. Presentation only. Our Police Department does more with less, even when compared with other cities within our state.
4. A presentation regarding the Provo Power Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. I participated virtually in the annual conference of the Utah Municipal Power Agency, of which Provo Power is a part. Provo Power presented on their strategic planning efforts and I don't believe I've ever seen a group do it better. Take a look and see for yourself. Presentation only. Our Energy Department is healthy.
5. A discussion of the City's Real Property Holdings and Surplus Property List. (21-045)
   This is the result of a request from the Municipal Council for a presentation on City property and the surplus property list. Most of the properties I recognized, but there were a few that I wasn't aware of. Provo owns more than 1,400 properties, but more than 1,000 of those make up our street network. Presentation only. It turns out that those surprise properties were incorrectly included.
6. A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Needs Assessment Results. (21-046)
   The Parks and Recreation Department is currently updating their master plan. This presentation includes the results from the needs assessment survey that has already been compiled from the community. I agree with the vast majority of Provo residents who are "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the value we get from our Parks and Recreation Department. There is much that goes into providing value, but part of it is carefully listening to the community and planning to meet their needs. Parks and Rec commissioned a representative survey of Provo residents to help shape the future direction of the department. Check out the results and the comparison to 8 years ago. Presentation only. The community survey is just more evidence of the outstanding parks and recreation opportunities that our residents regularly enjoy.
7. A presentation on the need for Provo City sustainability program which includes a Sustainability Director and a Sustainability Plan. (21-048)
   In order to meet the needs of the residents of Provo without compromising the needs of future generations of Provo residents we need to develop a Sustainability Plan. A Sustainability Plan is built on three pillars: the environment, social equity, and economic development. The aim is to balance these three pillars to ensure that they are meeting the goals, needs, and priorities set forth by the Council. Good stewards look after the wellbeing of the present as well as the future. The City organization should strive to provide services to the community in a way that can be sustained. We, as a community, should strive to live in such a way that our children and grandchildren can have at least as good of opportunities as we have. Presentation only. A motion that the Council support the proposal and that the Foothills Protection Committee hear the two proposals outlined and bring their recommendation to the Council of which option to pursue was approved 7:0. I'm excited to hear that we may be able to use grant money to pay to develop a sustainability plan.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding legislative staffing. (21-049)
   This ordinance is intended to clarify the role of the Executive Director as being responsible for all aspects of personnel management in the Council Office, save for his/her own position. The requirement that the Council appoints policy analysts by resolution is a remnant from before the creation of the Executive Director position, which position is appointed by resolution of the Council. While the Council Chair retains overall authority for the Council Office, many duties have been delegated by ordinance to the Executive Director. Currently, the Executive Director's personnel role is essentially managing, supervising, and evaluating but not selecting and if necessary, terminating as other department directors have authority to do. The proposed amendments to the Provo City Code would remove the appointment by resolution requirement for a Policy Analyst and set personnel decisions as a responsibility of the Executive Director. I see this as a simple code clean-up. It is an improvement, but won't have any material impact on the function of the office. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 30, 2021. See my report for item #7 in the evening meeting.
9. A discussion on Rank Choice Voting and the possible use for the 2021 Municipal Elections. (21-047)
   Utah Code Section 20A-4-602 Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project states that a municipality may participate in the pilot project if the legislative body votes to do so. The Council may choose to pass, by majority vote, a motion to do so for the 2021 municipal election and to provide notice to the lieutenant governor and the county clerk. The deadline is the second Monday in May, which is May 10 this year. The Council has two more meetings before that date: on April 20, and May 4. There are three council seats (Districts 2 and 5, and City-wide I) and the mayor's office to be contested in 2021. The Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project allows local governments to conduct elections using the Rank Choice Voting (RCV) Method; there was an effort at the legislature to add other alternative methods this year, but none were adopted. The Council has had several presentations since 2019 in which the operation, possible benefits, and possible consequences of the RCV method have been discussed. In 2019, despite some support for participation, the Council chose to not participate because of prior poor experiences when the county administered Vote By Mail elections. The then-new County Clerk has since demonstrated that the County now runs effective, efficient elections. The City has agreed with the County to participate in Vote By Mail again this year; that agreement stipulates a maximum cost of approximately $210,800 (rounded up) split between Primary and General Elections, which figure is dependent on the number of ballots received. That figure can be reduced by nearly one half if the City participates in the pilot project and holds only the General Election. However, RCV can be used in either the Primary or General elections. While a decision to participate in the pilot project is legislative and is made by the governing body, the decision as to which election will use RCV is administrative and rests with the City's chief election officer, Amanda Ercanbrack. This presentation is a quick overview of RCV leading to a discussion by the Council and possibly a vote on whether or not to participate in the pilot project. I don't believe RCV is the best voting method out there, not by a long shot. But I believe it is significantly better than our current method of plurality voting. Having our election cost roughly half as much would be nice, but this pilot program isn't about saving money, but having a better electoral experience and a voting method that can better measure the will of the people. Our neighbors, Vineyard and Payson, used RCV in 2019. How did they like it? Over 85% of both voters and candidates liked the method and want to use it again. Julie Fullmer, mayor of Vineyard, describes it this way, "Ranked choice voting was a common-sense voting method for Vineyard. Removal of expensive low-turnout primaries encouraged more positive campaigns, saved money, provided better data, and gave our voters more meaningful choices. Ranked choice voting was “better, faster and cheaper,” which is what the government should provide." Presentation only. A motion to place ranked-choice voting on Open City Hall and to bring the results back for discussion and a possible decision at the Work Meeting on May 4, 2021, was approved 6:1, with David Sewell opposed. Read this article if you are curious where I stand on RCV. I'm hoping that when the public learns about RCV and the good experiences that other cities have had with it, there will be strong public support for Provo to participate in the pilot program.



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, March 30, 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 846 6952 2729 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 702882.

Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:

Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.



Action Agenda

1. A resolution appropriating $105,000 from Wildland Fire Response Revenues into the Fire Department in the General Fund for an employee salary adjustment warranted by a recent salary market study. (21-048)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 2 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. Provo Fire Personnel and resources often answer the call to help fight wildfires around the west. This cooperative arrangement helps every participation community. The reimbursement rates for assistance exceed what it costs Provo Fire to provide the help, and money is left over after all our expenses are paid. The Fire Department is asking to use some of this excess to accelerate the upcoming salary adjustments to assist with the recruitment of the new fire graduates this May.
2. A resolution approving the Program Year 2021 Annual Action Plan, second year update to the 2020-24 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, as amended. (21-050)
   This is the first of two public hearings on the update. The CDBG and HOME Programs provide the City of Provo and other local governments with the opportunity to develop viable urban communities by funding activities that provide decent housing, a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. Funds are awarded to carry out a wide range of community development activities directed towards neighborhood revitalization, home ownership and condition of housing stock. The Programs are administered by the Community Planning and Development Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Every year, as Lead Entity for the Utah Valley HOME Consortium, Provo City submits an Annual Action Plan (an update to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD) outlining the goals, objectives and the proposed use of federal CDBG and HOME resources to address housing, economic development, and community development projects to be undertaken. A Public Comment Period (March 20, 2021 to April 20, 2021) is conducted for citizens, partner agencies, and other interested parties to review and comment on the Plan. Along with the Public Comment Period, two public hearings are held to receive input from Provo citizens and Consortium members’ and citizens. The first public hearing on March 30, 2021 will present the Draft of PY-2021 AAP (Exhibit A) to Council members and the public in general. The document includes the proposed uses for CDBG and HOME funds which, to simplify the review of proposed projects, are also included in Exhibits B-for CDBG Capital Projects, C-for CDBG Public Services Projects, and D-for HOME Projects. These exhibits show the proposed funding recommendations made by Advisory Committees who listened to applicant presentations and reviewed and evaluated applications. Copies of the PY2021 AAP Draft are available for public review at the Community and Neighborhood Services Housing Division’s office and electronically at the City’s website. 2 The second public hearing on April 20, 2021 will close the Public Comment Period and provide the Municipal Council an opportunity to make final funding determinations for the HOME and CDBG programs for Program Year 2021, which begins on July 1, 2021 and ends on June 30, 2022. Are parts of Provo and Utah County developing into urban communities? Yes. Do we want these communities to be viable? Yes. Do we want our urban communities to have decent housing? A suitable living environment? Expanded economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons (annual income up to $75k for a family of four)? Yes. Yes. Yes. Is this plan the best way to invest the federal money allocated to us? That is the question! Public hearing only; this was the first in a series of two required public hearings. Most of the money allocated for the area administered by Provo's team is proposed to go to projects outside of Provo. While we definitely want to encourage all parts of the County to do their share in providing opportunities for subsidized housing to be hosted in their communities, there are many ways that we can strengthen and support our low- to moderate-income residents here in Provo without further concentrating subsidized housing here. I asked for a review of the past few years to see if Provo is getting its share of the HOME and CDBG dollars. I have since received the report, and yes, averaged over several years, the money is being distributed fairly evenly based on population.
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210046)
   This is a second hearing for the item. Planning Staff from the Community and Neighborhood Services and Development Services Departments have been meeting with the City Council Sign Committee over the past year in finding ways to improve and update the sign code, specifically in how the electronic sign standards are regulated throughout the City. The Sign Committee has worked through different ideas and moved forward with a proposal that would more clearly define standards for electronic signage and areas where this type of sign should be permitted in Provo. The changes to Title 6 include updating regulations for hold times based on location and the underlying zone. The changes to Title 14 include updating terminology and definitions for hold times, adding residential zones that ban electronic signs, and adjusting corridors that allow electronic displays. In addition to the changes regarding electronic signs, the committee is recommending replacing dated and difficult to manage size charts for signs with new tables which regulate sign size based on lot frontage or wall area. Here is what I said after the first hearing: "Nothing I read or heard when discussing this item changed my support for it. I will be discussing my lingering concerns with the sign committee." Approved 7:0. There was some push back from the sign industry but taken as a whole, this gives more flexibility to businesses to rotate their messages. I still have some lingering concerns that I would like to nail down. Hopefully, I will be able to meet with the Sign Committee soon to get them resolved.
4. An ordinance approving the petition to annex approximately 9.5 acres of property generally located at the intersection of Colorado Avenue, Bullock Lane, and 1860 South. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20210019)
   This item is an annexation request for property located at 1640 S. Colorado Avenue. The subject area is located on the south edge of the current Provo boundaries, on the north side of 1860 South, and on the east side of the Western Metals Recycling property. A portion of two of the parcels to be annexed are already within the City boundary. The total property proposed for annexation equals approximately 9.5 acres. The applicant is the project engineer, but the petition signer is Spencer Wright, representing East Bay Self Storage, LLC. Planning Commission recommended approval. We accepted this annexation application in mid-February for further consideration. I haven't seen anything that would cause me to question whether this annexation is in the best interest of Provo. Approved 7:0. Provo is now just a little bit bigger. This area has long been identified as a spot that should join Provo once it is ready to develop. This will be good for our community.
5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 54 acres of real property, generally located at 3450 W Center Street, from (A1.10) to (M1), (R1.8PD), and (RA). Provo Bay and Fort Utah Neighborhoods. (PLRZ20180197)
   The subject property lies on west Center Street and comprises five (5) parcels. Three (3) of these parcels are contiguous and lie north of Center Street. There are two (2) dwelling sites on this land; however, the majority of the land north of Center Street appears to currently be utilized for agricultural purposes. Two (2) additional, noncontiguous parcels lie south of Center Street. Currently, all this land appears to be used for agricultural endeavors. The proposed residential development is bounded on the north and west by the Provo River and on the south by Center Street. One of the two (2) proposed industrial areas lies immediately to the south and across Center Street. Agricultural land lies to the west of the residential area. The land north and west of the proposed residential area, and across the Provo River, lies in unincorporated Utah County. Planning Commission recommended approval. There is a lot to like about this proposal, but I do have some concerns and questions as well. When I served on the West Provo Development Policies committee we talked about "leapfrog" development. This proposal is almost exactly what I had in mind during those discussions. We even defined it as the rezoning of land that is surrounded by agricultural zoning. That seems to describe this property. As I remember it, when we were discussing leapfrog development in theory, we said that even though the project is good overall, it should wait until development reaches that point ("Require proper integration and sequencing of development" is what we said). So I need to be convinced why this policy shouldn't apply here, or in what way it does apply.
   
   Another concern I have is that the proposal would be for only one housing type. Again, back to the development policies for this area, "require a mix of housing types, lot sizes, and designs to accommodate various stages of life." and "Housing types should be mixed without barriers separating types or densities." I don't see this in this proposal.
   
   Perhaps the last question I have is how is the river frontage going to be used? It would be a shame to hide it, block it, and ignore it.
   
   This item was continued. Several aspects didn't feel settled. Most notably, a development agreement had been discussed and outlined broadly, but nothing had been written yet. The developer indicated that they wanted to hear from the Council first before drafting it. We'll see where it is at at the next meeting.
6. An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 9.81 (Carterville Parking Area). Carterville Neighborhood. (19-108)
   At the January 19, 2021, Council meeting, the Provo Municipal Council passed a Resolution of Intent to create a Parking Permit Area for a portion of the Carterville Neighborhood. The Parking Permit area includes the following streets, 300 West from Cougar Boulevard to 1625 North, 380 West from 1300 North to 1500 North, 1300 North from 300 West to 380 West, 1500 North from 380 West to 300 West, and 1625 North from 300 West to Freedom Boulevard. There are 93 properties that would be affected by the Parking Permit Area. The cost of the permit will be one hundred dollars ($100.00) per permit. The cost to administer the Parking Permit program is two hundred and ninety-seven dollars (297.00) per permit. This is the final step in the process, after conducting a parking study, receiving the recommendation of the Parking Committee, and hearing public input. I have a ton of thoughts on this one. I am unconvinced by the $297.00 figure. $100 seems much closer to the reasonable cost to administer. The original plan discussed visitor passes, which I didn't see in the draft ordinance. Are the permits transferable between vehicles? If there is a worry about over-subscription due to accessory apartments, could we set the limit to be two permits per property rather than two permits per residential unit? Rather than guest passes, could we allow visitors to use the Park Provo app to pay by the hour or pay per night? I'm worried that 11pm is too early to start the restriction. I think the point is to regulate overnight parking. If we start at 11pm we could be catching visitors who are still over watching a movie. 1am seems like a more reasonable start time. And that would also mostly resolve the oddity of having it only regulated between Monday and Saturday. As written, would the streets only be regulated for an hour on Saturday night, from 11pm to midnight? I'm trying to understand the rationale for Monday through Saturday, rather than Monday through Friday or every (non-holiday) night. This item was continued. There are a few aspects that need to be nailed down before we vote on this.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding legislative staffing. (21-049)
   This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 8 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. I consider this a simple code clean-up.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 16 March 2021

There isn't a single discussion on a rezone tomorrow! But there are some heavy deliberations anyway, not all of which I feel we are prepared to have. In particular, I feel that the Legacy CIP proposal and the Parking Garage Reassignment and Amendments may need more discussion before we vote.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding the Customer Service Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. In previewing the documents for the agenda item, I was blown away by the number of calls and walk-ins served by our customer service team. Almost 170,000! That's more than the number of people living in Provo, including children! It also appears that the Department operates on its own enterprise fund, which I think is interesting. Supporting Document Presentation only. An interesting question was posed to the Council for future deliberation. We are at the tail end of steep utility rate adjustments to make up for the 20+ years of no adjustments and under-investment. Typically changes to utility rates happen at the new fiscal year, which for the City is July 1st. July and August are also the peak usage period for several utilities. The question is, should the rate adjustments be delayed a couple of months so the higher rates don't appear at the same time as the seasonal spike.
2. A presentation regarding the Fire Department budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. With the City's growth and the cost of inflation, it is remarkable how steady the Fire Department expenses have been. Supporting Document Presentation only. Doing more with less. We do need to make sure we aren't repeating the same mistakes with the Fire Department as we did with our utilities. We have recently invested in the rebuild of the Fire Station in northeast Provo and are currently planning to rebuild the central Fire Station.
3. A presentation regarding the Development Services budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. I curious how their experience has been outsourcing some of the building plan reviews. Supporting Document Presentation only. I forgot to ask how their experience has been outsourcing the review of some building plans. I'll have to send an email.
4. A presentation regarding the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   The information is presented to inform the upcoming budget discussions. The supporting document can be found here: https://www.provo.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=18098 See the Full Plan for 147 pages of infrastructure goodness. It's a lot of work to get through, but you'll gain an appreciation for all that goes into providing services to the people of Provo. You'll have a pretty good idea of what the City will be up to for the next 5 years. Presentation only. The original link in our document packet was to last year's plan. I didn't realize it as I read through the massive document. I just thought that it was giving information on current projects to provide context. I learned that it was the wrong version the day before the meetings and read the new document. As frustrating as it was to study the wrong document, it did provide insight into how these plans evolve from year to year.
5. A presentation regarding the Public Works budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. The utility rate hikes have been steep over the past 5 years to make up for the decades where there were no increases even to keep up with inflation. The budgets are full of deferred maintenance and make-up projects. Presentation only. Much of the discussion focused on Aquifer Storage and Recovery, but we also talked about the Airport, streets, and other things.
6. A discussion regarding Parking Coordinator staffing options. (21-043)
   In the Council Meeting on March 2, 2021, the Council reaffirmed their policies related to parking management. Part of the City's Strategic Parking Plan involves having a full-time parking coordinator. Several years ago, that position was reduced to half-time and was matched with the part-time sustainability coordinator due to budget constraints. The Council expressed an interest in restoring the parking coordinator role to full-time. The Administration has worked with the Council's Parking Committee to evaluate options for accelerating the decision to restore the parking coordinator role to full-time. The goal is to review the options provided by the Administration, select one, and schedule a public hearing/appropriation for March 30, 2021. The Administration has proposed three options to address our vote two weeks ago. The Parking Committee (which I serve on) reviewed the options and equally supported Options 2 and 3. A motion to request that the Administration move forward with hiring a full-time parking coordinator as illustrated in option 3 and to schedule the required appropriation for a Council Meeting as soon as is practicable was approved 7:0. This should capture the current momentum in parking and not deprive Community and Neighborhood Services of the resources they need to accomplish their other roles.
7. A presentation regarding feedback from the Open City Hall survey on trails and a discussion regarding a resolution of support for the Forest Service implementing the plan and maintaining the land for public use. (20-040)
   The Foothills Protection Committee would like to thank the public for their enthusiastic participation in the Open City Hall Provo Area Trails Plan survey. The survey received 438 visitors and 122 responses. Support for the trails plan as proposed by Utah Valley Trails Association was almost unanimous. Based on these responses, there seems to be broad community support for preserving Provo’s natural spaces while making portions of them more accessible to a wide variety of recreational activities. A full summary of the responses can be found in the attachments for this item. The Foothills Protection Committee would also like to propose a joint resolution of support for the Forest Service's continued ownership and preservation of sensitive lands in Provo's canyons and foothills. I support the proposed resolution's general intent, but I have some questions about specifics and wording. A motion to replace the exhibit with the revised version of the resolution was approved. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 16, 2021. See my report for item 4 in the Work Meeting.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.

Dial 346 248 7799. Enter Meeting ID 842 2740 7162 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 361948.

Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:

Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.



Action Agenda

1. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (21-039)
   Mayor Kaufusi has recommended Samantha Curtis, William Toutai, and Larry Hunt to be appointed to the Parks and Recreation Board. I might sound like a broken record, but Provo is as great as it is because of the volunteerism of its residents. This is particularly true of the high-caliber people who serve on our boards and commissions. I'm grateful for their willingness to serve. Approved 7:0. It was a pleasure to meet these individuals, and I know they will serve well.
2. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of J. Brian Jones as the City Attorney for Provo City. (21-044)
   Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Brian Jones be appointed as the new City Attorney for Provo. Mr. Jones has served as the Interim City Attorney since the retirement of the previous City Attorney, Robert West, last year. For as long as I've been here, Brian Jones has served as the part-time legal counsel for the City Council, on loan from the Administration. It is an arrangement that kept our budget low. It is a testament to his integrity that he has served both branches without any confidentiality concerns. I don't know what the plan is for Council counsel going forward. Approved 7:0. I learned that the Legal Department has the statutory responsibility to provide legal counsel to both the Administration and the Council. These last 5+ years, I saw Brian Jones as "on loan" from the Administration. This has caused an interesting shift in my thinking.
3. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to approve an interlocal agreement with Utah County to conduct a vote-by-mail election for the Municipal Primary and General Elections to be held in Provo City in 2021. (21-041)
   Provo City and Utah County will be working together to administer a vote-by-mail election for the 2021 City Municipal Election. The interlocal agreement specifies the responsibilities for each entity. In summary, Utah County will be responsible for printing and mailing ballots, providing staff and equipment to process and count ballots, providing election returns, and providing postal permits for both outbound and return mail. Provo City will be responsible for administering candidate filings, candidate campaign finance reports, submitting all required notices, and proof of all election programming done for the 2021 City Municipal Election. As of January 4, 2021, there are 46,831 active voters in Provo City. The total cost of the election will not exceed $2.25 per voter, per election. The total estimated cost would not exceed $210,739.50. The interlocal agreement contemplates the possibility of RCV, at least for the general election (the wording seems unclear if this also refers to the primary). If a traditional primary takes place, there is no need for RCV in the general election. If traditional RCV is held, there is no need for the primary. RCV could be used in the primary to select the top two candidates, or the traditional primary could be modified to reduce the number of candidates to some number more than two, and then RCV could be used in the general. Would all of these scenarios be covered by this agreement? Nowhere in the agreement did I see it contemplated that a primary wouldn't be held, even if no more than three candidates filed in any race. Would the City still be charged the full amount if there is no primary, regardless if RCV is used or not? Approved 7:0. Entering into this agreement neither commits to nor precludes us from using ranked-choice voting (RCV) in our election this fall. We will be discussing RCV in our next Work Meeting. If we choose to use RCV, then the City Recorder can either hold an RCV primary where two candidates move forward or skip the primary and hold an RCV general election.
4. A resolution outlining support for the continued ownership and preservation of sensitive lands in the foothills and canyons by the Forest Service. (21-040)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 5 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. The area discussed in the resolution, the mountains and canyons just east of Provo, is a beautiful space enjoyed by many to recreate, get away, and reconnect. The Forest Service is doing a great job administering this area. We want to see it kept public.
5. An ordinance amending the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule to set electric service rates for small cell installations in Provo City, Utah. (21-034)
   Small cell wireless facilities being installed by telecommunications companies require electricity from Provo City in order to operate. This ordinance would establish a new rate for small cell installations. This allows us to charge telecom companies for the electricity that they use to power things like 5G antennas throughout the City. Approved 7:0. This is a non-controversial, all-around win.
6. A resolution appropriating $11,979.76 from General Fund sales tax revenues to the Economic Development Division in the General Fund for a contractual Sales Tax Increment post performance payment to Day's Market. (21-038)
   In early 2018, the Economic Development Office worked with Day's Market to craft a post performance sales tax increment agreement to partially reimburse the Day's Market, located on North Canyon Road. The owners of Day's Market were planning an extensive remodel of their aging store and requested that Provo City assist in reducing the construction costs by entering into a sales tax reimbursement agreement on a post performance basis. Days Market would spend approximately $1.3 million dollars on the interior remodel of the store. Similar to other sales tax agreements, Day's would be able to earn back some of their costs if they produced sales above an established base line -- which in this case was set at $39,800. Based on sales tax information and a calculation, they qualify for sales t We appropriated money for a similar agreement two weeks ago. This is just following through with an agreement we have already entered into. Approved 7:0. This is a small price to pay if, the remodel wouldn't have happened without this tax incentive. This is pretty much a giveaway of tax-payer money, if the remodel would have happened without it.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20210046)
   Planning Staff from the Community and Neighborhood Services and Development Services Departments have been meeting with the City Council Sign Committee over the past year in finding ways to improve and update the sign code, specifically in how the electronic sign standards are regulated throughout the City. The Sign Committee has worked through different ideas and moved forward with a proposal that would more clearly define standards for electronic signage and areas where this type of sign should be permitted in Provo. The changes to Title 6 include updating regulations for hold times based on location and the underlying zone. The changes to Title 14 include updating terminology and definitions for hold times, adding residential zones that ban electronic signs, and adjusting corridors that allow electronic displays. In addition to the changes regarding electronic signs, the committee is recommending replacing dated and difficult to manage size charts for signs with new tables which regulate sign size based on lot frontage or wall area. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm still not fully comfortable with where our code will be at after these changes are made, but I'm to the point where I can support this proposal and trust that the committee will follow through and address the other outstanding concerns. Per Council rule, this item was continued for a second hearing. Nothing I read or heard when discussing this item changed my support for it. I will be discussing my lingering concerns with the sign committee.
8. A resolution transferring $1,900,000 from the Legacy CIP Fund to various funds and appropriating the transferred funds for the purposes described herein. (21-037)
   The Administration recommends the following transfers from the Legacy CIP Fund: $1,000,000 to the Parks CIP Fund and $900,000 to the Economic Development CIP Fund. The Administration also recommends the following appropriations: $1,000,000 in the Parks CIP Fund for Canyon Road Park and $900,000 in the Economic Development CIP Fund to be used to attract a west side grocery retailer. I wouldn't mind if the Parks LOS (level of service) maps were a bit more finalized, but from what I've seen, I'm comfortable moving forward with the $1M for the Canyon Road Park. I'm not thrilled about the cries for the City to follow through with their promises, when I raised my concerns about what was being said at the time and made clear that I was voting on the written agreement that was before us and not on what may or may not have been discussed verbally.
   
   I still need to be convinced that the $900K is needed and will provide value. I was under the impression that the zone change is what was needed to break the log jam, so why don't we see if that is true before committing public money to grease the skids? I thought that we would have a Work Meeting discussion on the rest of the CARES-freed money before being asked to vote on it in a Council meeting. Approved 7:0. There was some discussion about whether the $900k was actually needed now that we have the right zoning in place. The Administration committed to only spend what was necessary to attract the grocer, so it'll be interesting to see how much, if any, of the $900k is returned.




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

9. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to sign an Assignment Agreement and an Amendment to the existing Lease Agreement with Liberty George Provo, LLC for a parking structure in Provo Town Square. (21-042)
   The Redevelopment Agency contributed funding and property for the construction of the parking structure currently behind the Provo Town Square buildings. We also signed a Lease Agreement for the property on which the parking structure is located. The Lease requires the owner of the building to maintain the structure. The current owners plan to sell their property, including the parking structure, to Liberty George Provo, LLC. This resolution would authorize the Chief Executive Officer of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to sign the Amendment and Assignment agreements with Liberty George Provo, LLC for the lease of Agency-owned property for the Parking Structure at Provo Town Square. Wow. I have a ton of questions after having read through the legal documents. I don't pretend to understand all of it, but there are some very concerning aspects. I'm going to need to be convinced that this is in the public's best interest and aligned with the policies and goals of the City. Approved 7:0. The process broke down on this item. We were ill-prepared to make an informed decision, and the timing was such that we did not have a realistic way to not approve the agreements that evening without jeopardizing a much larger deal. The Council needs to investigate what allowed this breakdown to occur and what steps should be taken to prevent it from happening again.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 2 March 2021

The evening Council Meeting is lighter than most, but the afternoon Work Meeting is the typical load. The discussion on the money freed up by the CARES money may be the most interesting one to watch, but I'm excited for the discussion on parking management policy.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding Community & Neighborhood Services fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. The next three departments will be presenting to the Council regarding their work and their requests for the upcoming budget year. Presentation only. Coming out of the hiring freeze, there are needs to fill positions in Zoning Compliance.
2. A presentation regarding the Parks and Recreation Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. Presentation only. The Parks and Rec department was able to thrive even during the pandemic. The biggest fiscal uncertainty for the coming year is how would a hike in the minimum wage affect this department that has over 700 part-time and seasonal employees? Read this Daily Herald article for more details.
3. A presentation regarding Administrative Services for Finance, Justice Court, and Facilities for fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (21-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. Presentation only. These are mostly behind-the-scene operations that are critical in facilitating the delivery of other services to our residents. Their competent execution generally keeps the spotlight focused elsewhere, though changes to operational procedure disrupted the work of the Justice Court.
4. A presentation regarding Fiscal Year 2022 General Fund Revenue Projections. (21-015)
   During the months of January and February, the Finance Division does an analysis of current revenue trends and also works with staff from various departments to calculate fiscal year end projections for the current year General Fund revenues. This is done as part of the budget process and helps guide the development of the next year's budgeted revenue numbers. This effort helps define the parameters that we will be working with during the budget process. Presentation only. Continued improvements in the collection and distribution of online sales taxes allowed Provo to weather the pandemic without too much fiscal disruption.



Administration: Mayor's Update

5. A presentation regarding the Legacy CIP funds and the future allocation of those funds. (21-037)
   In August 2020, the City received CARES Act CRF funds from Utah County to be used in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those funds were used primarily to cover expenditures from the Public Safety COVID-19 response, which freed up General Fund balance that could then be used for other purposes. The Administration proposes to use the funds for various capital projects that would benefit the residents of Provo for years to come. At the February 16, 2021, meeting while allocating some of the funds there was a discussion on how the Administration made the decision to fund certain projects and not others. As part of that meeting the Council asked for the Administration to return to a future Work Meeting to discuss the process, in addition, discuss how the rest of the funds will be allocated. Regular readers will recognize this item from two weeks ago when the Council appropriated $4M of the $6M that the Administration proposed for the $8M freed up by CARES money. I imagine that we'll be discussing the other $2M that the Administration proposed and the remaining $2M. Presentation only. This item will be brought to a future Council Meeting. I'm thrilled to see a level-of-service map for neighborhood parks in Provo. It highlights some gaps in service in northeast Provo. I still need to be convinced that the $900K for the west Provo grocer will be impactful. The largest outstanding issue is what to do with the remaining almost $2M in one-time money.
6. A presentation regarding a budget appropriation regarding the Sales Tax Increment reimbursement post performance payment to Days Market. (21-038)
   In early 2018 the Economic Development Office worked with Days Market to craft a post performance sales tax increment agreement to partially reimburse the Days Market, located on North Canyon Road. The owners of Days 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, Days would be able to earn back some of their costs, if they produced sales above an established base line - which is $39,800. Based on sales tax information and a calculation, they qualify for sales tax reimbursement of $11, 979.76 for fiscal year 2020. This is a ten year agreement. The appropriation will be heard at the March 16 Council meeting. This is similar to the sales tax incentive reports we received two weeks ago for the ROSS property. Presentation only. This item will be brought to a future Council Meeting. Again, this is part of an agreement that we already entered into.
7. A presentation regarding the Small Cell Rate/Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. (21-034)
   Discuss a new rate for Small Cell Installations and propose a rate for the electric vehicle charging stations. Small Cell Installations are currently negotiated under contract. It's likely an administrative decision to charge for the electric vehicle charging stations but would like to discuss with the Council. They have been free for four years and it is time to start charging the average residential rate of $0.11/kwh. These seem like reasonable proposals. My bigger concern is the reliability of the electric vehicle charging stations. Presentation only. This item will be brought to a future Council Meeting. Charging stations can be convenient for Provo residents needing an occasional fast charge, but the greatest benefit is to people visiting Provo who need to recharge while they are here. Generally, they are happy to pay a reasonable rate for the electricity they receive, and it makes sense for the City to charge them.



Business

8. A presentation regarding Provo City’s Master Parking Plan. (21-035)
   In 2017 the Provo Municipal Council adopted a Strategic Parking Management Plan the mission statement of that plan was “The Provo parking program will strive to develop a superior, customer-oriented parking system, responding to the current and future needs of parkers, including residents, visitors, employees, employers, and property owners through active planning, management, coordination, and communications. The Provo parking program shall be considered an integral component of the community’s economic development strategies and programs.” As part of the plan it has objectives and guiding principles. It has been three years since the plan was adopted and the Council may wish to review the plan to see if the objectives are being met. This is a continuation of the discussion that started four weeks ago. The Administration is interested to see if the Council still supports the implementation of the Strategic Parking Management Plan. I will be leading the discussion to verify the support for the Plan and subsequent policies enacted by the Council. If there is still support, I will try to determine if there is support for jump-starting the implementation of these plans and policies. A motion reaffirming the Council’s support of the current parking policies and visioning documents as discussed (2015 Strategic Parking Management Plan, 2017 Parking Vision and Guidelines/Principles, and 2019 Downtown Parking Policy & Downtown Parking Vision) and to signal support to the Administration that they move forward with implementation of these policies immediately was approved 7:0. I am hopeful that we have everyone on the same page now and can make some solid progress on implementing the Strategic Parking Management Plan.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately .30 acres of real property, generally located at 619 N. 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RR) to Professional Office (PO) Zone. North Park Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210022)
   This property, although designated as Commercial in the General Plan, has been zoned RC since 2002. The RC zone was established to “encourage conservation of existing housing by limiting the use of a given lot or parcel to the legal use existing on April 2, 2002.” The property was built as a commercial office space in 1980 and has operated as such throughout its life. The owners inquired of the City what would be needed to remodel the building and provide a new covered entry on the south side of the structure. Development Services staff informed the owners that the current RC zone is very limiting to the use of the land and that a zone change would be beneficial to them and to the City. The surrounding uses include a duplex to the north, an apartment building to the west, and a medical center to the south; all within the RC zone. Across the street to the east is North Park in the Public Facilities (PF) zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. This appears to be a straightforward request. This property should never have been zoned RC. Only now has it become a problem as the owner wants to make a minor improvement to the existing structure. There is no reason I can think of not to support this request.
   
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on March 2, 2021. See my report on the second item of the evening agenda.



Business

10. A presentation regarding Robert’s Rules of Order. (21-036)
    As part of the ongoing training for the Council, there will be a presentation on Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert's Rules provides rules and procedures that allow a deliberative assembly to make its decisions efficiently, but with all due regard for the rights of the members of the Council. I feel like the Council has a good balance between formality and flexibility that allows our meetings to flow well. Presentation only. These Rules of Order help the Council to operate smoothly, particularly when emotions are running high. Fortunately, we usually keep our emotions in check and can be loosely guided by these formal rules.



Closed Meeting

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



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 2, 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.



Action Agenda

1. A resolution regarding the Sales Tax Increment post performance payment with Eastbay Shopping Center LLC (formally Woodside Capital Partners). (21-033)
   In June 2018, Provo City entered into a Sales Tax Increment agreement with Woodside Capital Partners to offset and incentivize the remodel, construction and opening of a new Ross retail store in the East Bay Shopping Center. The store was intended to serve as a magnet to attract other retailers and fill an otherwise low occupancy retail center. As discussed last time, we held the sales tax increment (created by investment into the property) as an incentive. Now that the investment has occurred and the sale tax went up $38k, it is time to appropriate that amount to East Bay Shopping Center, as agreed. Approved 7:0. This is an obligation that we committed to when we entered into the agreement. The amount owed is based on the sales tax increase that they achieve, so the payment amounts aren't known until each year is complete, and then we have to appropriate that amount.
2. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately .30 acres of real property, generally located at 619 N. 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RR) to Professional Office (PO) Zone. North Park Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210022)
   This was item 9 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the afternoon meeting. Approved 7:0. This property never should have been zoned RC, so not only am I happy to rezone it to a proper zone, I joined with the Planning Commission in asking Planning Staff to bring forward a proposal to rezone all similar properties along this stretch of State Street.
3. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at 1724 South State Street, from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190356)
   This had a first hearing at the February 16 Council meeting. The developer has proffered an agreement that appears to address concerns regarding traffic congestion and flow at the start and end of the school day. Approved 5:2, with George Handley and Shannon Ellsworth opposed. I feel that there were two key questions: (1) Is this the right development at this location and (2) should the Council hold off on a rezone if there are separate legal or technical issues that could prevent the proposed development from occurring. I voted for the rezone because I believe that (1) this is the right development for this location and (2) it is appropriate to rezone even if there are outstanding issues as long as the developer proffers a development agreement. After all, if the legal issues or the technical issues can't be worked out then nothing changes anyway. This decision allows them to move forward only if all of those outstanding issues get resolved. It reduces the uncertainty for the developer and allows them to address the outstanding issues with greater confidence.
   
   

   Adjournment

Call For Candidates

What is a democracy without good choices at the ballot box? I'm not sure what it is, but it certainly isn't healthy. This fall, we will vote for four offices in Provo: three Council seats and Mayor. District 5, which I currently represent, is one of the seats we get to decide on. I haven't decided if I will run again. I've even pondered running for the City-wide seat. But regardless of what I end up doing, we need strong candidates running for each of these four seats. Who do you know that you think would represent you well on the Council? Who would make for a good CEO of Provo? Encourage them to run! Maybe it's you! How wonderful would it be if, come November, we are trying to decide between multiple good options in each of the races? I, and some others on the Council, are very interested in exploring the use of Ranked Choice Voting, or another method, in our elections this fall, that better reflect the people's will and alleviate the worry of the dreaded spoiler effect. We'll have to see what happens in the State Legislature regarding this, but in the meantime, go out and encourage good people to run!

Council Meetings - 16 February 2021

The most interesting items are probably the rezone request of land near Treeside Charter School at the far south-eastern corner of the City, and the question of what to do with money freed up by using CARES money to pay our first responders.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding the progress of the General Plan Update. (20-068)
   Community and Neighborhood Services staff and the consultant, Design Workshop, will give an update on the progress of the update to the General Plan. The General Plan can be a great tool to guide decisions and communicate clearly with Provo's residents and developers what we want our community to be. It needs to be kept up-to-date, and it needs to reflect the will of the people. It also should be followed by elected officials and city employees as we execute our duties. Presentation only. If you are interested in Provo's future, you should be interested in the update of the General Plan. If you are interested in the update of the General Plan, I recommend browsing through the presentation slides, or watch this segment of the meeting.
2. A presentation regarding Library Services' fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. This is the first of numerous presentations and discussions with the Council to help inform the budgeting process. Presentation only. I had a few questions after reading the financial statements but was able to get them answered. I think we have a great library and that it is continuing in the right direction.
3. A presentation regarding the Legal Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. A presentation and discussion of the operations of the Legal Department in preparation for the budget development. Presentation only. It was impressive to see the department's size stay the same over decades while the population of the city has continued to grow.
4. A presentation regarding the Council Office's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. The budget, and budget presentations, include the Council's own Office. Presentation only. We have a pretty small budget, and very little of it goes to anything besides personnel.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide application. (19-102)
   Changing digital signs have been shown to lead to distracted driving, which can increase the risk of accidents. Some residents and local businesses have also expressed a desire for fewer and slower digital signs in order to preserve Provo's aesthetic. The Council’s Sign Committee wants to balance safety and aesthetics with the need to help its local businesses stay competitive. It has drafted proposed amendments to Provo City Code to protect Provo residents, preserve our city’s history and atmosphere, and support businesses. The hold time for digital signs on state roads, which generally have higher speeds, is 8 seconds. The most common hold time in neighboring cities is 8 seconds. The highway minimum hold time is designed so that motorists rarely see more than one message change per sign. To achieve a similar goal in the city, where motorists, cyclists and pedestrians encounter digital signs at lower speeds and in greater numbers, the committee felt that short hold times need to be substantially longer than 8 seconds.
   Provo distinguishes between short hold and long hold areas and prohibits digital signs in primarily residential zones. In short hold time areas, which are predominantly commercial, the primary objective for increasing the minimum hold time is traffic safety. In long hold time areas, there is an additional emphasis on aesthetics to minimize the number of message changes encountered not only by motorists but also by cyclists and pedestrians. The Sign Committee proposes the following amendments, which can be seen in the attached ordinance as Exhibits A and B. Exhibit C includes a list of studies consulted in the Committee's research.
   1. minimum hold times of 1 minute in short hold time areas, 1hour in long hold time areas, 15 seconds for signs in SC3 zones that represent 20 or more tenants, and 8 seconds for signs adjacent to and facing Interstate 15
   2. replacing uses of "high churn" and "low churn" with "short hold time" and "long hold time" 2
   3. revisions to the list of short and long hold time areas and where electronic signs are not permitted
   4. clarification that electronic version of types of signs permitted in the Riverbottoms Design Corridor are also allowed
   5. replacing the graphs that show the maximum sign size permitted by lot frontage with tables that are easier to read
   6. These proposals would apply only to digital signs that are on a business’s property (not signs on public school properties or billboards) and whose message can be changed by electronic means on a fixed display screen composed of a series of LEDs, fiber optics, plasma displays, light bulbs, or other illumination devices.
   The Sign Committee has done some great work on this proposed update. I'm still not convinced about the logic behind allowing 15 second hold times for signs in SC3 zones that represent 20 or more tenants. The rationale given has been to allow these signs to churn more quickly to identify the stores at that location. Still, with a minimum of 20 tenants, it would take at least 5 minutes to show each tenant for 15 seconds. Also, I'm still concerned that there may be some unintended consequences as more and more secondary signs are converted to digital displays. A motion to refer these changes to the Planning Commission was approved 7:0. The item was originally scheduled for the Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 2021, but was continued in advance of the meeting. It'll be good to get this vetted by the Planning Commission. I still have lingering concerns. They may be unfounded concerns, but I need to understand why.
6. A presentation from the Zoning Committee regarding the work they have done over the past year. (21-030)
   The Zoning Committee has been working over the last year on solutions to improve the functionality of Code Enforcement. As part of this work, the Zoning Committee wants to increase the longevity of the personnel in Code Enforcement. Another area of study was best practices and what can be done to improve Code Enforcement generally. The Zoning Committee recommends the following improvements:
   1. fully fund the allowed 6 full-time employees (FTEs) for Code Enforcement
   2. create a Field Supervisor potion (included in the 6 FTEs)
   3. uniforms for Code Enforcement Officers
   4. department branding for at least two vehicles
   5. improved staff training
   Why is our average tenure so low for code enforcement officers? How does we compare with other cities'? Presentation only. I support these ideas but suggested that we need to make sure we are addressing the root of the problem.
7. A presentation regarding Council Handbook training. (21-032)
   Council’s attorney, Brian Jones, will discuss the Council Handbook with emphasis on Chapters I-III, and VIII-IX, focusing on Council powers and rules of ethics and procedure. Periodic reviews and trainings are important to keep the Council running smoothly. Presentation only. I agree that coordination and cooperation between branches are necessary to serve the interests of the people of Provo. And so is being respectful of the vital roles each branch plays.
8. A presentation regarding the Sales Tax Increment post performance payment with Woodside Capital Partners. (21-033)
   In June 2018, Provo City entered into a Sales Tax Increment agreement with Woodside Capital Partners to offset and incentivize the remodel, construction and opening of a new Ross retail store in the East Bay Shopping Center. The store was intended to serve as a magnet to attract other retailers and fill an otherwise low occupancy retail center. This will be heard at the March 2 Council meeting. We've done a lot of property tax increment deals, but very few sales tax increment deals. I am very interested to see how this deal has turned out so far. Presentation only. A sales tax incentive was offered, it attracted a taker, and the complex's economic output has increased. The increase has generated an additional $38k in Provo's portion of sales tax. This $38k is the incentive for this year. Provo will continue only to collect 2018 levels of sales tax for this complex for nine more years.
9. A resolution accepting or denying an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 6.4 acres of property at the intersections of Colorado Avenue, Bullock Lane, and 1860 South. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20210019)
   This is a preview of this item, scheduled to be heard in the Council Meeting this evening. The decision will be to accept or deny the petition to consider annexation, not a decision on whether or not to grant the annexation itself. This appears to be part of the Annexation Plan and seems to be a good location for this use. I currently don't see any reason not to support the petition. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for Council Meeting on February 16, 2021. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 13.07 acres of real property, generally located at approximately 1400 West 890 South from Agricultural (A1.1) to Residential Agricultural (RA(A). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200413)
    Zachary Steele requests approval of a zone change from the A1.1 zone to the RA(A) zone along with a concept plan for one new building lot for property belonging to the Steele family. The accessory apartment overlay (A) zone would allow the property owner to establish an accessory living unit as long as the property is owner-occupied and meets the standards of Chapter 14.30, Provo City Code. The property is currently used for agricultural purposes and has one existing residential unit at 1400 W 890 S. The proposed lot is a half-acre lot just west of that existing home and would abut the recently approved Kelshaw Subdivision on the west property line and front on 890 South. A similar one-lot subdivision and associated rezone was recently approved just south of this proposal, on 990 South, for the Steele family. This new concept plan would provide an additional building lot within the Steele family farm. It should be noted that the A overlay currently requires at least 4 acres and at least 16 dwelling units. This proposal does not meet the minimum number of dwelling units. It is possible that state or local amendments might change that soon. As it stands, the Council can continue the item to a future meeting or rezone the parcel to RA without the overlay zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. I agree with staff and the Planning Commission. I feel that this proposal is also aligned with the West Provo Development Policies, which calls for supporting farmers to farm for as long as they desire to farm. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for Council Meeting on February 16, 2021. See my report for item 6 in the evening meeting.
11. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at 1724 South State Street, from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190356)
    This is the second hearing for this item. It was continued from the Council Meeting on December 15, 2020. This item was considered, and ultimately continued, at the November 11, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting. The Planning Commission asked staff to provide information relative to the following:
    • commercial development under-performance in the South State area
    • demographic and housing stock data.
    The Planning Commission expressed the sentiment that commercial development is not thriving in the South State Street area of the City and requested additional information. Most of the commercially zoned property on South State between 900 South and 1860 South is for heavy commercial (CM Zone) uses. There is approximately 10 acres of land zoned SC2 (Community Shopping Center) and approximately 3.5 acres zoned SC1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center). The property in the SC2 Zone has been zoned such since about 2001 and has yet to be developed. The property zoned SC1 has been zoned such since 1998, and a portion of it was developed in 2013 for a gas station. Planning Commission recommended approval. There seem to be so many underlying disputes regarding this property that it is hard to know what to believe. Many of the people speaking against the rezone request refer to issues that I have no information on, and I'm not sure are directly related to the request. As a councilor, I try hard to understand the broader impact of a decision. Still, it is hard to account for the needs of a charter school that has little local oversight. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for Council Meeting on February 16, 2021. See my report for item 8 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, February 16, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.

Dial 346 248 7799. Enter Meeting ID 883 7568 5942 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use same meeting ID and enter passcode: 196829.

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.



Consent Agenda

Items on the consent agenda are generally routine in nature, have been fully vetted in other meetings, or do not need additional discussion. They are approved together as one item.
1. Approval of minutes
   
2. A resolution in support of designating Bridal Veil Falls as a state monument or national park. (21-031)
   I like the idea of the Falls being a state monument. All items on the Consent Agenda were approved 7:0. As expected, there was no discussion in the meeting.
   
   

   Action Agenda

3. A resolution transferring $7,879,285 from the General Fund to various Funds and appropriating $5,910,000 of the transferred funds and an additional $10,000 for the purposes described herein. (21-029)
   In August 2020, the City received CARES Act CRF funds from Utah County to be used in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those funds were used primarily to cover expenditures from the Public Safety COVID-19 response, which freed up General Fund balance that could then be used for other purposes. The Administration proposes to use the funds for various capital projects that would benefit the residents of Provo for years to come. These transfers and appropriations will facilitate the funding of those projects. Using the CARES money this way is a prudent and long-lasting way to get value out of the money. I do have some concerns about the cost and reprioritization of the Canyon Road Park development. I also think we should have a good discussion about the remaining $2M and how it will be used. A motion to amend the resolution to (1) change the amount appropriated to the Economic Development CIP Fund from $1,000,000 to $100,000, (2) add “develop or contract for the data tools to” to before “attract a west side grocery retailer” on line 50, and (3) remove the $1,000,000 appropriated to the Parks CIP Fund, was approved 4:3, with George Handley, Shannon Ellsworth, and David Shipley opposed. The final version of the resolution with these changes was then approved 4:3, with George Handley, Shannon Ellsworth, and David Shipley opposed. We had some good discussion, just not about what should be done with the remaining $2M. There was some disagreement about how the $6M that the Administration be appropriated should be reviewed. What passed were the items that there was consensus on (~$4M). All items that any councilor wanted to consider further were left out for further discussion.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide application. (19-102)
   This was item 5 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 5 in the Work Meeting. ***CONTINUED*** As stated in the Results of item 5 in the Work Meeting, this item was referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
5. A resolution accepting or denying an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 6.4 acres of property at the intersections of Colorado Avenue, Bullock Lane, and 1860 South. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20210019)
   This was item 9 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. A resolution to accept the petition was approved 7:0. This annexation has been anticipated for a long time, and it makes sense.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 13.07 acres of real property, generally located at approximately 1400 West 890 South from Agricultural (A1.1) to Residential Agricultural (RA(A). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200413)
   This was item 10 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 10 in the Work Meeting. Approved (without the A overlay as discussed in the Work Meeting) 7:0. There were some questions with the "A" (ADU) overlay. As the State Legislature is actively considering changes to ADUs (accessory dwelling units), the applicant chose to move ahead without the A-overlay as part of the request.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to remove the Design Review Committee requirement for the Critical Hillside (CH) Overlay Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20210014)
   Subsection 14.33A.040(3) of the Code establishes design review requirements for certain uses conducted within the Critical Hillside (CH) Overlay Zone. This subsection reads as follows: “Notwithstanding any other provision in Title 14 or 15, Provo City Code, all proposals for residential and nonresidential developments in the CH Zone, as well as all proposals for main buildings, except for one-family detached dwellings, shall obtain a recommendation from the Design Review Committee.” This subsection requires, among other things, design review for all residential developments. Design review for a development of single-family homes would not be very useful considering there would be no landscaping or architecture to review. Additionally, design review of residential developments, which do not require project plan approval, may lie outside the scope of the Design Review Committee's (DRC) powers and duties established in Chapter 14.04A. Section 14.04.020 of the Code identifies the duties of the DRC, as follows: “The Design Review Committee shall review and make design recommendations regarding the external design of buildings and site plans for all proposed new buildings, structures, and uses which are subject to project plan approval and design review.” The elimination of the subject requirement would allow the Powers and Duties section of Chapter 14.04A to control in the question of when a proposal in the CH Zone must go to the DRC for their recommendation. Other sections of the Code, such as Subsection 15.03.310(5), help to give further direction regarding when a proposal must have design review. Planning Commission recommended approval. I don't fully understand this proposal. I believe the Critical Hillside Overlay Zone is very recent. I understand that some tweaks may need to be made, but I'm not understanding why we would want to remove this review. The documentation talks about single-family homes, but doesn't specify if we are talking about detached or attached. Approved 7:0. I had my questions answered and my concerns addressed. The Council committee that developed the CH-overlay zone was supportive of this proposal.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at 1724 South State Street, from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190356)
   This was item 11 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 11 in the Work Meeting. A motion to continue the item for two weeks and request that the developer propose safety remedies for the access issues, was approved 6:1, with George Handley opposed. I was ready to move ahead and approve this rezone, but the more patient councilors prevailed. In the meantime, it appears that some good progress has been made in addressing the congestion concerns, so I'm glad that it was continued.
9. ***CONTINUED*** The Community & Neighborhood Services Dept. requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Chapter 14.20B of the Provo City Code to update development standards of the Freeway Commercial Two (FC-2) Zone. Citywide impact. PLOTA20210026
   This item was not ready to be heard.
10. ***CONTINUED*** Comm. & Neighborhood Services Dept. requests a Zone Change from the A1.20 Agricultural zone to the Freeway Commercial Two (FC-2) Zone for approx. 75 acres, located at approx. 500 W Lakeview Parkway. Lakewood Neighborhood. PLRZ20210025
    This item was not ready to be heard
11. ***CANCELLED*** Forrest Phillips requests a Zone Change from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential for property located at 845 W and 849 W 2000 N. Carterville Neighborhood. PLRZ20200407
    This item was cancelled by the applicant.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 2 February 2021

The items of most interest to me are WM#2 about parking, WM#7 about partnering with the Administration to tackle a problem, CM#7 about the rezone of the vacant Smith's property in west Provo, and CM#8 about the VLDR proposal in northeast Provo.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.


Business

1. A discussion on the appointment of members to the Elected Officials Compensation Commission. (21-026)
   Per Provo City Code 4.04.130 an Elected Official Compensation Commission is appointed every four years to review and recommend compensation for the positions of mayor and municipal councilors. The commission is required to make its recommendations by April and the recommendations, if they are to be accepted, are voted on by the third week of June. The commission members terms expire at that point. Any changes to compensation take effect in January 2022. Three members of the commission are appointed by the Mayor, three members are appointed by Municipal Council, and the seventh is chosen by the aforementioned six members of the committee.
   The following three people have been nominated by the Municipal Council to serve on the Commission:
   Taeya Howell - An Assistant Professor in the Management Department at the BYU Marriott School of Business, Taeya Howell joined BYU in August 2016 after being a Research Scholar at New York University's Stern School of Business. She received her B.A. in Sociology from Washington State University, her J.D. from Brigham Young University, and her M.A. and Ph.D. in Management from the University of Texas at Austin. Prior to pursuing her Ph.D., Taeya practiced law for several years focusing on commercial leasing and corporate bankruptcy. She and her husband are the proud parents of four daughters.
   Laura Cabanilla - A graduate of Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School, Laura Cabanilla is a partner with the Provo law firm Esplin Weight. Her practice consists primarily of family law and criminal defense. Previously she worked as a prosecutor with the Utah County Attorney’s Office. Laura is a former member of the Provo Municipal Council and has been a long-time member of the U.S. Army Reserves. Lt. Colonel Cabanilla completed a 12-month tour of duty in Kuwait in 2014. She and her husband Dave have four adult children.
   Peter Madsen - A professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources at BYU’s Marriott School of Business, Peter Madsen's research focuses on employee health and safety, organizational change management, and organizational learning from accidents, incidents, and near misses. He teaches courses on human resource management, organizational behavior, change management, and crisis management at the undergraduate, MBA, and executive MBA levels. Compensation for elected officials is always an uncomfortable conversation because we have to set the level for ourselves. This process was updated a little over four years ago. It was designed to make the process as transparent and insulated as possible. I appreciate the willingness of these nominees to serve our community in this role. It is obvious that all three are more than qualified. A motion to appoint Taeya Howell, Laura Cabanilla, and Peter Madsen to the Elected Officials Compensation Commission, was approved 7:0. They will serve the community well.
2. A discussion regarding the future of parking policy. (21-028)
   In 2017 the Provo Municipal Council adopted a Strategic Parking Management Plan the mission statement of that plan was “The Provo parking program will strive to develop a superior, customer-oriented parking system, responding to the current and future needs of parkers, including residents, visitors, employees, employers, and property owners through active planning, management, coordination, and communications. The Provo parking program shall be considered an integral component of the community’s economic development strategies and programs.” As part of the plan it has objectives and guiding principles. It has been three years since the plan was adopted and the Council may wish to to review the plan to see if the objectives are being met. We have several perplexing parking problems in Provo. The City has unsuccessfully grappled with parking in Joaquin Neighborhood, just south of BYU, for more than 50 years. We have invested millions of dollars in the construction of parking garages Downtown that currently provide little public value. The public is concerned about the potential for on-street parking congestion when new development is proposed. We don't have a straightforward way to manage on-street parking. There are several congestion "hot-spots" throughout the City that are a headache for the people there. We have been talking about addressing these parking problems the entire time I've served on the Council. Some good steps have been taken, but there is so much more that needs to be done, and we need to be moving with some urgency. As called for in the 2015 Strategic Parking Management Plan, a full-time Parking Administrator is needed to move this forward. Presentation only. The primary purpose was to ask if the Council would prioritize parking and, more specifically, would support hiring a full-time Parking Administrator. Some councilors wanted more time to evaluate the request. The Administration questioned the need for this role to be full-time. I think the lack of progress over the past six years is evidence of the need.



Administration: Mayor's Update

3. A presentation on the Quarterly Report for the quarter ending 9-30-2020 for Fiscal 2021 (21-007)
   Regular presentation of the quarterly report This is the first quarter of the current budget year and is our first look at how the pandemic is impacting it. Through the first quarter, things are looking pretty good. Take a look for yourself. If it's not addressed in the presentation, I'll be asking about Municipal Energy Tax Revenue, Intergovernmental Revenue, Fine Revenue, Water Transfer Revenue, and General Services Expenses. Presentation only. I was able to get all of my questions answered. For a quarter ending in the Fall of 2020, we are doing remarkably well.
4. A presentation on FY 2021 Budget Spreadsheet calculation for Employee Benefits. (21-019)
   Some errors were discovered in the 2021 Budget regarding employee benefits, meaning that the overall 2021 budget will be decreased. I appreciate the way this matter is being handled. Mistakes happen. I'm glad to see that they were caught and are being fixed. And it's always nice when fixing the errors lowers the budget. Presentation only. I appreciated the way responsibility was taken for the mistakes, the causes of the mistakes were identified, and corrections were presented that included preventing these same mistakes from happening again.
5. A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Department Accreditation Process (21-022)
   The Provo parks and Recreation Department achieved Department accreditation. This presentation summarizes the process. There is not much information in the Document Packet, but if I remember correctly, this represents quite an achievement that few Parks and Rec departments around the country reach. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for a presentation at the Council Meeting on February 2, 2021. The accreditation process requires a systematic review of nearly every aspect of the Parks and Rec department against the best practices.
6. A presentation regarding the calendar for the budget process for Fiscal Year 2022. (21-015)
   The start of the Fiscal Year 2022 has started and as part of this process the Administration reviews with the Municipal Council the sequence of the budget process. The budget process starts in January and continues until the budget is adopted in June. Here is the proposed calendar. Perhaps it's just a given, but the thing that seems missing to me is the discussion between the Council and Administration about budget priorities for the coming year. Presentation only. It's a long process to create the budget for the coming year.
7. A discussion regarding the Administration’s proposal to support Council policy priorities. (21-027)
   The Mayor’s Office is proposing to lead dedicated and intensive efforts to address major policy issues that concern the Council. It is envisioned to be used in conjunction with Council Committees and would not replace them. The Administration would work on the issue and make regular reports to the Council during Work Meetings to present what they have learned and get direction from the Council. It is expected that each review would be focused on specific aspects of policy and would last no more than nine months each. I think this is a wonderful idea! Presentation only. With two separate branches of government, I worry that some issues fall into the cracks between policy and implementation. I welcome this opportunity to work closely with the Administration to make sure we are addressing our most pressing needs.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Titles 9, 14, and 15 to make various technical updates and corrections. Citywide Application. (PLOTA2021003)
   Staff in the Community and Neighborhood Services and Development Services departments regularly note code corrections needed throughout their work. Development Services staff has compiled those notes from 2020 and is now requesting various ordinance amendments to correct the code issues found. The majority of the proposed amendments deal with removing references to zones that have been recently repealed (R3, R4, R5, CHDR) and adding recently added zones (VLDR) in Titles 9, 14, and 15 of the Provo City Code. Additionally, staff found language in the Gateway (GW) zone that is not needed in reference to streets that the zone does not abut or becomes repetitive. Specifically, since the GW zone does not border 100 South there does not need to be regulation for that corridor within the zone. Also, the restriction on commercial uses along 100 North is already stated elsewhere in the GW zone chapter, and therefore can be omitted in the referenced Section. Section 9.51.020 referenced repealed zones and was proposed to be amended. However, the Fire Marshall desired to add additional language to match current standards for transport routes, that change was made. Section 14.34.090 incorrectly referenced “Chapter” when explaining height limitations, but should be referencing all of Title 14, that change has been proposed. There are a few pages of City code, with many cross-references. As changes are made, it is almost inevitable that some outdated references will remain. I'm glad our team keeps an eye out for them and proposes these code clean-ups periodically. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for a presentation at the Council Meeting on February 2, 2021. See my report for item 6 in the evening meeting.
9. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 11acres of real property, located at 1920 W Center St., from Community Shopping (SC2) to Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Fort Utah Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200282)
   The Provo City Development Services department is requesting a zone change from the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC2) zone to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone and Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1) for four parcels of land around 1920 West Center Street. The subject property was zoned SC2 approximately 20 years ago for a grocery store. Citizens filed a lawsuit to challenge the zone change and the grocery store was never built. Within the subject property the Dell Cox Family Partnership owns 5.5 acres. Smith’s Food and Drug Centers holds a lease on the Cox property and they own the remaining property. A west-side grocery store is a priority to the city administration and to the citizens of west Provo. The current SC2 zone has had a stifling effect on obtaining a west-side store. Potential grocers are hesitant to move forward with a store if a competing store could be built on the subject property. The city staff has spent years encouraging the property owner to move forward with a grocery store. Since it is apparent a grocery store is not going to happen on the subject property, it is in the city’s interest to rezone the subject property so a grocery store may be located elsewhere on the west side. This is potentially a thorny issue, but I think the narrative that is given is spot on. After a rocky start, the City was patiently waited for more than a decade for Smith's to build a grocery store at the location they own in west Provo. After all this time, if they are not interested in doing so, we will make other plans. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for a presentation at the Council Meeting on February 2, 2021. See my report for item 7 in the evening meeting.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 6.32. Citywide Application. (21-025)
    Staff is updating Chapter 6.32 to reflect State code regulations and to address changing dynamics with mobile food vendors. This should be an interesting discussion. I wonder which of these changes are necessitated by State law. I know the 100' buffer from the entrance of brick and mortar restaurants was a compromise. I'm a bit surprised to see it being proposed for removal. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for a presentation at the Council Meeting on February 2, 2021. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting.
11. ***Continued*** DR Horton requests a Zone Change from A1.5 and Residential Agriculture (RA) to Low Density Residential and General Commercial for 55.48 acres, located at 1562 S 1100 W. Lakewood and Sunset Neighborhoods. (PLRZ20200394)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
12. ***Continued*** An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at 1724 South State Street, from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190356)
    This was continued to a future 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. None requested.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 2, 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 Accreditation for Provo Parks and Recreation. (21-023)
   See my preview for item 5 in the Work Meeting. Presentation only. Congrats to all involved in the effort to secure this prestigious recognition.
   
   

   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 870 3146 6777 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use same meeting ID and enter passcode: 341672.
   
   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. A resolution transferring $614,197 from the General Fund to the Airport Fund for marketing and an interfund loan payment to the Energy fund and appropriating $124,144 in the Airport Fund. (21-018) (20-017)
   Provo City has agreed to contribute $50,000 in marketing costs for each new destination Allegiant flies to from the Provo Airport. Allegiant has recently announced Denver and Orange County as new destinations, requiring a $100,000 contribution from the City to Allegiant for marketing purposes. This will be funded with a $100,000 transfer from the General Fund.
   On April 21, 2020, the Municipal Council approved a resolution authorizing an interfund loan between the Airport Fund and the Energy Fund for $4,900,526 to purchase land near the Airport. The loan is for 10 years with a fixed principal payment of $490,053 and a variable interest rate equal to the monthly Utah State Public Treasurer's Investment Fund rate. The loan was to be paid back with Airport revenues and if revenues were not sufficient a transfer would be made from the General Fund for all or a portion of the payment. The Airport is currently being subsidized by the General Fund ($141,411 in the fiscal 2021 Budget) and not in a position to make all or a portion of the payment so Administration is recommending a transfer from the General Fund of $514,197 which includes interest of $24,144. This item was discussed two weeks ago in the Work Meeting. The airport is expanding and will grow in importance to our quality-of-life and the viability of our economy. But it does require some investment up-front to reap those benefits down the line. Approved 7:0. The benefits of developing our airport will provide a great return on our investment, both in financial terms and in the more important terms of quality of life for the people of Provo.
3. A resolution approving a substantial amendment to the program year 2019 Annual Action Plan incorporating additional funds for COVID-19 Public Health Response. (21-024)
   The Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has notified Provo City of an additional expected allocation of $487,563 in CDBG-CV3 grant funds as part of the CARES Act. The City is required to amend its Annual Action Plan in order to use the funding.
   A duly noticed Public Comment Period from January 16, to February 2, 2021 is conducted for citizens, partner agencies, and other interested parties to review and comment on the Plan’s proposed amendment. Electronic copies of the Plan are available for public review at the City’s website. The public hearing on February 2, 2021 will close the Public Comment Period, present the Plan (Exhibit A) to the Municipal Council and public in general, show proposed uses to the recommended projects for CDBG-CV funds (Exhibit B), and an opportunity for the Municipal Council to make final funding determinations for the CDBG-CV3 uses and approve the Substantial Amendment to the Plan. The money will go towards administration, public services, and small business assistance. Approved 7:0. Some of the Federal Covid money is being distributed through the "Community Development Block Grant" program. We approved the proposed changes to our CDBG plan to incorporate this new money.
4. A Resolution of Intent to create a permit parking area on portions of 820 North from 1025 East to 900 East. Foothills Neighborhood. (20-240)
   Foothill resident Brennan Barfuss has requested that the University Garden Parking Permit Area be expanded to include 820 North from 1025 East to 900 East to prevent those who live outside the neighborhood from parking on the street. On February 4, 2020, Provo City Council directed the Community and Neighborhood Services Department to study this proposal and recommend action. This report contains our findings and recommendations. This was discussed at a Work Meeting near the end of last year. The staff is recommending that we do not continue to consider this request. I have to admit that it is kind of odd. It is requesting an extension of a residential parking permit area, but it covers a street that is mostly not residential. Staff instead suggests that we "continue" to enforce the 72-hour limit, but our previous discussions have determined that our enforcement resources are stretched too thin to enforce this regulation effectively. A motion to adopt the resolution failed 0:7, with George Handley, David Harding, Shannon Ellsworth, Bill Fillmore, Travis Hoban, David Sewell, and David Shipley opposed. The applicant no longer wanted to pursue the permit program. I am worried about the discussed alternative approach, which was to continue the enforcement of current parking restrictions, after City officials charged with parking enforcement have said that they are stretched as far as they can go. I don't know how "continue doing what we've been doing" will fix the problems that have been brought up.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 6.32. Citywide Application. (21-025)
   This was item 10 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 10 in the Work Meeting. Approved 7:0. The removal of the buffer I talked about in the preview of the Work Meeting discussion was due to changes to State laws.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Titles 9, 14, and 15 to make various technical updates and corrections. Citywide Application. (PLOTA2021003)
   This was item 8 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 8 in the Work Meeting. A motion to replace the version of the ordinance in the implied motion with a revised ordinance was approved, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. Boring but necessary code clean up. I was able to catch a small error (hence the "motion to replace") that could have caused some headaches in the future. This shows the value of having an independent review by the Council.
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 11acres of real property, located at 1920 W Center St., from Community Shopping (SC2) to Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Fort Utah Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200282)
   This was item 9 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:1, with Shannon Ellsworth opposed. I acknowledge that this is an unusual and relatively drastic step. But I also feel that it is long overdue, and the City has made clear that we are eager to work with the owners if they want to build a grocery store here. But we can't continue to let this property's potential prevent any other grocery store from coming into this part of town.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 1.07 acres of real property, generally located at 50 East 3900 North, from Residential (R1.10) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190265)
   On November 10, after several hearings by the Planning Commission, the Council voted 6:1 to reject a proposed rezone from Single-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR) in order to build 10 townhomes. The Council indicated that they would be open to hearing a proposal for rezoning to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) with fewer units at a future Work Meeting. The developer has returned with a new VLDR proposal for 6 units. Here is what I reported after hearing this item in the Work Meeting two weeks ago: This originally came before us as a request for LDR (low density residential). It had a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission and the CNS staff, despite raising concerns with some of the neighbors. We heard from many of the neighbors that they would be satisfied if we would lower the proposal's allowed density by rezoning it as VLDR (very low density residential). Once it was clear that there was insufficient support on the Council to rezone it as LDR, I suggested that we rezone it as VLDR in that meeting. (Because the VLDR zone falls between the current zone and the recommended zone, it is considered a compromise that is allowed within the process that has taken place.) Some on the Council were concerned about rezoning it to VLDR if the applicant wasn't interested in proceeding. We indicated that if the applicant was interested in proceeding with VLDR, they could continue in the process rather than start back over. That is where we are at now. The applicant would like to move forward with a VLDR project, and the Council is considering the request again. A motion to table this item was approved 7:0. I pushed to vote to approve this rezoning in this meeting, but the majority wanted to give the parties a little more time to try to work something out. I can see some advantages in the delay, and I hope the discussions are productive. I still maintain that LDR is the best zone for this plot, and VLDR is a good compromise.
9. ***Continued***DR Horton requests a Zone Change from A1.5 and Residential Agriculture (RA) to Low Density Residential and General Commercial for 55.48 acres, located at 1562 S 1100 W. Lakewood & Sunset Neighborhoods PLRZ20200394
   This item was continued by the Planning Commission and not ready to be heard.
10. ***Continued***An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at 1724 South State Street, from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190356)
    This item was continued to a future meeting.




Adjournment