Representing District 5

Friday, October 22, 2021

Council Meetings - 26 October 2021

Towing, Parking, Housing, Art. It's a short but broad agenda.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Business

A presentation regarding the review of Annual Fraud Risk Assessment. (21-106)
Utah State Auditor's office requires this assessment be completed and shared with the Municipal Council in a public meeting. Provo City has completed this assessment and the score for this year is 391 out of a total possible 395! The best tier starts at 355. I so pleased with the way that our Finance Department has handled this Fraud Risk Assessment. The State came out with this a few years back and rather than treat it hostilly, the Department took it as a opportunity to review all their procedures and make improvements. Presentation only.
A discussion on percent for the arts programs. (21-098)
The Council at the September 21, 2021 meeting heard a presentation on the concept of a Percent for Arts program, why public art matters, how they are funded, and some Utah examples. Direction was given to begin the outline of a Percent for Arts program for Provo City. Art helps make a place worth living in. Public buildings are major investments and it makes sense to direct a little of that money into incorporating art into the projects. A motion to create an ad hoc committee to explore and develop a recommended policy regarding a percent for arts program, and to defer selection of the committee chair and vice-chair until January, with a target date of April to report back to the Council was approved 7:0.
A presentation from the Kem C. Gardner Institute: "A Time to Build: Physical, Human, and Social Capital" (21-094)
As part of the Gardner Policy Institute's presentation series for the Provo Council, this third discussion focuses on the benefits of building and maintaining social capital within neighborhoods and communities. Additional information on housing and economic conditions in Utah will be provided. I'm looking forward to this presentation. Utah leads the nation in this area. While there is always room for improvement, I think we should embrace what has lead us to this point and should take care that we don't undercut our success. Presentation only. This was a very informative presentation.
A presentation on proposed Chapter 9.90 On-Street Parking Management. (21-028)
The Parking Committee proposes a new parking paradigm called the On-Street Parking Management (OSPM) program that would be created with the proposed Provo City Code Chapter 9.90 and applied to the Joaquin Neighborhood with Provo City Code Chapter 9.91. The Parking Manager would have the authority to apply the solutions in Chapter 9.90 within a Council-approved OSPM area without returning to the Council for every change, though they would have to notify residents in affected areas. The Parking Manager could create parking zones where one of two parking management strategies could be applied: 1. Paid timed parking 2. Permit parking with paid timed parking Chapter 9.90 is on Open City Hall for public feedback. It will return to the Council for deliberation once that is closed. Two weeks ago I made an impassioned pitch as to why we need to update the way we manage on-street parking in areas of excess demand. I guess CNS wants an opportunity to describe the nuts and bolts of the proposal. Presentation only. This item is still open for additional feedback on Open City Hall and will return to the Council at a future meeting. We'll be considering this item at our next meeting on November 16th.
An ordinance on towing fees (21-105)
In 2013, the City adopted City Municipal Code 9.31.110 which included a limitation on the maximum fees and charges a towing company operator may charge for: (i) booting or otherwise immobilizing a vehicle, and (ii) towing a vehicle. The fee limits in question only apply to patrol type tows at residential properties. Provo does not impose a fee cap for any consent tows or for non-consent tows (1) at non-residential properties or (2) at residential properties where the property manager or designee calls for the tow. In an attempt to prevent predatory towing, in 2013, Mayor Curtis proposed, and the Council approved, rules requiring patrol tows of residential properties to be done under a contract that meets certain requirements. One of those requirements is a cap on the fees. A local towing operator is requesting a change in the rates to help address costs increases (vehicle, employment, insurance, equipment, etc.). The Council directed staff to bring for its consideration an ordinance setting the non-consent, non-police towing and booting at 80% of the state limit. In 2013, Provo passed a law to discourage the use of patrol towing in an effort to reduce predatory towing. This reduced but did not eliminate the problem of predatory towing in the city. By pinning the cap to the state limit, we would be ensuring that patrol towing is always financially viable. By keeping the cap where it is, the disincentive to continue patrol towing increases with inflation and at some point it won't make sense to continue patrol towing. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 26, 2021. See my report from 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, October 26, 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.

A presentation to recognize Brooklyn Martinsen on her award-winning essay for ULCT's "Why I Like My Community" Essay Contest
Presentation only.
A presentation to recognize Provo Parks and Recreation for receiving the Gold Medal Award from the American Academy for Parks and Recreation Administration
Presentation only.

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 9856 7119 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 734278.

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

A resolution appointing individuals to various boards and commissions (21-039)
The Mayor has recommended a number of individuals to be reappointed to various city boards and commissions. These names have been presented to the Council and the Council has been asked to approve the resolution granting their advice and consent. Thomas Halladay (Board of Adjustment), Mitsuru Saito (TMAC), James Hamula (TMAC), Laureen Urquiaga (TMAC), Robert Knudsen (Planning Commission) I've said it a number of times already, though this may be my last time in this capacity, but I am so grateful for the many people throughout Provo who volunteer thier time and effort to serve our community. Our city is as great as it is because of people like the ones serving on our city boards and commissions. Approved 7:0. Provo is a better place because of all the service given by volunteers.
An ordinance on towing fees (21-105)
This was item 5 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 5 in the earlier meeting. Approved 4:3, with Shannon Ellsworth, George Handley, and David Harding opposed. I know a careful balance was worked out in 2013. I don't feel comfortable making adjustments unless I understand the issue better. I would want to hear from the various stakeholders first.

Adjournment

Monday, October 11, 2021

Council Meetings - 12 October 2021

I only have five more Council meetings days left. And yet there is still so much to be done! The big topics for tomorrow are ADUs and on-street parking management.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Business

A presentation regarding GRAMA in relation to public and confidential records retained by the city and how the process on how they are made public. (21-006)
This is part of our ongoing training regarding GRAMA and how we treat documents created by staff. While most documents are subject to GRAMA requests, some of the information contained within those documents may not be public information and will need to be redacted prior to being released to the public. In addition, there is a process on how these documents can be released to the general public. This is the State dictated process for balancing privacy and the public's right to know. Presentation only. GRAMA is an important tool for transparency and properly balancing privacy and the public's right to know.
A presentation regarding an update on the Bridal Veil Falls Feasibility Study (21-031)
The Utah State Parks Department is completing a feasibility study of Bridal Veil Falls (to be designated as State Monument or State Park) and will report back to the legislature this fall with a report evaluating whether it should be a state park or a state monument. CRSA, an architecture firm, is working on the stakeholder study. They are about 70% done with background research and ready to hold a Workshop with the leadership team with initial findings. They are also working on the Public Engagement Plan, which includes an online survey and public meeting(s). An update for the City Council, which earlier this year adopted a resolution in favor of protecting Bridal Veil Falls, regarding progress has been requested. Bridal Veil Falls is such a gem and is beloved by the people of Provo. Presentation only. It seems like the momentum was for the State to take over management of this area, but I'm not sure there is a clear-cut, best option. The public may be best served with more local management and funding.
A presentation from the Housing Committee regarding an ordinance change for ADU’s to comply with Utah State Law. (21-102)
In the 2021 Utah General Legislative Session, lawmakers passed a bill regarding accessory dwelling units and conditions of their permitted use in cities throughout the state. All cities in Utah must adjust their city ordinances accordingly to align with the new state law. A new State law requires that we make adjustments to our zoning regulations. The question is should we do the minimum to comply or something more. I think that ADUs are a key piece of the housing puzzle. They increase the flexibility of the housing stock, encourage homeownership, make housing more affordable to both renters and homeowners, and increase housing options with minimal impact on surrounding properties. A motion that the Council submit the least restrictive version of the Housing Committee’s recommendations to the Planning Commission for review and to bring back to the Council to continue the discussion was approved 5:2, with David Sewell and Bill Fillmore opposed. By getting a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the least restrictive vesion, we will be able to implement anything between that and the current status. This gives us the most flexibility. I do believe that we should allow ADUs citywide, unless there is a compelling reason why they shouldn't be allowed in a particular area (like the sewer capacity in the area is almost reached and adding more units could cause problems). But I also strongly believe that we need to preserve the requirement that there be an internal connection in ADUs and that we leave the occupancy limit for ADUs at 2 (plus minors).
A discussion on towing fees (21-105)
In 2013, the City adopted City Municipal Code 9.31.110 which included a limitation on the maximum fees and charges a towing company operator may charge for: (i) booting or otherwise immobilizing a vehicle, and (ii) towing a vehicle. The fee limits in question only apply to patrol type tows at residential properties. Provo does not impose a fee cap for any consent tows or for non-consent tows (1) at non-residential properties or (2) at residential properties where the property manager or designee calls for the tow. But in an attempt to prevent predatory towing, in 2013, Mayor Curtis proposed, and the Council approved, rules requiring patrol tows of residential properties to be done under a contract that meets certain requirements. One of those requirements is a cap on the fees. A local towing operator is requesting a change in the rates to help address costs increases (vehicle, employment, insurance, equipment, etc.). Options include: 1) reject the request for a change; 2) remove the cap; or 3) change the cap to: (i) a new fixed dollar amount, or (ii) a percentage of the state maximums. I was surprised to see this back. I didn't see any interest from the Council in making changes. A motion to direct staff to prepare for the Council’s consideration an amendment that would set Provo’s rate on patrol towing at 80% of the state’s rate was approved 5:2, with George Handley and David Harding opposed. This struck me as an odd conversation. We are interested in exploring reports that other Utah cities have prohibited patrol-type tows, but we are also considering raising the amount that businesses can charge for such tows. I'm a fan of the status quo, keep the cap where it is and inflation over time will increase the incentive to tow companies to move to a different model.
Presentation from Parking Committee. (21-028)
The Parking Committee proposes a new parking paradigm called the On-Street Parking Management (OSPM) program that would be created with the proposed Provo City Code Chapter 9.90 and applied to the Joaquin Neighborhood with Provo City Code Chapter 9.91. The Parking Manager would have the authority to apply the solutions in Chapter 9.90 within a Council-approved OSPM area without returning to the Council for every change, though they would have to notify residents in affected areas. The Parking Manager could create parking zones where one of two parking management strategies could be applied:
1. Paid timed parking
2. Permit parking with paid timed parking
After years of study, the Committee is ready to recommend action by the Council. The first chapter creates a new way of managing on-street parking. It is designed to be flexible, adaptable, demand-based, and as convenient as possible. The second chapter would create one of these areas to include the Joaquin Neighborhood. A motion to direct staff to present the proposed Chapter 9.90 on Open City Hall and gather public feedback with the intent to bring the item back for consideration by the Council was approved 7:0. A motion to direct staff to present the proposed Chapter 9.91 on Open City Hall and gather public feedback with the intent to bring the item back for consideration by the Council failed 1:6, with David Sewell, David Shipley, George Handley, Shannon Ellsworth, Bill Fillmore, and Travis Hoban opposed. Chapter 9.90 would create the program framework and 9.91 would create an area covering Joaquin where the program could be implemented when it is ready. The Council wants to get feedback on and decide on the broader framework before considering whether or not to create an area covering Joaquin Neighborhood.

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 12, 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 870 9093 6378 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 201335.

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

A resolution appropriating $8,772.09 in the Economic Development Division in the General Fund for a sales tax increment post performance payment to Day’s Market. The funding source of the appropriation is General Fund Sales Tax Revenues. (21-038)
In early 2018, the Economic Development Office worked with Day's Market to craft a post performance sales tax increment agreement with Day's Market, located on North Canyon Road. The owners of Day's Market were planning an extensive remodel of their aging store and requested that Provo City assist in reducing the construction costs by entering into a sales tax reimbursement agreement on a post performance basis. Days Market would spend approximately $1.3 million dollars on the interior remodel of the store. Similar to other sales tax agreements, Day's would be able to earn back some of their costs if they produced sales above an established baseline -- which in this case was set at $39,800. Based on sales tax information and a calculation, they qualify for sales tax reimbursement of $8,772.09 for fiscal year 2021. This is a ten-year agreement. We heard this item in our Work Meeting three weeks ago. We are contracted to pay this amount, so there isn't much of a decision to make. It is nice to get an update, though. Approved 7:0. It's hard to imagine that this kind of incentive really tipped the scales to convince this business to move forward with a $1.3M renovation.

To be clear, I'm a huge fan of Day's Market. I wish them all the success in the world, and wish they would open five more locations around Provo. My concern is the way that Provo uses TIF (tax-increment financing). TIF can be a powerful tool, but we apply it in situation that I don't think are impactful.

Adjournment

Monday, September 20, 2021

Council Meetings - 21 September 2021

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Business

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

Closed Meeting

None requested.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

A presentation of the Provo City Justice Court Annual Report. (21-099)
No support documents were provided. Presentation only. Judge Romney and his team run an exemplary Justice Court.

Public Comment

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

Dial 346 248 7799. Enter Meeting ID 897 9020 4420 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 584295.

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

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

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

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

Action Agenda

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

Adjournment

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Save Dixon!

Tonight the Provo City School Board will take a vote that may decide the location for the Dixon Middle School rebuild. I fervently believe that it is in the best interest of our children's education and the health of our city that the School be rebuilt at its current location. I ask the Board to vote to rebuilt DMS at its current location. I desperately want to support the bond campaign and I don't want another expensive delay.

Please consider attending tonight's Board meeting and passing along this information. There will be an opportunity for the public to speak at the meeting tonight. The meeting begins at 7pm and is at the Provo City School District Offices, 280 West 940 North.

A good summary of the arguments for rebuilding Dixon Middle School at its current location is presented at the Save Dixon Middle Blog.

Keep reading if you are interested in my reasoning and perspective:

I am a strong advocate for public education and the well-being of our community, and I see these as closely related issues. My first "elected office" was for the Community Council at Timpanogos Elementary School. I campaigned for the last successful school bond (2014) that passed with over 70% of the voters supporting it. I even recorded a spot with the District voicing my support. I felt blindsided, and I spoke with many neighbors who felt similarly, when the District decided to relocate Provo High for its rebuild, even though no indication had been given that that was even a consideration when the bond was being discussed. I argued hard against the proposed Provo High relocation, but in the end, the Board decided to move it. To this day I am frequently reminded that this was the wrong decision. From the final District cost of rebuilding the school at the new location compared to what it would have been at the old site, to the overall cost to taxpayers (for example, in 2019, when asked why progress on other projects around the City was so slow, Provo City engineers estimated that the City had spent around $15M in road construction costs "SO FAR" because of the school relocation. Remember, Provo City taxpayers are the exact same pool as Provo School District taxpayers), to the news that the extracurricular programs were being cut (the same programs that one Board Member told me could only be continued if they relocate the school), to the school traffic backing all the way out onto Geneva Road.

The Provo High move, and the proposal to move Dixon Middle School, are part of a larger pattern and fulfilling the vision and plan of the Provo School District. This is to consolidate schools into ever-increasing student bodies and move schools out from the center of the City out to the periphery. Take a look at the net results of the last changes to middle schools in Provo.

Centennial Middle School was built in the mid-1990s. The given justification was the increasing middle school student enrollment in the district.
Farrer Middle School was closed, less than 10 years later. The reasoning given was that district enrollment didn't justify three middle schools.
Centennial Middle School, has been expanded over the years, but at its heart is still a school built for 600 students. The lunchroom, for example, has a capacity of 600. The enrollment is now pushing 1200 students and is expected to exceed that number.

In 2019, the District tried to skip the middle step and just move Dixon Middle School from near the center of the City to the outskirts of developed Provo. The bond failed by an almost 2:1 margin. Proponents of the bond tried to blame the public for not supporting education, but remember, the bond 5 years prior passed with over 70% support.

I know many people who voted against the 2019 bond BECAUSE they support education, and they disagree with the direction the District is going to build a couple of mega-schools on the edges of Provo. They understand that schools are primarily funded from our property taxes and that we need all areas of the City to be vibrant and healthy to properly fund our schools and that taking critical, family-supporting infrastructure out of the older, more-urbanized neighborhoods, significantly hinders the prospects of healthy redevelopment and significantly increases the chances that these neighborhoods will be abandoned by families and become blighted.

The most recent School Board elections (with two incumbents defeated) bear out that the public does not want to continue to pursue policies of mega-schools and disinvestment in central Provo. By rethinking the policy of only having two middle schools, we can both have more reasonably sized schools that are more conducive to student well-being, and we can help ensure that all areas of Provo are healthy, attractive, and economically vibrant. The site that the District owns in west Provo is a great site for a middle school...once the area builds up around it and there are more middle school students living around it. In the meantime, we can rebuild a smaller Dixon Middle School that doesn't have to fit all the project growth over the next 30 years.

Before the Board decision to put the relocation of DMS on the 2019 bond proposal, some community advocates and I met with board members to explain why we thought that the school should be rebuilt on-site, to try to persuade them that that was the best decision for both the children and the community, and to warn them that we feel so strongly that we would fight against the bond if the relocation was a part of it. It wasn't a threat, but we didn't want them to be surprised later on. With a 2:1 vote against the bond, we can't claim that our opposition made the difference, but I believe we made a difference. And I really can't take any credit, because I was hardly involved due to my work on the City Council. My time on the Council is over at the end of the year, giving me plenty of time in 2022 to either fight for a bond campaign that I think will improve education in Provo or to fight against a bond that I believe is not in the best interest of our students and community.

I've been quiet in the run-up to this vote today, and not just because so much of my focus is on the issues before the City Council, but because I had heard enough comments from school board members to make me believe that they had learned from the last bond vote and the last school board elections. I still hope that this is the case. I deeply hope that I can support the bond campaign as I did in 2014, but this issue is critical enough that I will fight against it if I believe it will harm our children and harm our community. I ask the Board to vote tonight to rebuild Dixon at its current location and plan to build a third middle school in west Provo when warranted.

(I apologize if any of my figures are off. I tried to cite sources as I went along. This represents my understanding, and I believe the overall points are correct, even if I inadvertently mixed up some of the details.)

Monday, September 6, 2021

Council Meetings - 7 September 2021

There are some big dollar questions on this agenda, as in many tens of millions of dollars. Item 4 on the Work Meeting agenda is the beginning of the deliberation on the $32M in ARPA money, and Levee Question in item 7 could cost several times that.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 pm, Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Business

A presentation regarding FY22 Budget Corrections. (21-015)
Provo has a large budget, and after reviewing it and working with various departments, we've identified a few corrections that will require an appropriation. Budget time is stressful as the proposed budget evolves as forecasts are revised and deliberations progress. In such a large and complex budget, it is reasonable that small mistakes will be made. I'm grateful that these were found so quickly and brought to the Council so that they can be fixed. Presentation only. An appropriation will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 21, 2021. I appreciate the Finance Division's professionalism and transparency. Mistakes happen, and they took care of them.
A presentation regarding the Parkway Village Tax Increment Finance reimbursement agreement - second payment - budget appropriation. (21-097)
On November 15, 2016, the Municipal Council approved a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between Provo City and Parkway Village LLC. The Council was presented with a request to reimburse the ownership group for certain extraordinary costs associated with the removal of an existing occupied retail pad, participation of the installation of a new traffic signal and the construction of a replacement retail pad. The reimbursement would be funded through retail sales tax increment above the established predetermined sales tax revenue actually generated by the retail center as of a certain date. The baseline revenue was established at $136,476, which represents 1/2 of 1% of total sales generated at the center or that portion of sales tax revenue received by Provo City from the retail center, as provided by the State of Utah. Provo City will continue to receive the baseline amount of $136,476. The developer/owner will receive an annual reimbursement against their actual out-of-pocket expenses, any additional sales tax revenue above the baseline amount of $136,476. The term of the agreement runs for 10 years. In that time the developer/owner will be able to be reimbursed for up to 1/2 the out-of-pocket costs for the expenses. The target reimbursement amount is $1,053,395.86, which is 1/2 of the total out-of-pocket expenses ($2,106791.72). As this is the second payment in the 10-year agreement ($12,855) which represents that amount over the baseline of $136,476, it is not likely that full reimbursement amount will be achieved. I'm surprised that the sales tax for this retail center has not increased more in the last two years, with the arrival of UVX and a rebuilt intersection that provides more convenient access to the retail center. Perhaps as the Mix gets built, this area will become more vibrant. There really isn't a decision to be made, the Council just needs to sign-off on this reimbursement, and we've already agreed to do so. Presentation only. An appropriation will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 21, 2021. This is just fulfilling a previously signed agreement.
A resolution Appropriating up to $65,000 in the Fire Department in the General Fund for Fire Truck Equipment. (21-058)
Provo City held fire truck lease proceeds in escrow during the period of time it took to build a fire truck to the City's specifications. The lease proceeds earned roughly $65,000 in interest while being invested in the Utah Public Treasurer's Investment Fund during this period of time. The City is required to use these interest earnings for the same purpose of the original lease. There is equipment for the fire truck that is needed that can be purchased with these funds. The equipment includes a Raman spectroscopy, a swift water kit, a large area search systems kit, a confined space fan, and a reach and rescue standard pole kit. In order to make the purchases, a budget appropriation approved by the Council is required. The amount of the appropriation will be equal to the amount of interest earned on the lease proceeds, up to $65,000. I don't see any reason not to support this request. Interestingly, I used Raman spectroscopy in my graduate research. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 7, 2021. See my report for item #1 in the evening meeting.
A discussion on the American Rescue Plan Act parameters and priorities. (21-096)
The American Rescue Plan was enacted on March 11, 2021, to help with the COVID19 Pandemic. As part of the funding Provo City will receive around $32,000,000. These funds need to be spent according to U.S. Department of the Treasury rules and regulations. The Administration is giving the Council an update on what the latest guidance from the Treasury Department and how those funds can be allocated. I still have questions about the wisdom of this overall program, but I am interested in making sure our allocation is spent in the most effective way possible on items to provide real value to the community. Presentation only. There has been a lot of money flowing from the federal government. Some of the funds for small business grants went unclaimed. I'm interested in ensuring that any money that is given is used effectively to provide lasting value to Provo.
A discussion on a Percent for Arts program and a City Center water feature. (21-098)
Some cities and states have Percent for Art programs, which come in various flavors, whereby 1% of the cost of qualifying construction projects is set aside for public art. The proposed plaza water feature, a work of art, intended for the northwest corner of the new City Center building has been cut from the project due to rising construction costs impacting the project budget. It is proposed to discuss using remaining funds in the Legacy CIP Fund to restore the feature. Any proposed appropriation would need to be properly noticed and addressed at a future meeting of the Council. I'm open to this idea. I think that public art is a critical component of a community worth living in. I have mixed feelings about a rigid formula, though. A motion to schedule an appropriation for the Council Meeting on September 21, 2021 to appropriate $400,000 from the General Fund, with the caveat to explore Legacy CIP Funds or another revenue source to replace it was approved 6:1, with Shannon Ellsworth opposed. I support including a component of public art in our large, long-lasting projects. I am wary of getting too far into the details of the art, though. But I did raise a concern that the fountain's placement shouldn't diminish the ability of the plaza to function as a gathering space.
A presentation from the Kem C. Gardner Institute: "Diversity in Utah" (21-094)
The Council has requested more discussion on diversity and inclusion. The Kem Gardner Policy Institute will present a report it released on May 6, 2021, that includes race, ethnicity, and gender data for Utah. What is the goal of these efforts? According to the presentation that will be given, Utah has the highest level of social capital in the country and has the lowest level of income inequality. What about Utah has brought this about? I would argue that it is the people of Utah -- with our values and heritage. Being welcoming and caring is part of who we are. We must continue this as people from across the country are attracted to Utah's high quality of life. Should we encourage newcomers to embrace the Utah way, which has led to the quality of life that we enjoy, or should we change our society in order to make new people more comfortable? Presentation only. I love that we have high social capital. We have the lowest income inequality in the nation AND the highest upward mobility. Utah is a place where lower-income earners can get ahead, and many are doing so. This is a land of opportunity, more so than anywhere else in the country. Let's keep working to improve on this, but also appreciate what we have.
A discussion regarding the Flood Plan maps and the Levee Plan for the westside of Provo City. (21-079)
On July 20, 2021, the Council had a presentation regarding the West Side Levee Plan. After that meeting the Council received a presentation regarding the Utah Lake Delta Restoration Project along with a presentation regarding the impact the Delta Restoration Project could have on Provo Municipal Airport. Today the Public Works Department is making a presentation to the Council that is a culmination of all the information that has been presented to the Council. In addition, Public Works will lay out possible options for the Council's consideration in dealing with all the potential impacts facing the West Side in relation to the new Flood Plan Maps, Levees, and the Delta Restoration Project. This is a discussion that is just beginning, and there are many aspects that I don't fully understand, but my initial assessment is that we are not thinking broadly enough when considering all of the options that we have to choose from. Presentation only. Our levees aren't built to the federal standards needed for certification; they may not be able to hold back the Mississippi River during a hurricane. Changes at the national level mean that the FEMA flood maps must be updated to ignore any non-certified levees. These levees were built after the '83/'84 floods, and our Public Works department is confident in them; they have been tested several times since they were built. We are not far from Deer Creek, and we have a pretty good idea of the largest flow of water they would release. There is little risk of flooding, even though the map designation has changed. Also, all new development must raise the ground elevation over the flood level, so the map designation change only impacts the homes built before this policy. So if you take the low-end cost of redoing the levees (~$50M) and divide it by the number of homes that it helps (~250), the cost per house turns out to be $200,000. Average flood insurance is estimated to be less than $1,000 per year.
A presentation from the Parks Department regarding the application for a County Recreation Grant 2021 -Trail Safety Lighting. (21-095)
Each year, Utah County funds recreation grants to cities from the tourism tax revenue. This year Provo's grant will be $56,796.70 and will be used to purchase additional solar lamps for installation along the Provo River Trail to enhance public safety. Utah County provides the funds that have tight regulations on how the funds can be spent. Provo typically applies it to a fully compliant project that we were planning to do anyway, and that frees up money that is used to provide more services than we would have been able to without the grant. Presentation only. I support this project and the use of this money to further it.
An ordinance amending Titles 14 and 15 of the Provo City Code to remove gendered references and to make stylistic and grammatical corrections. (21-073)
At the August 24, 2021, Council Meeting the Council Passed this ordinance to make changes to Provo City Code Title 14 and 15 to make the Code gender neutral and to make stylistic and grammatical corrections. It has come to our attention that besides the aforementioned changes there were some substantive changes included. I discussed this in the reports from the last meeting. The non-substantive changes are good to go, but what should we do with the substantive changes? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 7, 2021. See items 2 and 3 in the evening meeting.
A discussion on the westside development pipeline. (21-067)
The sponsors desire to put developers, property owners, and other stakeholders on notice of its intent to clarify and implement policies contained in the Westside Development Policies and Southwest Area Future Land Use Map documents in the near future. There has been much discussion on westside development policies going back several years. The Council referred a number of questions on westside planning issues to the Planning Commission following the August 3, 2021 work meeting. It is anticipated that responses to these questions may take weeks or months. The proposed statement reads as follows: "The Municipal Council of Provo City desires to put developers, property owners, and other stakeholders on notice of its intent to clarify and implement policies contained in the Westside Development Policies and Southwest Area Future Land Use Map documents in the near future. While those policies are under consideration, we anticipate that it will be difficult for the Council to determine that proposed rezones in that area are appropriate. We do not desire anyone to incur expenses and spend time on proposed applications without being aware of the process that we are undertaking. While all applications received will be handled in accordance with the law and will receive full consideration, we encourage developers with proposals in the areas affected by those policies to hold those proposals until after our effort has concluded so that they may have the full benefit of the final policies to consider in making their plans." We are working out more specific rules to clarify and implement the policies in Westside Development Policies and Southwest Area Future Land Use Map. In the meantime, I think it would be good to pass this policy intent statement so that all stakeholders are aware of this effort and that we plan to apply the rules as soon as they are passed. A motion to adopt the intent statement, “The Municipal Council of Provo City desires to put developers, property owners, and other stakeholders on notice of its intent to clarify and implement policies contained in the Westside Development Policies and Southwest Area Future Land Use Map documents in the near future. While those policies are under consideration, we anticipate that it will be difficult for the Council to determine that proposed rezones in that area are appropriate. We do not desire anyone to incur expenses and spend time on proposed applications without being aware of the process that we are undertaking. While all applications received will be handled in accordance with the law and will receive full consideration, we encourage developers with proposals in the areas affected by those policies to hold those proposals until after our effort has concluded so that they may have the full benefit of the final policies to consider in making their plans,” was approved 6:1, with David Sewell opposed. I hope this decreases the number of claims of developers that they should be "grandfathered" into the old policies once we update the current policies.

Closed Meeting

A closed meeting was held.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 7, 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 818 2441 8246 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 752926.

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

A resolution appropriating up to $65,000 in the Fire Department in the General Fund for fire truck equipment. (21-058)
This was item 3 in the work meeting. See my Preview for item 3 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. Happy to support this, and it pretty much had to be spent on this...or something related.
An ordinance amending Titles 14 and 15 of the Provo City Code to remove gendered references and to make stylistic and grammatical corrections. (21-073)
This was item 9 in the work meeting. See my Preview for item 9 in the work meeting. A motion to rescind the ordinance was approved 7:0. A mistake was made; not all of the changes were properly characterized. This is the cleanest way to fix it.
An ordinance amending Titles 14 and 15 of the Provo City Code to make minor substantive changes, remove gendered references, and to make stylistic and grammatical corrections. (21-073 and PLOTA2020003)
This was item 9 in the work meeting. See my Preview for item 9 in the work meeting. A motion to amend the exhibit was approved 7:0, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. After reviewing the substantive (yet minor) changes, I felt good about passing them.
***CONTINUED*** Chris and Karen Knuttgen request a Zone Change from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) to allow for six townhome units located at 152 E 500 S. Maeser Neighborhood PLRZ20180057
This item was not ready to be heard.

Adjournment

Monday, August 23, 2021

Council Meetings - 24 August 2021

Well, we are about halfway between when I first posted my "Final Year Dashboard" and when I leave office.

No new "final actions" have taken place since I first posted this, so I'm still 0 for 1, with Ranked Choice Voting being my one and only strike-out. I can't think of a good way to graphically show progress on the "pending" items. By far, the most work has gone into the parking issues. In Tuesday's meeting we'll be presenting the latest updates and changes to the working proposal. With the backing of the rest of the Council, we will push the proposal forward to get feed back from the rest of the community and lay out a game plan for how it should be implemented, if the Council decides to support it after we hear from the community. The Committee is pushing for dynamic tools to be a part of the program, and these tools will also be very valuable in the management of Downtown parking. I think main hold up of Downtown parking progress is the hiring of a new Parking Coordinator. I thought this position should be filled by now. I need to ask how that is coming.

The effort to ensure mixed housing types has made waves recently, but it looks like there is a good path forward. I think item 3 in the Work meeting should give that effort a shot in the arm. I'm worried that the Occupancy and Rental Regulation Reform may not be finished before I have to bow out, but hopefully I can sow some seeds that will bear fruit after I'm gone.

Finally, we had some good discussions during the budget season on the financial oversight practices. We caught our breath once the budget passed. Now is a good time to work out these details to be baked into next year's budget cycle.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Business

A presentation regarding the Administration's proposal for a COVID-19 vaccine campaign. (21-089)
COVID-19 infection and hospitalization rates have steadily increased in Provo and Utah County. Administrators and doctors from Utah Valley Hospital recommend higher vaccination rates among Provo's population to help reduce COVID's impact on the community and hospital, especially ICU beds that are being filled with non-vaccinated COVID patients. As such, Provo City Council asked the city's Administration team to develop a vaccine campaign in partnership with local community and health partners in an effort to raise awareness about the importance of vaccines and encourage citizens to get the shot. We requested this proposal three weeks ago at our last Work Meeting. There are no documents in our meeting packet so there isn't much to preview. Presentation only. I was very impressed by the Administration's effort on this request and the quality of the resulting rough plan.
A presentation regarding the allocation of Recreation, Arts, and Parks (RAP) tax funds. (21-091)
A summary of Recreation/Arts/Parks Tax revenues, expenditures and related projects. This update was also requested by the Council and no documents are in the packet. Presentation only. RAP funding has made a huge difference for our parks. For our arts? Not so much.
A presentation regarding the Development Process: "Context: How design, density, and aesthetics interact" (21-080)
The Council has indicated that it would like to receive presentations on a variety of development issues. Staff has invited speakers on a variety of topics relevant to community development. The discussion today centers on the interconnection of design and density. This item has been continued a couple of times. I previously preview this item this way: "I'm excited about this presentation. I think that a significant portion of the public's resistance to density has been because so much of our higher-density developments have been so poorly designed. The poor outcomes are due to poor design, but people chalk it up to the increase in density." Presentation only. This was an excellent presentation.
Presentation on the General Plan. (21-061)
Planning staff and Design Workshop staff will update the Council on the progress of the revised General Plan. I'm a little worried about the drafts and outlines so far. It feels very generic. I don't see a strong vision, but an amalgam of everything anyone said in a focus group. Presentation only. I was blunt with my concerns over the proposed vision statement and the buzz phrases used.
Presentation from Parking Committee. (21-028)
The Parking Committee is working on a comprehensive parking plan and coming forward with a presentation on a proposed phased-in approach for a new parking program in neighborhoods surrounding BYU campus. I've been working with this committee for at least two and half years. We've refined the proposed program through several rounds of public input and stake holder discussions. I'm hopeful that we can get the ball rolling before I leave office. Presentation only. Things are going in a good direction. Managing on-street parking in areas with excess demand and charging demand-based rates will align interests and allow the market to optimize the use of on-street parking and will solve a major, decades-long frustration of residents, both long-term and short-term.
Presentation on return of Winter Olympics to Utah. (21-090)
Review of the bidding process to host an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Utah. Discussion of current bid status and next steps. Special highlight on the importance of the Peaks Ice Arena and what is needed in the near future to help aid in the bidding process. The Peaks Ice Arena has been a shining example of a well managed facility that was originally built for hosting the Olympics. Presentation only. It was fun to help host the Olympics in 2002. Efforts are underway to bring the Winter Olympics back to SLC, and Provo may have another opportunity to help host.
Presentation on Provo Delta Restoration Project and possible impact on Provo Airport. (21-083)
The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission is coordinating its Provo River Delta Restoration Project with the Provo Airport, Federal Aviation Administration, and wildlife services to reduce the risk of bird strike for airplanes using the Provo Airport. This is likely an area where there are competing public interests. Finding the right balance will be critical. Presentation only. The concern is that certain features are being designed into the project that will reduce the risk of bird strikes with planes using our airport. But who will maintain these features once the project is complete and is handed off to the State and becomes one of many properties managed by the State, most of which do not have the same kind of maintenance requirements?

Closed Meeting

A closed meeting was held.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Board of Canvassers
Agenda

5:30 pm, Tuesday, August 24, 2021

A resolution of the Mayor and the Municipal Council sitting as the Board of Canvassers accepting the election returns and declaring and certifying the results of the vote for Primary Elections held on Tuesday, August 10, 2021. (21-092)
This is a presentation of the final vote tallies in the municipal primary election.Approved 6:0, with Councilors George Handley and Travis Hoban excused.It was a 6:0 vote, even with two councilors excused, because the Mayor also votes on this board. During the meeting I spoke on the confidence I have with the system implemented by the County ensuring the integrity of our elections. We looked very closely at the system before we tranitioned to vote-by-mail. I really feel that Utah is a great example in striking the right balance between election integrity and ease-of-voter-use.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:45 PM, Tuesday, August 24, 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.

A presentation from the Provo Mayor and City Council to Karl Snow and Glee Zumbrunnen in appreciation for their work and service in changing Provo’s form of government to what it is today and for presenting a written history of those events. (21-088)
Presentation only. I'm grateful for the effort of these two individuals in changing the form of Provo's government. I believe we are well served by having a separate administrative branch and legislative branch. I wish we could have likewise changed our county government. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but I feel that we've had far less drama with our elected city officials than our elected county officials.

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 830 4699 1746 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 678920.

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
An ordinance amending Titles 14 and 15 of the Provo City Code to remove gendered references and to make stylistic and grammatical corrections. (21-073)
There is a lot more to this than just the replacement of gendered language. For the most part, I understand and agree with the changes proposed. Approved 5:0 with George Handley and Travis Hoban excused. Most of the discussion revolved around whether the changes should be classified as "stylistic and grammatical corrections." We were assured in the meeting that they were nonsubstantive, and therefore I voted in favor. After further digging, I'm not so sure anymore. We will be bringing this item back to take a closer look.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 1.07 acres of real property located at 50 E 3900 N from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR) and Two Family Residential (R2) and authorizing a related development agreement. Riverbottoms Neighborhood (PLZR20190265)
On November 10, 2019, 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.
On February 2, 2021, the Council declined the rezone to VLDR and invited the applicant to make changes to address the concerns of the Council and come back before them. A new site plan and concept photos have been submitted and the developer has proffered a development agreement holding the development at ten units. I hope we'll be able to get this passed this time. Approved 5:0 with George Handley and Travis Hoban excused. I'm glad that this finally got done. I think that some of the earlier iterations were just as good, if not better, but I think we ended at a good place.

Adjournment

Council Meetings - 3 August 2021

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 pm, Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Business

A presentation regarding COVID-19 vaccines from Utah Valley Hospital. (21-089)
COVID 19 cases have increased in the last month, at the start of July the 7-day average was 399.9 cases per day as of July 27th the 7-day average was 649.3 cases per day, a 61.55% increase in daily cases. The Delta variant now accounts for an estimated 83% of new cases in the United States, and the surge has come from mostly unvaccinated people. Researchers found that the delta variant contains 1,000 times more viral material than that of the original novel coronavirus variant that infected much of the global population during the onset of the global pandemic last year. This means the delta variant can replicate at a much faster rate than the original strain, making the mutation much more infectious, according to the study. When a person becomes infected with the delta variant, the mutation is shedding significantly more viral material, making it harder to suppress and easier to infect others. Researchers also found that on average it took approximately four days for the delta variant to reach detectable levels using a standard COVID-19 test kit compared with the six days it took for the original coronavirus strain to be detected. According to the CDC, vaccines are the best defense we have against infectious diseases, but no vaccine is actually 100% effective. Although some fully vaccinated people have still been infected with COVID-19, they are highly unlikely to become seriously ill or require hospitalization. When fully vaccinated people get infected with the coronavirus, it's known as a "breakthrough" case. A small number of such cases are expected and they're not a cause for alarm. COVID-19 vaccines work by teaching the body to recognize the virus. So, if someone is exposed to it after vaccination, their immune system should be ready to spring into action and fight it. If someone does end up getting sick despite vaccination, experts say the shots are good at reducing the severity of the illness — the main reason to get vaccinated. A motion to ask the Administration to work with community health partners to formulate a proposal to bring back to the Council in three weeks to determine how to move forward addressing this was approved 7:0. I've been very nervous about the rising cases of COVID-19 in Provo and Utah County with the rise of the Delta variant. The curve looks very similar to me to where we were at this point last year, but we actually have more cases now. On the plus side, we have a good chunk of the population vaccinated. Of concern, the Delta variant is far more infectious, and society seems less willing to take the precautions we took last year. Which will have a more significant effect? So far, it looks like Delta is winning compared to the previous year. I feared what case numbers this winter might look like. Fortunately, the Intermountain Healthcare projections show a smaller fall peak than we topped out last winter and then show the numbers falling from there. This was a relief, but not a total relief. First, projections are just that, and the actual situation might turn out to be better or worse than projected. Second, even the lower curve that Intermountain predicts reflects a lot of pain and suffering. Delta also appears to cause more severe sickness, more likely hospitalization, and higher death rates among the unvaccinated. Similar case rates this year will likely translate to higher hospitalization and death than last year. Our health care workers are exhausted. This will be a challenging fall. Please consider getting vaccinated if you haven't already.

Separately, I just have to say that in my experience, personally knowing four people who were fully vaccinated and have since contracted COVID-19, seems that the breakthrough case rate is higher than what I've seen reported. Each of these cases has been relatively mild, but still, it's unnerving.
A presentation regarding the Development Process: "Context: How design, density, and aesthetics interact" (21-080)
The Council has indicated that it would like to receive presentations on a variety of development issues. Staff has invited speakers on a variety of topics relevant to community development. The discussion today centers on the interconnection of design and density. This item was continued to a future Work Meeting. I really wish we could have had this presentation before we discussed the "Intent Statement" item in the evening meeting.
A presentation discussing a proposed ordinance for transferring private ownership of streets and utilities to public ownership of streets and utilities. (21-087)
The City has been approached about taking ownership of a private road and utilities in a small subdivision. As the City has no ordinances or policies in directing on how or should the City assume ownership the Public Works Department is asking the Council to consider a new ordinance to address the issue of the City assuming ownership of private roads and utilities. Presentation only. I pushed to have a defined set of criteria to consider when deciding if transferring the obligations to the public is in the public's interest.
A presentation regarding City programs that are funded through CDBG and HOME funds. (21-050)
Provo receives funds through CDBG and HOME, the Community and Neighborhood Services Department is responsible for administration of these different programs funded through CDBG and HOME. These programs help local business and residents the programs are:
- Commercial Facade Improvement ProgramJ
- Home Purchase Plus Program
- Emergency Home Repair Program
- Egress Window Program
- Neighborhood Revitalization Program
- Homeowner Rehabilitation Program
- Including the small business loans program funded through the COVID 19 CDBG Funds
Presentation only. This is a good orientation for these important programs.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 26.11 acres of real property, generally located near the access area to Slate Canyon., from Single Family Residential (R1-10) to Open Space Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) Zone. Provost Neighborhood.(PLRZ20210237)
The Community and Neighborhood Services Department is requesting to rezone one parcel consisting of 26.11 acres in the critical hillside overlay zone to the proposed Open Space, Preservation & Recreation (OSPR) zone (14.33). There is no proposed development requesting to utilize this zone. The rezoning of this property helps to ensure protection of the critical hillside from future development and adds to the recreating opportunities in Slate Canyon. Planning Commission recommended approval. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 3, 2021. I raised the request that as we create a site plan for this property and how it connects trails, parks, and public land, consideration is made if the property immediately adjacent to existing residential roads would be best used as space for new residences. This could provide more housing opportunities and help offset the cost of developing this area. Obviously, this should only be pursued if it doesn't detract from what we are trying to accomplish, but the road is already there, and residences are on both sides.
An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan to adopt an Intent Statement for the Westside Development Policies and Southwest Area Future Land Use Map. Citywide (PLGPA20210242)
The west side of Provo is growing, and residents and city staff have collaborated over the last five years to establish design guidelines to direct future development. Councilor Harding has requested that the Council adopt an intent statement that would (1) reaffirm their commitment to the Westside Development Policies (WDP) and Future Land Use map, (2) request assistance from the Planning Commission in drafting ordinances to accomplish WPD 3.a, (3) change the density of four units per acre from net to gross, and (4) clarify where WDP 3.a-d apply and give examples of desired development patterns. Planning Commission recommended denial. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 3, 2021. As I was preparing for this meeting, I noticed that the draft that the Planning Commission had been given was not the updated draft that the Council had discussed before voting to ask the Planning Commission for their recommendation.

Closed Meeting

None requested.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 3, 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.

A presentation from the Provo Mayor and City Council to Karl Snow and Glee Zumbrunnen in appreciation for their work and service in changing Provo’s form of government to what it is today and for presenting a written history of those events. (21-088)

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 867 6688 3496 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use the same meeting ID and enter passcode: 559776.

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
A Resolution Appropriating $300,000 in the Legacy CIP Fund for a Hillside and Canyons Plan, River and Lakeshore Plan, and Gateway Plan.
The Legacy CIP Fund was created by the Council with the intention to use the available funds for projects that would benefit the residents of Provo for years to come. The Administration recommends the appropriation of $300,000 from Legacy CIP Fund balance for long-range planning. Specifically, the resolution would appropriate funds for a Hillside and Canyons Plan, a River and Lakeshore Plan, and a Gateway Plan. The unappropriated funds remaining in the Legacy CIP Fund after this appropriation would be $429,110. Approved 7:0. Creating plans is a great way to use one-time (non-recurring) money. We have great planners in Provo, but they have fallen way behind with the resources and staffing level that they have been given. We need to be out ahead, with a clear vision that the community embraces.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 26.11 acres of real property, generally located near the access area to Slate Canyon, from Single Family Residential (R1-10) to Open Space Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) Zone. Provost Neighborhood. (PLRZ20210237)
This was item 5 on the Work Meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. See my report for item 5 in the Work Meeting.
An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan to adopt an Intent Statement for the Westside Development Policies and Southwest Area Future Land Use Map. Citywide (PLGPA20210242)
This was item 6 on the Work Meeting agenda. A motion to refer the correct version of the intent statement back to the Planning Commission with comments and to hold a future joint meeting with the Planning Commission was approved 7:0. The intent statement would have accomplished two things. One, it would have asked the Planning Commission and our Planning Staff to recommend clarifications to our policies and ordinances that facilitate the implementation of these policies. Two, it would have communicated with all stakeholders how the Council intended to deal with applications that we receive while the recommendations were being developed and deliberated.

The Planning Commission recommended denial (though, as explained in the earlier meeting, they were not given the most up-to-date version), but they did recommend that policies be developed (which is what the intent statement called for). The most significant loose end at the moment is what to do with new proposals in the meantime.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 23.5 acres of real property, generally located at 200 N Lakeshore Drive from Agricultural (A1.10) and (A1.5) to Residential (R1.8) and Residential Agricultural (RA) Zone. Fort Utah Neighborhood (PLRZ20210049)
The applicant proposes R1.8 zoning for the 23+ acre subject property to develop 69 single-family lots (one lot is proposed to be zoned RA or Residential Agricultural) near 200 N and Lakeshore Drive. The subject land has historically been used for agricultural use. The subject property is bounded on the north by the Provo River and on the south and east by residential development. Agricultural land and the Provo River lie to the west of the property. A park is proposed for land north of the development and west of Lakeshore Drive west, beyond the Provo River, the land lies in unincorporated Utah County. Land lying west and south of the proposed rezone area has agricultural and residential agricultural zoning. The vast majority of land lying east and northeast of the subject land has single-family residential zoning (R1.8 and R1.10). The land lying directly north of the property has agricultural zoning. Planning Commission recommended approval. This was previously heard by the Council and continued until the Southwest Intent Statement could be heard by the Planning Commission. Approved 5:2, with George Handley and David Harding opposed.

Pages

Friday, October 22, 2021

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Business

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Monday, October 11, 2021

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Business

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Monday, September 20, 2021

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Business

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Monday, September 6, 2021

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 pm, Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Business

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Regular Meeting Agenda

Opening Ceremony

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Monday, August 23, 2021

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Business

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Board of Canvassers Agenda

5:30 pm, Tuesday, August 24, 2021

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:45 PM, Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 pm, Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Business

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Board of Canvassers
Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda