[0:02] All right. We'd like to welcome everyone

[0:03] to the Pro Municipal Council regular

[0:05] meeting. It is 5:31 p.m. May 26, 2006.

[0:11] We will do a roll call of the elected

[0:12] officials starting with

[0:16] >> Becky Bogdan,

[0:18] >> Gary Garrett,

[0:19] >> Katrice McKay,

[0:20] >> Craig Christensen, Jeff Whitlock,

[0:22] >> Rachel Whipple.

[0:24] Um, today's prayer will be provided by

[0:26] Gavin Whiting. And then we'll have the

[0:28] pledge of allegiance by counselor hope

[0:30] and if he's back otherwise I'll do it.

[0:38] Oh God, we are so grateful for this

[0:40] opportunity we have to come together as

[0:42] citizens and leadership of Provo. We ask

[0:45] a blessing that we may have this meeting

[0:47] in in love, respect, and the unified

[0:50] goal of making Provo a a better place

[0:52] and the best place that it can be to

[0:54] live. We are so grateful for thee and for thy son Jesus Christ and all

[1:00] that he has done for us. We ask and pray

[1:02] for these things in the name of Jesus

[1:04] Christ. Amen.

[1:05] >> Amen.

[1:06] >> Thank you Gavin.

[1:09] We're going to pledge by counselor

[1:11] Hoben.

[1:15] » Join me to the flag of the United States

[1:19] of America and to the republic for which

[1:22] it stands. One nation under God,

[1:25] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:28] for all.

[1:32] [clears throat]

[1:33] >> All right. First of all, we're going to

[1:34] have a ceremony recognizing the Provo

[1:36] City employee of the month. And this is

[1:39] for

[1:41] communication. Oh, sorry. I was like

[1:43] trying to figure out like we're telling

[1:44] them that it said communications person.

[1:47] Okay. It is going to be for the

[1:49] department of communications. It'll be

[1:51] or is that right?

[1:54] I'm so perplexed. I'm sorry. Okay, so

[1:56] it's the department of edit. That's a

[1:58] new department for us. So,

[1:59] communications.

[2:01] That's what I'm used to seeing. Okay.

[2:02] Thank you. All right. Come on up,

[2:04] Barbara Smith. Barbara Smith is going to

[2:06] announce it for us.

[2:15] Thank you so much. is so nice to be here

[2:17] and it's so great to be here for such a

[2:19] celebratory reason. So, it is my honor

[2:23] to recognize Cassidy Kle Smith as Provo

[2:25] City's employee of the month for May of

[2:28] 2026.

[2:30] Cassidy began her career with Provo City

[2:32] in 2018 as a graphic designer for the

[2:35] Cubby Center of the Arts, where her

[2:38] creativity and talent quickly stood out.

[2:41] She became the city's primary graphic

[2:43] artist and designer in 2021. And since

[2:46] stepping into her current role, she has

[2:49] consistently gone above and beyond to

[2:52] serve all of the departments across the

[2:54] city and our residents, too.

[2:57] If you work for Provo, then her artistic

[3:01] talents have already touched you in some

[3:03] way. From email signatures and logo

[3:07] creation to the annual water report,

[3:10] stickers, event and retirement flyers,

[3:13] banners, the monthly newsletter,

[3:15] graphics and content design, and

[3:18] assistance with the website, as well as

[3:20] ad campaigns. She brings color and

[3:24] visual communications to all of our

[3:26] Provo residents. While her talents as a

[3:29] designer are well known, her reputation

[3:32] for customer service is equally strong

[3:35] and she is widely regarded as

[3:37] exceptional with people. She remains

[3:40] calm under tight deadlines and is

[3:43] passionate about helping others bring

[3:45] their ideas to life. Cassid's work ethic

[3:49] and commitment are unmatched and she

[3:51] takes pride in ensuring that every

[3:53] design is just right. Cassidy is truly

[3:57] an invaluable member of our team and we

[4:00] are deeply grateful for her

[4:02] professionalism, creativity, and

[4:04] dedication to serving our staff and our

[4:06] residents. And we would like to

[4:08] congratulate Cassidy on this

[4:10] well-deserved employee of the month

[4:12] recognition as the April 26 employee of

[4:16] the month. Cassidy.

[4:30] Yes, we would like photos.

[4:36] [laughter]

[5:05] Thank you.

[5:19] Okay,

[5:20] >> I'm gonna try I'm gonna try this way.

[5:37] He's ringing. Right.

[5:45] Thank you.

[6:20] As indicated on the screen, a required

[6:22] public hearing will be held for certain

[6:23] agenda items prior to council action.

[6:25] After each such item is presented, timed

[6:28] to comment will be provided for all

[6:29] those who wish to speak. For items that

[6:31] do not require public hearing, public

[6:33] comment will still be taken following

[6:34] presentation of the item, but will be

[6:36] limited to 10 minutes.

[6:38] At this time, up to 15 minutes have been

[6:40] set aside for an open public comment

[6:42] period, which is intended to allow

[6:44] comment on matters that do not appear on

[6:45] the agenda, but are limited to topics

[6:47] regarding municipal business or within

[6:49] municipal council purview. Persons who

[6:52] speak during this time to an item that

[6:53] is on the agenda will not normally be

[6:55] afforded a second opportunity to speak

[6:56] during the comment period specific to

[6:58] that item. During any public comment

[7:00] period, each speaker will generally be

[7:01] limited to two minutes. Due to noticing

[7:04] requirements, no formal action will be

[7:05] taken in this meeting on matters that do

[7:07] not appear on the agenda. Those with

[7:09] comments are invited to approach the

[7:10] podium. Those participating on Zoom will

[7:13] need to use the raise hand feature to

[7:14] indicate they wish to comment.

[7:16] The chair may choose to alternate

[7:18] between inerson and online commenters.

[7:20] Please begin your comments by stating

[7:21] your name and your city of residence and

[7:23] you'll have two minutes to speak. Do we

[7:25] have any open comment at this time? Come

[7:28] on up. Let's need your name and your

[7:30] city of residence, please.

[7:34] So, I am David Spencer uh from ORM and

[7:37] I'm running for county commissioner seat

[7:39] B. So, I was on the Orange City Council

[7:41] for the last 12 years. And how I got

[7:44] into politics was the city council at

[7:47] the time wanted to take up baseball

[7:48] fields for parking. So, I'm a baseball

[7:51] guy. So, I ran and I won. So, the

[7:53] baseball fields are still in ORM, thank

[7:55] goodness. And I moved on now to run for

[7:58] county commissioner CB. But in those 12

[8:01] years, not once did we have a county

[8:03] commissioner come to ORM and ask, "What

[8:06] are your needs? How can we help you?"

[8:08] and I want to change that. I'm going to

[8:10] every city. I'm talking to every city

[8:12] council to make sure that your needs are

[8:14] met. Now, in Provo, you have a nice

[8:16] airport and and convention center, but I

[8:19] still think we need to meet with each

[8:21] city and say, "What are your needs?" Um,

[8:24] moving forward, I think we need more

[8:26] transparency in county government.

[8:30] need to make sure that citizens and

[8:32] everybody knows what's the county

[8:33] commissioners are doing and if they're

[8:35] attending their meetings, if they're how

[8:37] they vote and if they're traveling

[8:38] foolishly. So, I want to sort of reset

[8:41] and change uh the mindset of the county

[8:44] and hopefully we can be more accountable

[8:47] just as you guys uh as the mayor and

[8:50] city council, you're accountable to your

[8:52] constituents and I want to do that for

[8:53] the for Utah County. So, um I have some

[8:57] little brochures I can give the city

[8:59] recorder

[9:01] if that would be okay.

[9:03] >> Yeah, that's

[9:04] >> and uh

[9:04] >> do do it over here, please.

[9:06] >> So, just David Spencer and I appreciate

[9:08] your time and I miss being on the

[9:10] council, but uh I love serving people.

[9:12] So, thank you.

[9:13] >> Thanks, David.

[9:16] >> All right. Any more public? You want to

[9:18] wait for your item, I think.

[9:20] >> No, it's actually this.

[9:21] >> Okay, great.

[9:22] >> Thank you, though.

[9:25] Hello, council. My name is Gavin

[9:27] Whiting, resident of Provo. Um, I've

[9:30] been living in Provo for three years,

[9:31] but I also was born here and I grew up

[9:33] here and it's a beautiful city and I and

[9:35] I do love it. This is my first council

[9:37] meeting and I am trying to add more

[9:38] responsibility to myself by

[9:41] participating in my local government.

[9:43] The catalyst for my participating in my

[9:45] local government is the new data center

[9:46] in another county that has been planned,

[9:48] approved by corporations, the state

[9:50] government, and the county government,

[9:52] which seems to me was not given any

[9:53] public comment and was not voted in on

[9:55] in the interests of the constituents. I

[9:58] do not have a problem with corporate

[9:59] interests as long as they align with the

[10:01] interest of the constituents. I am

[10:03] asking you members of the council, how

[10:04] will you protect yourself from letting

[10:06] corporate interests and donations trump

[10:07] the interests of your constituents?

[10:09] Thank you.

[10:11] >> Thanks, Gavin. Any other public comment?

[10:16] All right.

[10:18] We have an implied motion on a

[10:19] resolution approving the appropriation

[10:21] of $13,5921

[10:24] in the general fund for a contractual

[10:26] sales tax increment postperformance

[10:28] payment today's market. And this will

[10:30] present JW Cody. I'm going to read them

[10:32] all in. Um, and then next we'll have a

[10:35] resolution approving the appropriation

[10:36] of $31,33.33

[10:39] in the general fund for the contractual

[10:41] sales tax increment post performance

[10:43] payment to the shops of Riverwoods. And

[10:46] then we will have a resolution approving

[10:49] the appropriation of $83,851.50

[10:53] in the general fund for contractual

[10:54] sales tax increment post performance

[10:56] payment to Parkway Village. And then

[10:58] finally, a resolution probably approp

[11:00] approving the appropriation of

[11:02] $57,765.50

[11:05] in the general fund for contractual

[11:07] sales tax increment post performance

[11:08] payment to East Bay Shopping Center. And

[11:11] these will all be presented by Cody

[11:12] Hill, our economic development division

[11:14] director.

[11:21] » Thank you so much. I really appreciate

[11:22] your time, Councilwoman Katrice McKay.

[11:26] And thank you, council members. Um, so

[11:28] this item was brought up two weeks ago

[11:30] in the work session and as discussed in

[11:32] the work session, but basically for the benefit of the public, um, I'll just

[11:37] provide a little bit of background

[11:38] information about these agreements. The

[11:40] city entered into these, um, these tax

[11:43] increment, sales tax increment, uh,

[11:46] agreements in 2016, 2018, 2018, and

[11:48] 2019. So, um, a little bit ago. And they

[11:53] are all very similar in that they were

[11:55] depreciating assets. There were there

[11:57] were shopping centers that were um

[11:59] declining and the the city um met with

[12:03] the the owners and and decided to

[12:05] support them in making improvements um

[12:08] to the the shopping centers and um

[12:12] [clears throat] and identifying specific

[12:15] um improvements that would be qualified

[12:18] for tax increment reimbursement. and and

[12:21] then the agreements are all such that

[12:24] the city provides half of the the

[12:28] there's a base year value for each of

[12:29] the shopping centers. So for example,

[12:32] Riverwoods was back in 2018 and there is

[12:35] a base year value of about $100,000 of

[12:39] prop of sales tax increment that was

[12:41] received. And so when we look at their

[12:43] 2025 increments or or what they produced

[12:47] above 100,000

[12:49] um we we cut that in half, remove the

[12:52] base year and then um share that with

[12:56] them. And um [clears throat]

[12:59] Councilwoman Bogden, you had

[13:01] specifically asked for what the increase

[13:04] was above the base year um adjusted for

[13:07] inflation. And for Days Market, that's

[13:10] 113% more. Um for East Bay, it's 156%,

[13:14] for Parkway Village, it's 141%, and for

[13:17] Riverwoods, it's uh 96% above the

[13:20] baseear value. And so we're seeing um

[13:23] definitely a great investment in all um

[13:26] all four of these uh locations. So

[13:28] they've all been very successful post um

[13:31] improvements and so it's been uh

[13:34] definitely a big benefit to the city um

[13:36] to have them made those improvements and to have supported them in those. Um

[13:41] and if there's any questions, I'm happy

[13:43] to address them.

[13:47] >> Any questions for Cody? Councelor G.

[13:51] Cody, I I was just wondering um each of

[13:54] the four appropriations makes reference

[13:57] in our packet to the time sensitivity of

[14:00] the payment. Yes.

[14:01] >> Um in in every case referring to the

[14:04] fact that the payment was supposed to be

[14:06] made in March or February or last

[14:10] September. Any idea uh what went on

[14:13] there? A change in staff member or

[14:16] >> Yes, there was a change in staff member

[14:17] and that that staff member was me. So, I

[14:19] came in um at the end of March and so I

[14:22] had actually missed the payment process

[14:23] for all of these. Okay.

[14:25] >> Um and so I I take responsibility that I

[14:27] should have made these payments um prior

[14:29] to and I've set calendar reminders in my calendar annually so that these

[14:33] don't get um forgotten in the in future.

[14:36] >> Okay. I I noticed only one had reached

[14:38] out inquiring about the payment. But I

[14:40] just wondered. Thank you.

[14:41] >> Yep.

[14:44] >> Councelor Whitlock.

[14:46] Similarly to that point, have have we um

[14:51] now incorporated these into our budget

[14:53] moving forward, but they were not

[14:55] incorporated into the budget last year

[14:57] because it was an oversight? Like just

[14:58] can you help speak to that? That is an

[15:01] interesting item to discuss. I I see

[15:04] merits both ways. We have discussed

[15:06] incorporating it into the budget and not

[15:08] using an appropriation. Um the sentiment

[15:12] pre last year when we brought this up

[15:14] for discussion was that they preferred

[15:16] an appropriation so that they knew

[15:18] exactly how much it was rather than

[15:20] doing some forecasting and and and

[15:22] budgeting for it and then having to

[15:24] appropriate anyways.

[15:26] >> Councelor Whitlock. Yeah. I just add to

[15:28] that that you know we have had that

[15:29] discussion before. We've it's come up a

[15:31] couple times. So far, the history of

[15:33] these has been we've just done

[15:34] appropriations every year because the

[15:36] amount [clears throat] can't be

[15:37] calculated until the performance is

[15:39] achieved. So, but you could you could

[15:41] certainly speculate and put it in if you

[15:43] wanted to. We've had that discussion.

[15:45] >> And then do we have do we budget for

[15:48] extra funds for these generally or I'm

[15:50] just dumb question is like how do we

[15:52] know the money's going to be there to

[15:53] pay these out? Well, Cody can speak to

[15:55] this probably better than I can, but

[15:57] they're being made out of money that

[16:00] comes in because of their performance.

[16:02] So, the their performance generates

[16:04] sales tax which then comes in which then

[16:06] funds it. So,

[16:07] >> right. But there's never like a time gap

[16:09] that's problematic there because of how

[16:11] the state pays out these versus when we

[16:13] pay them.

[16:14] >> Oh, that's a good question. I don't know

[16:15] the timing. He

[16:17] >> not not that I'm aware of that there's

[16:19] an issue just given that the fund the

[16:20] healthy fund balance that the city does

[16:22] have.

[16:23] >> Okay. Thank you.

[16:27] » All right. Thank you, Cody.

[16:29] >> Oh, so sorry, Council Bob.

[16:32] >> Cody, I I would like to say that I

[16:34] prefer it this way where it's an

[16:36] appropriation versus into the budget.

[16:38] >> Okay.

[16:38] >> These things get lost into the budget.

[16:41] And I like that you come before us and

[16:43] we're accountable to the public and

[16:45] you're accountable to us about how this

[16:49] is going forward and how this is

[16:51] working. And I want to say I really do

[16:53] appreciate you telling us all the

[16:56] numbers that you did. These are things

[16:58] that we've asked for in the past and we

[17:00] either haven't got them or they haven't

[17:01] been as good as you've done them. And

[17:03] then giving us the percentage of what it

[17:06] is over the top. I think it helps me and

[17:08] it helps the public understand what

[17:11] these tools do because you can go down

[17:14] to East Bay and you can see that there's

[17:16] been businesses moving in and out,

[17:20] but to actually see the sales tax

[17:22] percentage, you can see this increase.

[17:24] And it to me it helps. It helps me

[17:27] because we, you know, we get approached

[17:29] by people all the time, can we have your

[17:30] money? Can we have your money? Well,

[17:32] what are you doing with our money? And I

[17:34] really like that. So, thank you so much

[17:35] for providing those to us and the way

[17:38] that you've done it and I do appreciate

[17:40] it.

[17:41] >> Absolutely. And I see the sense in in

[17:43] having it be an appropriation and rather

[17:44] than approving it with thousands of

[17:46] other items in a budget that that it's

[17:48] coming special and and that there's an

[17:50] additional accountability in that.

[17:53] >> Okay. All right. Thanks, Cody. We'll

[17:56] open this item up for public comment.

[17:58] So, you can make public comment on

[18:01] any of those appropriations,

[18:03] right? Any council discussion?

[18:08] All right, we'll take a vote now. Do I

[18:09] have to vote on each one independently?

[18:11] I do. Okay, so we're going to take a

[18:13] vote first on the applied motion number

[18:15] two for today's market.

[18:18] Councelor Garrett,

[18:19] >> yes.

[18:20] >> Councelor McKay, yes. Councelor

[18:21] Christensen,

[18:22] >> yes.

[18:22] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[18:23] >> yes.

[18:24] >> Councelor Bogden,

[18:25] >> yes.

[18:25] >> Councelor Hoben,

[18:26] >> yes.

[18:27] >> And councelor Whipple,

[18:28] >> yes.

[18:29] >> So that passes 70. Next, it'll be the

[18:31] implied motion on Riverwoods.

[18:34] Councelor McCay, yes. Councelor

[18:35] Christensen,

[18:36] >> yes.

[18:36] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[18:38] >> yes.

[18:38] >> Councelor Bogdan,

[18:39] >> yes.

[18:39] >> Councelor Hoben,

[18:42] >> yes.

[18:42] >> Councelor Whipple,

[18:43] >> yes.

[18:44] >> Councelor Garrett,

[18:45] >> yes.

[18:46] >> And that passes 70. Next will be the

[18:48] implied motion on Parkway Village.

[18:51] Councelor Christensen,

[18:52] >> yes.

[18:53] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[18:54] >> yes.

[18:54] >> Councelor Bogdan,

[18:55] >> yes. Councelor Hoben,

[18:57] >> yes.

[18:58] >> Councelor Whipple,

[18:59] >> yes. Councelor Garrett,

[19:00] >> yes.

[19:01] >> Councelor McCay, yes. Next implied

[19:03] motion on the East Bay Shopping Center.

[19:05] Councelor Whitlock,

[19:06] >> yes.

[19:07] >> Councelor Bogden,

[19:08] >> yes. Councelor Hoben,

[19:11] >> yes.

[19:11] >> Councelor Whipple,

[19:12] >> yes.

[19:13] >> Councelor Garrett,

[19:14] >> yes.

[19:14] >> Councelor McCay, yes. Councelor

[19:16] Christensen,

[19:17] >> yes.

[19:18] >> All right. Thank you. That passes 70.

[19:23] Next, we have implied motion on

[19:24] ordinance amending the pro city code to

[19:26] add a caretaker dwelling as permitted

[19:27] accessory use in the general commercial

[19:29] zone. This be presented by Aaron

[19:31] Ardmore, our planning manager.

[19:37] » Okay, thank you. So, we [clears throat]

[19:39] talked about this a little bit in a

[19:40] study meeting today. Uh, but this comes

[19:42] to us from a commercial user in the

[19:45] city. Uh, but it is a city-wide

[19:47] application. So it would impact uh all

[19:50] of the general commercial zones within

[19:52] the city uh which we have several

[19:54] hundred acres. Uh the proposal here is

[19:56] to add uh as an accessory use in the

[20:00] commercial zone a caretaker dwelling uh

[20:02] which is currently a a permitted

[20:04] accessory use in several other

[20:05] commercial zones and industrial zones

[20:07] and the public facility zone itself.

[20:10] um they they haven't been used a lot. Uh

[20:12] but there was a need here from the

[20:14] applicant to um better secure and

[20:18] maintain and watch the property uh that

[20:20] they that they own. Uh so this went

[20:23] through uh planning commission received

[20:25] a recommendation for approval and is uh

[20:27] before you for decision tonight.

[20:29] >> Great. Thanks Aaron. Any questions for

[20:30] Aaron?

[20:32] Councelor Whitmok.

[20:33] >> Uh just some general information

[20:35] questions. So, the general commercial

[20:37] zone, could you just kind of explain

[20:39] what it entails for folks who are tuning

[20:41] in?

[20:42] >> Yeah, it's it's pretty much I I can say

[20:46] it's like our baseline commercial zone.

[20:48] Um, so it's it's not specialized in any

[20:50] one way or another. It allows a variety

[20:52] of retail and office and um commercial

[20:56] uses. Uh it just had never been thought

[20:58] of to allow uh any type of residential

[21:00] use prior to today. and the the re and

[21:04] the planning commission. What was the

[21:05] planning commission kind of outcome and

[21:06] their main feedback?

[21:08] >> They they like the idea of it. Uh they

[21:10] had more to say on the actual standards

[21:12] of the caretaker dwelling uh itself

[21:15] which is through all the different zones

[21:17] that it's applied in. U but that

[21:19] couldn't be amended through this

[21:22] proposal but it may in the the rewrite

[21:24] or future proposal. So we could for

[21:25] example approve this, add that as a

[21:28] permitted use and then adjust the

[21:30] definition of caretaker will rolling

[21:32] later on.

[21:32] >> Yeah.

[21:33] >> Amazing. Thank you.

[21:36] >> All right. Anything else for Aaron?

[21:39] Okay. Thank you, Erin. We'll open this

[21:41] item up for public comment.

[21:51] » Hi, I'm Sherberg.

[21:53] >> Hello. What city do you live in?

[21:54] >> I live in Provo. I just live off

[21:56] Carterville.

[21:56] >> Great.

[21:57] >> I'm wondering if this is the same thing

[21:58] as like we got a newsletter from you.

[22:03] And you talked about the external

[22:05] accessory units like

[22:07] >> No, this is different. So, this is

[22:10] something that allows a a business to

[22:14] have an individual live there who's an

[22:16] employee to oversee the the commercial

[22:19] business. So it was what we talked about

[22:21] last city council meeting

[22:23] >> they talked about it last I think

[22:25] >> yes they did no

[22:26] >> so is anything

[22:27] >> no they didn't it was been to the

[22:28] planning commission but it came

[22:30] >> oh that's where I was at I was at the

[22:31] planning commission so when is this

[22:33] coming up that like

[22:36] >> right now

[22:38] >> the external

[22:39] >> oh the external ADUs that will be

[22:43] >> you can talk to staff and they will let

[22:45] you know the we just talked about it in

[22:47] our work meeting today

[22:48] >> okay

[22:48] >> so nothing voting on it.

[22:50] >> Okay. So, nothing's passing here. So, my

[22:52] only comment about this is I live on

[22:55] 2000 Miller and we have a country pretty

[22:59] much a country lane on that street. I'm

[23:01] sure most of you are aware of it. So,

[23:03] I'm always concerned about parking and there's been some zone changes

[23:07] happening there. Um,

[23:11] and I was talking to Councilwoman McKay

[23:13] about it, how we had, I believe it was

[23:17] around December, there was a family that

[23:19] there was a mom that was sick and the

[23:22] um, the fire trucks came in and

[23:24] ambulances and they they just had a hard

[23:26] time getting to her because of parking

[23:27] situations

[23:29] and um, I have a hard time getting out

[23:31] of my driveway sometimes. It's it's I

[23:34] know it's a citywide

[23:36] thing to have, but I'm concerned about,

[23:39] you know, and we live on those four

[23:41] quarter acre lots that this is going to

[23:44] probably affect. So, I'm just asking if

[23:46] you always take parking into

[23:48] consideration when any of the these

[23:50] things, and I'm thinking you probably

[23:51] do, but we've lived in that area for

[23:55] almost 50 years, and we'd like to

[23:58] [clears throat]

[24:02] go talk to Malia over there. Thank you.

[24:06] >> All right. Any more public com

[24:08] [laughter]

[24:11] All right. Any council discussion?

[24:14] Councelor

[24:16] Bogda,

[24:18] >> I just want to reiterate what I said

[24:20] today during work meeting. When I was in

[24:22] college,

[24:24] one of the hotels, and I don't think

[24:25] hotels are permitted in the CG zone, are

[24:28] they, Erin?

[24:29] Are hotels presented in the They are

[24:33] um I actually knew of a couple of hotels

[24:36] when I went to college that had this

[24:38] kind of a thing where they lived on site

[24:40] and a lot of them were taken care of by

[24:43] college students and it was a really good thing. I don't think there

[24:47] was anything wrong with it. And so as

[24:49] long as they're an employee and they

[24:52] either take their shifts or do what they

[24:54] need to do to protect the business

[24:56] during the nighttime, I think it's a

[24:59] good I think it's a good thing to have.

[25:04] » All right. Any more comment? Okay. All

[25:07] right. We'll take a vote on the implied

[25:08] motion. Councelor Bogdan, yes. Councelor

[25:11] Hoben,

[25:13] >> yes.

[25:14] >> Councelor Whipple,

[25:15] >> yes.

[25:15] >> Councelor Garrett,

[25:16] >> yes.

[25:17] >> Councelor McCay, yes. Councelor

[25:18] Christensen.

[25:19] >> Yes.

[25:20] >> And Councelor Whitlock,

[25:21] >> yes.

[25:22] >> That passes 7 no. Next implied motion on

[25:25] an ordinance prohibiting virtual

[25:26] currency kiosks within Provo City. Also

[25:29] presented by Malia Dailyaly, our council

[25:31] policy analyst.

[25:38] Okay, this is going to be brief. I'm

[25:42] just going to follow up on the questions

[25:43] that council had

[25:46] during the work meeting in the beginning

[25:48] of May. I don't remember what date that

[25:50] was, but council asked in regarding

[25:54] cryptocurrency ATMs, virtual currency

[25:56] kiosks,

[25:58] um how many there were reported fraud

[26:02] incidents through these in our police

[26:04] department here. So contacted our police

[26:08] department and these are just calls that

[26:12] were reported in Provo City and then

[26:14] they were recorded with a fraud tag. So

[26:18] it's kind of up to the person who's

[26:20] recording that call whether or not it's

[26:22] spec they specify crypto. So, as you can

[26:25] see here, there's this says one, but

[26:28] there's also hundreds of 707 fraud and

[26:33] then 294 fraud attempted. Those might

[26:36] have been crypto if they have a police

[26:39] report attached to all of those calls

[26:40] and we could go through and find those.

[26:42] I just didn't go through the thousand

[26:46] police calls that may or may not have a

[26:47] police report, but happy to do that if

[26:49] we would like to. Um

[26:52] the other question main question that we

[26:55] got was is there a time pressure that

[27:00] plays a significant role in these types

[27:03] of frauds? So the idea the logic being

[27:06] if we banned them in Provo then people

[27:09] could just go to other cities but at

[27:12] that amount in time would that be

[27:13] another barrier to preventing fraud and

[27:15] helping people kind of think through

[27:17] what is happening? And there's research

[27:20] that shows that time pressure

[27:22] significantly impacts the viability of

[27:24] scams and frauds. And so scammers try

[27:27] and have rush deadlines and get people

[27:29] to do things because that's when they

[27:30] can hire high hire success. I couldn't

[27:33] find any specific research done either

[27:37] from a federal agency or peer-reviewed

[27:41] talking specifically about crypto. But

[27:43] if you take that same principle that's

[27:44] well accepted about this time pressure

[27:47] and apply it, it would seem to make

[27:49] sense. So that's kind of the followup.

[27:53] Oh, the other followup was where else in

[27:55] the city these are. I kept the stats the

[27:58] same about six because dependent on

[28:01] which website you go to find them, it

[28:04] changes.

[28:05] So, and then some of the locations I

[28:07] went to, they actually weren't there.

[28:09] So, I'm just leaving it at about six.

[28:15] So, anyway, there's proposed um the

[28:18] proposed ordinance is just a new section

[28:20] under miscellaneous criminal provisions.

[28:23] What these definitions of what a virtual

[28:25] kiosk would be and then just making it

[28:28] unlawful for people to host

[28:31] [clears throat] or operate or permit

[28:32] them. This would not make cryptocurrency

[28:34] transactions illegal in Provo. It would

[28:37] just mean that a business can't host it.

[28:39] someone can't operate it, we're not

[28:40] going to license it. The actual ATM for

[28:44] cryptocurrency would be illegal, but

[28:47] people could still do cryptocurrency

[28:49] transactions on their phones, laptops,

[28:53] anywhere else.

[28:55] >> Thanks, Malia. Any questions for Malia?

[28:59] Councelor Whipple, were you able to talk

[29:02] some to some of the business owners that

[29:04] host these cryptocurrency ATMs in their

[29:06] shops? Yeah, I talked to

[29:10] gas station owner and they said I don't

[29:13] know why they brought it here, but they

[29:15] just paid me money. They just leased it

[29:18] out as a space to have it. And then they

[29:21] said the person came and just said they

[29:23] didn't want to do it anymore and they

[29:24] took the ATM. So, I think it's just a

[29:27] revenue generating way for the business

[29:30] to make money, just leasing space in

[29:33] their business. Was that the case where

[29:36] like it was a franchise and somebody

[29:39] else told the local owner, "You have to

[29:41] put this thing in?"

[29:42] >> I don't think so. I don't know.

[29:45] >> Okay. What I'm wondering is if if we

[29:48] made this illegal tomorrow, would we be

[29:51] putting some businesses in the position

[29:52] of breaking their contracts and facing

[29:56] some sort of adverse consequences?

[29:58] Clearly us changing the law is something

[30:00] out of their control. But we could put a

[30:03] on all of our ordinances we usually put

[30:05] effective immediately, but we could put

[30:07] an effective date 6 months, 12 months.

[30:11] We could change that effective date.

[30:12] Either I could follow up and try and

[30:15] track down if there are things

[30:17] considerations like that or we could

[30:18] just put an effective date further out

[30:21] and then get the word out. I would feel

[30:23] better about that. So that it would be

[30:25] no more can be installed, but any ones

[30:27] that are already there, they would have

[30:29] time to

[30:30] close out their contracts in ways that

[30:32] aren't hurting our businesses.

[30:36] » Okay. Any Oh, counselor Whitlock.

[30:39] >> So, thank you [clears throat] for doing

[30:41] the follow-up research on the uh reports

[30:44] of fraud.

[30:46] one maybe I'm asking you to speculate a

[30:48] little bit here but my understanding

[30:50] with a lot of how these

[30:52] cryptoreated fraud happens as it

[30:56] pertains to ATM is the the fraud itself

[30:58] is not necessarily cryptoreated it's

[31:00] there's some other scheme and then

[31:02] crypto is used as a way to pay the

[31:04] scheme

[31:04] >> yes

[31:05] >> okay thank you for clarifying that and

[31:07] then again I'm not sure I got a full

[31:10] answer on this last time so I just want

[31:12] to make sure we're still we're not

[31:13] accidentally banning

[31:14] >> we're we're or fat cats will be fine.

[31:17] >> Fat cats is good. Any little card you

[31:20] load at the it

[31:21] >> that's not that doesn't count as a

[31:22] digital currency.

[31:23] >> Yeah.

[31:24] >> Okay. Awesome.

[31:27] >> All right. Anyone else?

[31:29] Counselor Bogdan.

[31:31] >> This one's for Jeff. Did you happen to

[31:33] go into one of these businesses and ask?

[31:36] >> I did. Yes.

[31:37] >> And the answer was

[31:38] >> So, I was going to Yeah, I'll I'll share

[31:40] what I No. So, I'll keep the the place I

[31:42] went and checked.

[31:44] uh won't say that, but I had a

[31:46] conversation with the owner. I The way

[31:48] that this works is they get a small

[31:51] percentage of each transaction. I think

[31:53] it's 1% of each transaction. And I asked

[31:55] them how much do they make and it was it

[31:59] used to be $100 to $200 a month and now

[32:02] it's less than 50. And this individual

[32:04] told me it's been declining steadily and

[32:06] that they were thinking about removing

[32:08] it anyway because it's just taking up

[32:09] space. And then I tried to ask, you

[32:12] know, for those who use it, do you have

[32:13] a sense of why they're using it? He that

[32:14] this individual didn't really have an an

[32:16] understanding of that. And then I asked,

[32:18] well, why did you get it in the first

[32:19] place? And this was the best part was

[32:22] they were actually uh subject to a

[32:24] cryptoreated fraud where they

[32:27] essentially had what's called like

[32:28] ransomware on their computer. And so all

[32:31] they were locked out of all their

[32:32] accounts and all their business accounts

[32:34] and they had to find cryptocurrency to

[32:36] pay the person to get access to their

[32:38] computer. and they couldn't figure out

[32:40] how to do it, so they wanted to

[32:41] facilitate that in the future, I guess.

[32:43] I don't know. So, they added it to their

[32:45] uh to their store.

[32:46] >> What are the chances?

[32:48] >> That was interesting in my research.

[32:53] » And you were going to keep that to

[32:54] yourself?

[32:56] >> No, I was going to share it later during

[32:57] the discussion. [laughter]

[32:59] I'll bring I'll bring it back.

[33:02] >> All right. Any more questions for Malia?

[33:05] All right. Thanks, Malia. We will take

[33:07] public comment on this item.

[33:12] » All right, seeing no public comment, we

[33:15] will do discussion. Now's your chance,

[33:18] Jeff.

[33:19] >> Well, since I was just talking.

[33:21] Basically, I was on the fence about this

[33:23] one. Uh, my family is a small business

[33:25] owner. Uh we we own a small business,

[33:27] Spanish Fork, and I'm always hesitant to

[33:29] pull tools from small businesses to

[33:32] make, you know, make it uh

[33:35] costs are high, leases are high,

[33:36] everything's high. And so, but I mean,

[33:39] uh doing more research and this

[33:41] particular story, this is not a major

[33:43] revenue source for folks. And um it's

[33:46] hard to imagine that uh that we're going

[33:50] to be doing substantial harm to small

[33:52] businesses. I think um I think it would

[33:56] in an ideal world I think you could add

[33:58] additional regulations to make these

[34:00] safer, but I don't I think at six it

[34:02] would not be worth doing so and so I'd

[34:03] rather just avoid a situation where uh

[34:06] where an individual is put into a place

[34:09] where they give up their life savings uh

[34:12] as a result from one of these things. So

[34:13] I see the risk to the public is probably

[34:16] a lot more than the benefit um based on

[34:18] the research I've been doing.

[34:21] >> Thanks Jeeoff. Any other discussion,

[34:25] Travis? Councelor Hoben.

[34:29] >> Um, well, I think typically it would be

[34:31] smaller transactions at an ATM. You'd be

[34:33] more likely to lose your life savings

[34:35] through like a

[34:36] >> digital transaction. Yeah. Something

[34:38] online or whatever cuz the ATMs you put

[34:40] cash in and then it trans um it it

[34:44] basically exchanges it for the crypto or

[34:47] you can deposit into somebody else's

[34:48] account. They give you a QR code or

[34:50] whatever. Um, but my I guess in the end

[34:56] there's six of these I think in Provo

[34:57] that we looked at. So, it's not going to

[34:59] be like a end- all beall for any anybody

[35:02] whether it be a business or an

[35:04] individual. I I would just say in

[35:06] general I think

[35:08] crypto ATMs are probably not riskier

[35:12] than a lot of other means of

[35:13] transacting. Um, and that ultimately

[35:19] people can get scammed in a lot of

[35:21] different ways and we don't shut those

[35:23] things down necessarily. I think we have

[35:24] a unique opportunity to like to do that

[35:29] here. Um, so we're taking it, but I just

[35:32] I don't see the necessity of it in that

[35:35] my guess is that this probably isn't

[35:37] something that's happening regularly

[35:39] that people aren't getting scammed at

[35:40] these things. I would venture to say

[35:42] that most of the transactions happening

[35:44] at these would be legitimate

[35:45] transactions. So that's why I would say

[35:47] keep it in place. Um

[35:51] and I

[35:53] just don't necessarily see it as

[35:56] something that government needs to like

[35:57] step in and do. So I would say let's

[36:00] just keep them. Most transactions

[36:02] probably are legit and we're just

[36:04] removing a way for certain people to to

[36:07] transact. Maybe the underbanked or the

[36:09] unbanked. But um

[36:12] at the same time not going to be an end-

[36:15] all beall for anybody I'm sure. So they

[36:18] can go to Warren.

[36:20] [laughter]

[36:21] >> All right. Any other discussion?

[36:24] [clears throat]

[36:25] Councelor Garrett,

[36:27] >> Travis, to your uh earlier comments in

[36:30] the work session about residents who fit

[36:33] into a cat a demographic of being uh

[36:36] unbanked or where this is their source

[36:38] of u banking services. Have you had any

[36:42] more thoughts about that or any research

[36:43] on that?

[36:46] >> No, I'm just speaking broadly from like

[36:49] if you look at a lot of the data on who

[36:51] utilizes crypto, it's typically a

[36:53] younger demographic. It's typically a um

[36:56] sometimes it's a underbanked or unbanked

[36:59] uh demographic. Um people who maybe

[37:03] don't qualify for a traditional account

[37:05] or something like that. Um maybe they've

[37:07] had too many, you know, overdrafts and

[37:09] they got kicked out of their bank type

[37:11] thing. So, it's those type of people

[37:13] that or and there's also a contingency

[37:15] of people who just don't trust the

[37:18] government or believe in this kind of

[37:20] like um um it's not an anti-government

[37:23] sentiment, but just like a I don't I

[37:27] don't want to I don't want to be reliant

[37:29] on the bank and and be, you know, um

[37:32] subject to the man and you know. So, um

[37:35] it's just a certain demographic that

[37:37] uses them. just speaking from experience

[37:40] but also just research I've done on

[37:43] crypto in general. I somewhat of a

[37:45] blockchain and crypto enthusiast on the

[37:47] side personally. So,

[37:48] >> okay. Thank you, Travis.

[37:50] >> Councelor Hobin. So, is the unbanked use

[37:52] case effectively they have a wallet and

[37:54] then they're depositing their cash and

[37:56] transferring crypto to their own wallet?

[38:00] >> Yeah. Um, so let's say I can't get a

[38:04] traditional bank account because I've uh overdrawn an account in the past

[38:08] and I'm on the watch list that they

[38:09] have. I used to work in banking, so we

[38:12] run and anytime you open an account, you

[38:14] have to pass a a verification basically.

[38:16] And if you've done too much of like

[38:19] [snorts] overdraw my account or whatever

[38:21] in the past, you can't necessarily get

[38:23] approved at most financial institutions.

[38:25] So those people tend to use a lot of

[38:26] like check caching um like a check city

[38:30] um and crypto to do transacting. Um they

[38:33] might keep their crypto wallet on their

[38:35] phone typically that's how they'll do

[38:37] it. But this the crypto ATMs are how

[38:39] they get the cash into the wallet if

[38:42] that makes sense. Cuz otherwise, you

[38:45] know, crypto is digital currency, so

[38:46] there's no way to kind of turn that into

[38:49] cash or sorry, into the the crypto from

[38:53] cash.

[38:57] » Councelor Bogda,

[38:59] >> I felt similar to Travis. I don't think

[39:02] that this is something that we should

[39:04] ban. So, I'll vote no on this one.

[39:09] >> All right. Any more comments?

[39:13] >> Oh, go ahead.

[39:14] >> Sorry. I was say, yeah, it's it's it's

[39:15] tricky because it's like there's six of

[39:17] these and it's it's um I don't know if

[39:20] we're solving a real problem, per se,

[39:22] but we may be preventing one. It's hard

[39:24] to say.

[39:28] » This is this is actually an example of

[39:32] citizen emailing us and asking us for

[39:35] this. due to fraud. And so it's just

[39:38] your emails can matter. Then we can do

[39:41] things based on them and look into them.

[39:43] And you know, it's it's from citizens

[39:44] that we get a lot of our ideas and find

[39:46] problems that they want a solution for.

[39:49] And that doesn't mean everyone wants a

[39:51] solution for it or it's always, you

[39:54] know, gets to a voting stage, but you

[39:56] know, it helps us look into things. All

[39:59] right, we'll take a vote on the applied

[40:00] motion. It's like

[40:02] >> just wanted to double check if you want

[40:05] there is a 60-day

[40:07] >> Oh,

[40:08] >> effective date from It would be from

[40:11] today.

[40:11] >> Okay. Oh, is there already 60 days? I

[40:15] was just saying

[40:16] >> there was some brief discussion on

[40:18] extending that the emotion.

[40:21] >> Yeah. 6 months.

[40:22] >> It would just be the effective date of

[40:24] the ordinance.

[40:26] >> I think making that time period a little

[40:29] bit longer is good. And if anybody

[40:31] wanted to try to put one in knowing that

[40:33] it would become illegal in 6 months,

[40:35] that is their choice and they would have

[40:37] to get rid of it in the 6 months. So I

[40:40] think that's fine. So

[40:43] would what I need to do is to make a

[40:46] motion to amend

[40:48] the implied resolution to change the

[40:50] effective date to be 6 months instead of

[40:53] 60 days.

[40:54] >> Yes,

[40:55] >> I do that now. Do you have that well

[40:58] enough in the record, Kevin? Excellent.

[41:00] >> And I I would second that.

[41:04] >> All right.

[41:06] >> So, a vote on the substitute. We will

[41:09] take a vote on the sub.

[41:10] >> Sorry. Sorry. Let me just clarify that

[41:11] Kevin and I are on the same page about

[41:13] it. So, Malia, this is the actual text.

[41:15] >> Yeah. So, I was thinking maybe we

[41:17] [clears throat] change the effective

[41:19] date of the ordinance to be four months

[41:21] from now and then the 60 days would make

[41:23] it six months. So, we don't have to

[41:25] change the ordinance and just change

[41:26] this.

[41:27] >> Yes. Is that your motion? Okay. That

[41:28] makes sense. Because what I was worried

[41:30] about was it doesn't take effect until

[41:33] six months and then they have 60 days

[41:34] after.

[41:35] >> Yes, exactly. So four months on the

[41:37] effective date of the ordinance and then

[41:39] the text has the additional 60.

[41:41] >> Yes. Kevin, do you have that?

[41:45] >> Yes.

[41:47] >> We'll just change that.

[41:48] >> No, just change the effective date here

[41:50] to be

[41:50] >> just change that paragraph C to

[41:54] >> Oh, okay. So, we'll have to go.

[41:58] >> Well, we need to here. Let's just vote

[41:59] on I this one. I think since it's not

[42:01] actually the text of the of the motion,

[42:04] I think it's okay. I'm just saying

[42:06] before we because we haven't voted on

[42:08] the motion yet. Right.

[42:09] >> Right. No.

[42:09] >> So, the motion is to change part two

[42:12] paragraph C to say this ordinance takes

[42:14] effect four months from the date of

[42:17] passage.

[42:19] >> Yes.

[42:20] >> Okay.

[42:21] Thank you, Brian.

[42:23] All right. So, we will take a vote on

[42:26] the substitute motion.

[42:29] Councelor Hoben.

[42:33] » So, I'm just Am I just voting on the six

[42:35] months? Yes.

[42:35] >> Or Yes. And then

[42:37] >> voting on the six months and then we'll

[42:38] go back and vote on the whole thing.

[42:40] >> Yes.

[42:41] >> Councelor Whipple?

[42:42] >> Yes. Councelor Garrett?

[42:44] >> Yes.

[42:44] >> Councelor McKay? Yes. Councelor

[42:46] Christensen?

[42:47] >> Councelor Whitlock?

[42:49] >> Yes.

[42:49] >> Councelor Bogdan?

[42:50] >> Yes.

[42:52] >> All right. And now we will take a vote

[42:53] on the implied motion. Councelor

[43:07] » quick question. While they're while

[43:08] they're doing that, do we would we have

[43:10] somebody maybe call these six businesses

[43:12] that have one of these and say, "Hey,

[43:13] FYI, this just passed and you'll have to

[43:16] take this out."

[43:16] >> I can reach out to the administration

[43:18] and figure out how we criminal code. If

[43:21] it were 600, I'd say, you know, oh well.

[43:23] But if if it's just six of them, it

[43:26] seems like

[43:27] >> I don't know the notification we do for

[43:28] new criminal code, but I figure that out

[43:31] and follow up.

[43:32] >> Thanks.

[43:36] » Are we good voting now, Brian?

[43:38] >> All right, we're going to take a vote on

[43:39] the implied motion. Councelor Whimble,

[43:43] >> yes. Councelor Garrett,

[43:45] >> yes.

[43:45] >> Councelor McKay, yes. Councelor

[43:47] Christensen,

[43:48] >> yes. Councelor Whitlock,

[43:51] >> yes.

[43:51] >> Councelor Bogden,

[43:53] >> no.

[43:53] >> Councelor Hoben,

[43:54] >> no.

[43:55] >> So that passes 52.

[43:57] >> And if there's no objection, we'll now

[43:59] adjourn the promisal council by

[44:01] unanimous consent.

Provo City Council Meeting | May 26, 2026

Transcript