[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.