What's Up? - 30 June 2016

I wish you all a happy and safe Independence Day celebration.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:30 PM, Tuesday, July 5th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the proposed Keeping of Swine ordinance. (16-084)
   It is proposed that "Swine shall be confined within a secure outdoor enclosed area located at least three hundred (300) feet from any dwelling." The keeping of swine is not always a complimentary use to residential, as we had so clearly illustrated last year. 
2. A discussion on the Parkway Plaza Potential Redevelopment Area. (16-087)
   Some of you may remember when "The Mix" project was announced earlier this year, for the troubled "Plum Tree" shopping center. The developer is asking for assistance with the structured parking for the project.
3. The funding of utility and infrastructure improvements at the Provo Municipal Airport for Duncan Aviation. (16-085)
   In the hopes to persuade a high-tech, high quality aviation company to locate an important operation in Provo, we promised to build some infrastructure to support the operation. Now it's time to pay the piper. I didn't follow all of the documents and possible funding options, and am interested in having my questions answered in the work meeting, but it appears that the deal is only getting sweeter for the City as the operation that Duncan Aviation is bringing is even bigger than originally envisioned. This will add hundreds of high quality jobs to the area.
4. A discussion on updating the explanatory text for the 2016 Council Priorities. (16-015)
   This will be a second look at a proposed refined version of our Council Priority Sheets, which help explain the background and objectives of the nine Priorities selected by the Council this year.
5. A discussion on Council Committees.(16-088)
   I believe this has to do with a proposal to change an assignment on the Development Approval Process Review Committee. But there is no documentation on it yet, so it could entail a broader discussion.
6. A status update on commercial trampoline gym facilities. (16-089)
   There is no documentation on this yet either. A number of local physicians have been alarmed at the number of trauma patients they've seen who have been injured at our local trampoline gyms. Members of the Council have been convening discussions with various stakeholders to address the problem. I suspect this is an update to the rest of the Council on this topic.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 5th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Provo's Bike Challenge Awards
   
   Public Comment
2. A resolution authorizing execution of the Fifth Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Utah County relating to the Ice Sheet Authority. (16-080)
   Information from the last two "What's Up?"s: "The Agreement was last amended in 2000. There are several changes proposed, perhaps the most important is (from the support documents): "Addition of a section...addressing the method by which either Provo City or Utah County could terminate the Agreement and/or sell their interest in the ISA. (Please note that neither party has expressed a desire to terminate or sell. This section has been added for the mutual benefit of the parties, but also because state law now requires such a section in all interlocal agreements.)" and "This mostly is an update to incorporate new State regulations on interlocal agreements. It also recognizes the current way the facility is being managed. This is not expected to affect the operation of the Ice Sheet."
3. A resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement to authorize Provo City's participation in the Utah Valley Home Consortium in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Home Investment Partnerships Program for Federal fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019. (16-086)
   This would create a consortium between Provo, Orem, Lehi, and Utah County to act as one local body to address the regional low to moderate housing needs. Provo City will act as the lead agency in the consortium.
4. A presentation on the process for implementing an Urban Deer Control Plan. (15-076)
   About a year ago the Council voted to begin the process of implementing an Urban Deer Control Plan to address the "significant damage to landscaping and vegetation on private property 10 and threatening public safety on roadways". This is the next milestone in that process.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.300 (Transitional Development Standards for Uses Abutting Residential Zones) clarifying restrictions on farm animals adjacent to Residential Zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0006OA) (Item to be Continued to July 19th Council Meeting)
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Sections 15.17.030, 15.17.040, 2.29.040 and 14.02.020 to reduce the notice requirements for public hearing before the Planning Commission for General Plan adoption and for General Plan Amendments from 14 to 10 days, as per Utah State Code, and to allow amendments to the General Plan more often than twice per year. City-Wide Impact. (16-0007OA) (Item to be Continued to July 19th Council Meeting)

What Was Up? - 30 June 2016

It took me more than a week, but here is my report for last Tuesday's meetings. They were a particularly difficult set of meetings for me.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:00 PM, Tuesday, June 21, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation from Envision Utah entitled "Your Utah, Your Future."
   Report Only. 
   The main point of the presentation is that "centered" communities are more livable, cost less to service, and a vast majority of Utahns want to live is such communities. I support a smart approach to growth, and agree with these principles, but have to acknowledge that the questions in the surveys were written in a way to lead to the answers they were looking for.
   
   
   
   It costs 20% less to create infrastructure for "Centered" communities. Their vision of "Centered" communities still calls for 65% of new housing to be single family residential.
   
   
   The graph on the right really drives home the benefit of "Centered" communities. 85% of our households could live within a mile of a center which provides daily-type services. To illustrate why this is important, consider the impact of Days Market in Northeast Provo vs. the impact of not having a grocery store in West Provo. Smart growth can help provide convenient access to amenities for all of our residents. The graph on the left shows that we can preserve open space and save developable land for future generations.
   
   
   
   This is the graph I struggle with the most. Of the Provoans surveyed, 81% said that they want to live in communities designed for walking, transit, short drives, and housing variety. Not surprisingly, few wanted to live in the other scenarios described with phrases like "long driving distances". I personally think that centered-community principles will help us to grow smart, but I think this question was very leading and the loop-sidedness of the results are in part attributable to that.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 2.01 (Form of Government) to define when a City Officer is unavailable under the Utah Emergency Interim Succession Act. (16-069)
   This item needs further discussion. 
   See the last "What's Up?" for my description of this item. The Mayor suggested that two hours is probably too short of a time to become impatient and empower an interim mayor (who would only function until the elected mayor became available). I think that most of the Council feels that 48 hours (the current period) is too long. We are kicking this back to committee to find the sweet spot between 2 and 48.
3.  A discussion on the creation of a Council Audit Committee. (16-077)
   Approved to set-up the Budget and Audit Committee 7:0
   The Budget Committee is already familiar with the Budget so there is some synergy in asking them to also review the findings of the independent audit of City finances at the end of the year.
4.  A discussion and review of the Cost of Service Study for the Energy Department. (16-075)
   Travis Ball will bring this item back to a Council Meeting next Fall after discussing with the Energy Board. 
   The main takeaway was that our current rates were not quite sufficient to cover the costs to provide power, but that they planned rate adjustments (which we began implementation later that night) will keep us balanced in the medium term. The structure of the rate increases also will help reduce the "interclass subsidization" (commercial and industrial users paying more than it costs to service them so that residents can pay less than it costs to service us). The last part of the discussion focused on distributed generation (i.e. roof top residential). Much of the cost of providing electrical service is independent of the volume of electricity used, but much of the revenue is derived from the number of KWH used. This is fine when most users have nearly the same "load factor", but some users (most importantly roof-top solar customers) cost about the same to serve (they want their light bulb to go on regardless of whether the sun is shining) but will substantially reduce the number of KWH they use. I support a rate structure which balances simplicity with the principle that everyone should pay their fair share. If we want to create incentives or hardship breaks, it should be done outside of the rate structure.
5. A discussion on the fifth amended Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for the Ice Sheet Authority. (16-080).
   Council Member George Stewart moved this item to the July 5, 2016 Council Meeting.
   (Meaning that this item was moved forward to the next Council Meeting where it can be voted on). This mostly is an update to incorporate new State regulations on interlocal agreements. It also recognizes the current way the facility is being managed. This is not expected to affect the operation of the Ice Sheet.
6. A discussion on updating the explanatory text for the 2016 Council Priorities. (16-015)
   Moved to July 5, 2016 Work Meeting.  
   (Meaning that it was continued to then next Work Meeting) Some Councilors wanted more time to review the proposed changes.
7. A follow-up discussion on the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget. (16-054)
   Motion to bring the ordinance without the tax increase to the Council Meeting tonight. Approved 4:3. Council Members Gary Winterton, David Sewell and David Harding opposed.
   Five days before, towards the end of our day-long budget retreat, the Council voted to reaffirm and refine our Budget Intent Statement to hold truth-in-taxation meeting each year to consider adjusting the Property Tax Rate to compensate for inflation. We even selected the local index which would be used as the baseline. Now five days later, which this vote, the Council signaled that they would not carry out this budget intent. I feel that this Intent Statement is good fiscal policy and was disappointed that we are unwilling to follow it. I imagine I'll talk more about this when I address the budget vote in the later meeting.
8. Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.34.300 of the Provo City Code to clarify restrictions on farm animals adjacent to Residential Zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0006OA)
   Bill Peperone will bring this item back to the Council when he has addressed the questions. 
   This proposal has received some critical feedback as it has made it's way through the approval process. It will be brought back after some provisions are tweaked and clarified.
9. Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to the following code sections 15.17.030, 15.17.040, 2.29.040 and 14.02.020. The proposed amendments relate to reducing the notice for public hearing before the Planning Commission for General Plan adoption and for General Plan amendments from 14 to 10 days, as per Utah State Code, and to allow amendments to the General Plan more often than twice per year. City-Wide Impact. (16-0007OA)
   Continue to the July 5, 2016 Work Meeting. 
   We were running out of time, so this was pushed off to the next Work Meeting.
10. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

 *** PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Redevelopment Agency of Provo Regular Meeting Agenda 5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 21, 2016 Room 200, Municipal Council Chambers 351 West Center, Provo, Utah Summary of Action Decorum The Council requests that citizens help maintain the decorum of the meeting by turning off electronic devices, being respectful to the Council and others, and refraining from applauding during the proceedings of the meeting. Opening Ceremony Roll Call Invocation and Pledge Approval of Minutes Presentations, Proclamations and Awards 1.

1. A presentation by the Covey Center
2. Employee of the Month for the month of May, 2016 - Chad Roscher
3. Miss Provo and Royalty presentation
   
   Public Comment
4. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a tentative budget for Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017, in the amount of $201,794,044, setting a public hearing to consider a proposed change in the Certified Tax Rate, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code Section 4.04.060. (16-054)
   Approved the ordinance with no tax increase 5:2. Council Member Gary Winterton and David Harding opposed.
   I saved this description for last, as it will be the hardest to write. I have a separate, multi-page blog draft that I've been working on for more than a week. In that post I'm struggling with the balance between being concise, and being detailed enough to catch the nuances. But in this post I'll definitely err on the side of brevity. The one line report-of-action doesn't come close to capturing the wrestle that occurred before the final vote. I advocated hard to follow through with our Budget Intent Statement, reaffirmed just 5 days before, to adjust our property tax rate to account for inflation. (I'll skip the details, but should at least note that even with the adjustment, the property tax rate that we would have paid would still be less than the rate we paid last year, see here for an explaination). The majority of the Council were not willing to follow through with our stated intent. Councilor Sewell proposed a revenue-neutral plan that would see the inflation adjustment happen, but would offset it with a reduction in the utility rate increases for next year, and then would offset the reduction in utility rate revenue by directing the increased property tax revenue to the utilities. It was a bit of a shell game, but it would have allowed us to follow through with our intent, and would have helped establish a precedent and a practice of routinely considering property tax inflation adjustments through the truth-in-taxation process, without actually increasing the burden on residents over the proposal to not adjust the property tax rate.
   So that explains what happened. My forthcoming blog post will explain more of the "why" I was advocating for the adjustment, but I feel I should touch on it a little bit here. Sales tax is collected at a fixed rate, it stays the same unless legislative action is taken to adjust it. A candy bar might cost $0.05 fifty years ago and $0.50 today, so the sales tax on the same item will go up with inflation, even though the rate may stay the same. But inflation also affects the cost of the services we provide, so the $0.03 collected on the candy bar today will pay for about the same amount of services that the $0.003 collected on the candy bar 50 years ago. Property tax rates do NOT work in the same way. The property tax rate is automatically adjusted to compensate for appreciation (which is affected by inflation). The rate decreases (assuming there is some appreciation) unless legislative action is taken to adjust it. The way it is set up, the same number of dollars you paid on your house that was worth $100k 25 years ago is the same number of dollars you pay for the same house, even though it is now work $200k, assuming that your home experience average appreciation, and that no legislative action was taken to adjust the rates during that period. Clearly a dollar today has less buying power than a dollar 25 years ago. Clearly inflation would have eroded the value of the property taxes collected during over that time. As crazy as that scenario sounds, that is pretty much what has happened in Provo. We have had a single inflation adjustment (2.2% last year) to our property tax rate in the last 25 years. The buying power of our property taxes have eroded significantly over that period.
   Taxes aren't enjoyable, but help pay for our services. Low taxes are great, as long as we are sustainably funding the services that our residents want. I'm fine with cutting services and reducing taxes, if that is what the residents want. I'm fine with providing more services and raising taxes, if that is what the residents want (and recent ballot measures like the Rec Center and RAP suggest this). What I'm not okay with is not appropriately paying for the services that we use, basically living off the investment of previous generations without making our own contribution, or pushing off to the next generation the payment of the services we use now. I believe we have been irresponsible over the past quarter century where we have not raised property taxes or utility rates. I applaud the former Council for creating a plan to put us on a path to sustainable utilities and the current Council for continuing to implement that painful but necessary plan. I am disappointed with the current Council for not having the political will to even begin to address the parallel issue with property taxes. We've dug a hole for ourselves over 25 years. This year we considered a budget that would not have started the climb out of the hole, but would have at least stopped us from digging deeper. It would have cost the average household $0.15 a month, or $1.80 a year. To me that is a small price to pay for fiscal responsibility. You can decide for yourself if paying for what you use is a principle that you think our community should live by.
   [Imagine if I wasn't trying to be brief!]
   P.S. I should also mention that I moved to take out the $10k increased funding for the Miss Provo Scholarship Pageant. I don't question whether these young women are talented, or if they are an asset to our community. I just question if it is in the best interest of our community to spend tax money on their scholarships and program expenses. My motion failed to gain sufficient support.
5. A resolution authorizing Provo City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo authorizing the use of tax increment to facilitate the development of Cityview Apartments. (16-081)
   Approved 7:0. 
   I wrote a fairly extensive preview on this issue (items 5 and 7) in the last "What's Up?". I made the case for reducing the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) on this project from 95% down to 90%, as a signal to the development community that Downtown Provo is on its way to being able to stand on its own two feet and we will be easing off on the incentives. It should be noted that the 5% change would amount to roughly $13k on a $20+ million dollar project, and that the other taxing agencies (like Provo School District and Utah County) are participating in the low to mid 70% range. The sentiment on the Council was that we shouldn't make this change at the last minute on this project, but should consider reducing the TIF on future projects. As the Vice-Chair of the RDA board this is the fourth time I've met with the applicant about this project and every time I explained that I would be exploring the wisdom of reducing TIF rate, so I disagreed that this was last minute.
6. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017, in the amount of $4,292,168. (16-055)
   Approved 7:0.
   The RDA portion of the budget.
7. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to execute an Interlocal Agreement with Provo City, Provo School District, Utah County, and the Utah Water Conservancy District authorizing the collection of tax increment related to facilitate the development of the Cityview Apartments. (16-082)
   Approved 7:0.
   Related to item 5.
8.  A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,915 for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)
   Approved 7:0. 
   The Storm Water portion of the budget.
9.  A resolution authorizing the Mayor to approve an application for a Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Utah County relating to the 2016 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. (16-079)
   Approved 7:0.
   From the last "What's Up?": From the support documents: "Provo City has been awarded $23,500 from the Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) for law enforcement purposes. The Police Department will be using the funds to purchase tazers (CEW's) and to help fund their computer replacement program. The BJA requires submittal of a resolution approving the grant and an interlocal agreement with Utah County before funds will be released." 

What's Up - 20 June 2016

Happy Summer Solstice everyone. The hot temperatures of the next few days may be a result of all the heated discussions of the proposed City budget.

Several times in the write up below I refer to the "support documents". As a reminder, I created a page to walk you through finding the support documents for yourself. Or if you know what you are doing, just go here.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:30 PM, Tuesday, June 21, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation from Envision Utah entitled "Your Utah, Your Future."
   I appreciate Envision Utah's careful study of how the choices that Utah communities make now will impact our quality of life in the future, and their advocacy for envisioning the communities that we want tomorrow and making decisions today that will bring about our vision. I'm looking forward to their presentation.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 2.01 (Form of Government) to define when a City Officer is unavailable under the Utah Emergency Interim Succession Act. (16-069)
   State code defines City Officers as "unavailable" during an emergency if they are absent for 48 hours, but the code also allows local governments to redefine "unavailable". We feel that 48 hours is too long during an emergency to wait to see if a City Officer is available or not. The proposed amendment would define a City Officer as "unavailable" if the Officer, "(a) is not able to be communicated with, including by telephone, radio, or any electronic means, for two (2) hours, or (b) is mentally or physically impaired". An emergency interim successor can be named if an Officer is deemed "unavailable".
3. A discussion on the creation of a Council Audit Committee. (16-077)
   *There is no material on this item.*
4. A discussion and review of the Cost of Service Study for the Energy Department. (16-075)
   The description from the support documents: "Dave Berg has been hired to perform an independent Cost of Service Study. The primary objective of the analysis is to identify the cost of providing service to each rate class as a function of load and service characteristics. This can provide a useful guideline for assigning cost responsibility to each customer classification in a way that avoids unjustifiable price discrimination. The Cost of Service Study will help set rates for net metering solar customers, distributed generation and reduce cross subsidization between residential, commercial and industrial customers."
5. A discussion on the fifth amended Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for the Ice Sheet Authority. (16-080)
   The Agreement was last amended in 2000. There are several changes proposed, perhaps the most important is (from the support documents): "Addition of a section...addressing the method by which either Provo City or Utah County could terminate the Agreement and/or sell their interest in the ISA. (Please note that neither party has expressed a desire to terminate or sell. This section has been added for the mutual benefit of the parties, but also because state law now requires such a section in all interlocal agreements.)" 
6. A discussion on updating the explanatory text for the 2016 Council Priorities. (16-015)
   The City Council began 2016 by selecting nine Priorities that we wanted to address during the year. These nine Priorities are not necessarily the most important aspects in the City, but they are urgent issues that we feel need to be addressed. For example, ensuring that we are properly funding our utility infrastructure for long term sustainability was a priority from past years, but due to the work of the previous Council, we have a clear plan to follow which will put us back on the right path. So this year we just need to continue to execute that plan and we can turn our focus to other urgent issues. A quick glance at how we spend the resident's tax dollars tells you about the long-term priorities of the community. By far we spend the most money on public safety (with Police at 27.7% of the General Fund expenditures, and Fire at 14.4%) next comes our leisure and recreation (with Parks and Recreation accounting for 16.4% of General Fund expenditures. I should note, though, that this doesn't take into account the revenue generated by Parks and Rec, which is significant).*
   The item up for discussion is if we want to approve a more refined version of the document which describes the nine Priorities selected by the Council.
   *All figures taken from the latest Popular Annual Financial Report.
7.  A follow-up discussion on the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget. (16-054)
   *There is no material on this item.* I imagine we will continue some of our deliberation and consideration of the proposed budget. A number of clarifications and revisions have been asked of the Administration. I imagine we will also be reviewing the changes.
8.  Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.34.300 of the Provo City Code to clarify restrictions on farm animals adjacent to Residential Zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0006OA)
   From the Staff Report: "Relevant History: The City has experienced conflicts with agricultural uses adjacent to residential zones. Additional regulations intended to buffer what can become incompatible uses would be helpful.
   Summary of Key Issues: Current zoning allows for insufficient buffering between agricultural zoning that permits the care and keeping of livestock with adjacent residential zoning. This amendment proposes additional separation requirement between what can become incompatible uses."
   After reading the support material, my only questions are regarding how close to residential property the agricultural land can be before triggering some of the restrictions. 
9. Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to the following code sections 15.17.030, 15.17.040, 2.29.040 and 14.02.020. The proposed amendments relate to reducing the notice for public hearing before the Planning Commission for General Plan adoption and for General Plan amendments from 14 to 10 days, as per Utah State Code, and to allow amendments to the General Plan more often than twice per year. City-Wide Impact. (16-0007OA)
   Utah Code requires a 10 day notice before the Planning Commission hears General Plan amendments. Provo currently requires a longer period: 14 days. Provo also restricts amendments to the General Plan to two defined times each year. General Plan amendments can be heard at other times, but only if the Mayor, a Councilmember, or City Staff are willing to sponsor the amendment.
   To understand the rationale behind the semiannual restriction, look to the high bar required to make amendments to our US Constitution. While our General Plan isn't as foundational as the Constitution, it should contain the blueprint for our future. Changes to our plan should be deliberate and carefully thought out. Our plan should be at a high enough level that it shouldn't need to change for every proposed development.
   I think the problem is that parts of our General Plan are too specific, particularly the land use map, and that some aspects of our future plan have been purposely left out of the Plan. In some ways, our General Plan has been used as a secondary zoning map, rather than a plan describing the envisioned future use of land. Because of this, too often development proposals which are aligned with our vision and expectations of how an area should be used, will not only require a change to the zoning, but also a change to the General Plan.
   I think that it is reasonable to restrict changes to our overall plan to just twice a year, but I don't think it is reasonable to restrict changes to our zoning to twice a year, but in many cases that is what we have have in effect. To get around this, savvy developers know to go directly to the Mayor or Councilmembers to sponsor the General Plan amendments.
   In my opinion, the requested amendment addresses the symptoms of the problem, but not the problem itself. I would prefer to fix the General Plan and Land Use Map so that it is sufficiently general and at a high enough level, so that development proposal that are inline with that City's vision don't require a General Plan amendment.
10. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 21, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation by the Covey Center (Art Show showcase) 
2. Employee of the Month for the month of May, 2016 - Chad Roscher 
3. Miss Provo and Royalty presentation
   
   Public Comment
   
4. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a tentative budget for Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017, in the amount of $201,794,044, setting a public hearing to consider a proposed change in the Certified Tax Rate, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code Section 4.04.060. (16-054)
   At our budget retreat we voted to ask the Administration to prepare the tentative budget to include an property tax rate adjustment to account for inflation over the past year. If we adopt a budget which includes a property tax rate adjustment, then we will be holding some truth-in-taxation public hearings in the coming months, and will adopt a final budget in August.
5. A resolution authorizing Provo City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo authorizing the use of tax increment to facilitate the development of Cityview Apartments. (16-081)
   Part of our Downtown is in an existing Community Development Project Area, which has been identified as an area that our Redevelopment Agency is willing to provide incentives to attract high quality redevelopment. The developer of the proposed Cityview Apartments has argued that the proposal includes enhancements which will be beneficial to the area, but that are above what the current market supports, so is asking for tax increment financing to support the project. See Item 8 for more details.
6. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017, in the amount of $4,292,168. (16-055)
   As the Redevelopment Agency is technically a separate entity, the budget must be adopted separately. As no truth-in-taxation meetings will be required, the budget that we are considering will be the final budget.
7. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to execute an Interlocal Agreement with Provo City, Provo School District, Utah County, and the Utah Water Conservancy District authorizing the collection of tax increment related to facilitate the development of the Cityview Apartments. (16-082)
   So normally the City would receive upfront Impact Fees to offset some of the impact that a new development will have on City infrastructure capacity. The City would also receive increased property taxes from the development on the property. The developer has suggested that they could put in a lower cost development which would not increase the value of the land as much nor the property values of adjacent properties, or, if the RDA is willing to provide some tax increment financing, they are willing to put in a nicer, more expensive development which will raise property values even more and improve the environment in this part of Downtown. They are asking the City to (1) redirect a (large) portion of the increase in property taxes that this property will generate to the RDA. The County and the School District have already agreed to direct a large portion of the increase in the property tax that they would receive from this property to our RDA. And (2) they are asking the City to allow the impact fees to be paid by the RDA (using the redirected property taxes) over time, rather than all upfront as usual.
   I have been advocating to the Council that we consider slightly reducing the portion of the tax increment that we are willing to redirect. This would be a signal to industry that we feel that Downtown is revitalizing and that at some point we will no longer be willing to forego the tax on the incremental increase of the property value.
8. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,915 for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)
   As the Storm Water District is technically a separate entity, the budget must be adopted separately. As no truth-in-taxation meetings will be required, the budget that we are considering will be the final budget.
9. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to approve an application for a Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Utah County relating to the 2016 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. (16-079)
   From the support documents: "Provo City has been awarded $23,500 from the Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) for law enforcement purposes. The Police Department will be using the funds to purchase tazers (CEW's) and to help fund their computer replacement program. The BJA requires submittal of a resolution approving the grant and an interlocal agreement with Utah County before funds will be released." 

(Miss (Provo) City Council)

***********************************************************************
Update: I spoke with one of the pageant organizers who corrected and clarified some of my information. The $11,000 that is currently directed to the pageant pays for the creation of a Provo City Float each year and for the driver who is hired to drive the float in 10+ local parades. The new $10,000 that is requested would be used for scholarships, Covey Center fees, and Miss Utah and Miss America fees.

The scholarships amounts are $3000 for Miss Provo, $1500 for the first attendant, and $750 for the second attendant. The scholarship is awarded at the end of their one-year service, and is forfeited if they move or otherwise fail to meet their obligations. The Covey Center charges around $3000 for the use of the facilities each year. Fees that the Miss Provo organization has to pay to the Miss Utah and Miss America organizations is more than the remaining ~$1750.

I apologize for publishing the wrong information.
***********************************************************************

It's budget season, and a great time for the Council to review how the City spends our tax-payer's money.

There is one item in particular that I would love to get some public feedback on. I don't have time for a long post, and I don't want to inject my preferences so I'll try to just give you a quick background:

As I understand it, for the past several years Provo City has partnered with the Miss Provo Scholarship Pageant, giving them $11,000 in exchange for building a new float each year and a number of appearances by Miss Provo, including participating in 10 or so local parades across the County. This year, on a 4-3 vote, the Council asked the next budget to include an additional $10,000 to help sponsor the scholarships for the program.

I'd like to hear back from you if you approve of this $10,000 being spent in this way?

What's Up? - 9 June 2016

What Was Up?

I'd love to get some feed back from you on a couple of issues. First, in Work Meeting Item 2, I discuss bonding, adequate rates, and rate increases. Please read the description and let me know how you feel about weaning ourselves off of bonding, rather than going cold turkey.

Second, Council Meeting Item 3, is the first public hearing on the budget. The administration has proposed a 3% increase on the general fund portion of the City's portion of your property tax bill. (To put this into perspective, the median Provo household would pay about $3 more per year because of this increase). Did you know that the rate on this portion of you property tax bill can go up and down even if the City doesn't propose a "change in the Certified Tax Rate"? Have you ever wondered why your property tax bill went up even when the City was claiming that they hadn't raised property taxes? Have you ever wondered why the City collected more property tax even though the rate didn't increase? Part of this has to do with the way the State mandates we calculate the Certified Tax Rate. I put together a little graphical presentation to help explain how this works, or at least my understanding of how it works. I'm thinking it might need some narration, or more text description. But if you are interested, take a look and let me know what you think.

As always, I'm interested to hear what you think of the other issues as well.

This post covers three meetings held on June 7th. The green text is from the summary on the Council's blog.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

2:30 PM, Tuesday, June 7, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on findings for sanitation, including curbside recycling and garbage collection, in Provo City. (15-045)
   Report Only.
   An update on sanitation services was presented. Since Provo City began curbside recycling pickup in November 2015, 1,458 tons have been taken to the transfer station. Currently 10,571 recycling cans are being billed. Provo City began handling green waste in 2016 and 7,500 tons of green waste (6,000 from curbside and 1,500 from drop-offs) have been collected so far. The supply of compost is sold out for this year.
   Due to increasing prices, we are now charged as much to unload a truck load of recycling material to the processor as we are to dump a truck load of trash off at the dump. The recycling is volatile and often cyclical, the drop-off fee will likely go back down in the future.
   There was plenty of demand this spring for mulch from our yard waste operation. Next year the City plans to have much more mulch available. We may consider raising the cost to residents to purchase mulch from $2 to $3, still a great price for the product. Click here if you want more info on green waste and mulch.
2. A presentation on Utility Rate Increases (7-year plan vs. 5-year plan) (16-070)
   Report Only.
   As part of the review of the proposed city budget Council asked for a comparison of raising utility rates over seven years in comparison to over five years. Rate increases are expected to address infrastructure needs. The challenge has been to fix existing deficiencies and plan for future projects without the use of bonding. Although the funding needs can be accomplished in a seven-year plan, the fund balance would drop significantly for four of the seven years. That would be a problem if emergencies arose.
   My understanding is that for decades Provo did not increase our utility rates. While everyone loves a deal, not fully funding the services we receive is not sustainable in the long run. Well the short run has run out and we have some urgent needs in our (non-electric) utilities. Over the past few years, the Council, along with the Administration, has striven to employ more fiscally responsible policies. We are trying to avoid the use of bonding for routine expenses, and we are trying to fully pay for the cost services. Both of these goals will lead to lower rates, fees, and taxes in the long run, and will reduce drastic increases in the future. The problem is that we are deep in a hole now and it will be hard to both replace the money that should have been collected before and start saving for future expenses so that we can avoid bonding.
   Based on the report and discussion, I do believe that we can cap the rate increases to around 10% a year and spread them over a longer period of time without depleting any one fund balance to badly by spreading it across multiple utilities. But this will likely delay some needed improvements as well as increase the likelihood that we will need to bond. (I should note that if you consider all Provo utilities, including energy which rates are rising at about the pace of inflation, the total rate increase is about 5% lower than if you leave out energy).
   One option that hasn't been explored is weaning ourselves off of bonding, rather than going cold turkey. The idea is to use a combination of capped rate increases along with some limited revenue-bonds in order to be able to complete the urgent infrastructure projects on schedule, and keep the yearly rate increases going until we reach the point that we are paying for the full cost of providing the utilities including upcoming maintenance and upgrades.
3. A discussion regarding the use of certain technology to gather data on smart devices in and out of Provo City boundaries for large events, traffic, tourism and economic development. (16-071)
   Report Only.
   The Council heard from a company called Blyncsy regarding the use of technology to gather data on smart devices in and out of Provo City boundaries. The data would be used to give information on large events, traffic, tourism, and economic development.
   It'd take to long to try to explain how this works, but in a nutshell many of our smart devices are continually broadcasting a unique identifier. Blyncsy is proposing to record the ids of smart devices passing several location in the City. The "aggregated," "anonymous" data can then be purchased by the City or businesses to gain insight into the behavior of the public (in general) to guide decisions.
   Part of me would love to have more data to help make better decisions, part of me is alarmed that already I'm broadcasting my whereabouts, part of me is alarmed that someone wants to collect this information.
   Blyncsy can move ahead with or without help from the City by placing their sensors on private property. All they are doing is recording the information that we are broadcasting. But the State of Utah is aware and concerned of the potential privacy issues and has passed some new laws governing how it can be collected and carefully regulating how the government can and can not use the information.
4. Open Meetings Training (16-043)
   Training Only.
   We are doing the work of the people, so all of our meetings should be done in full view of the people, unless there is a really good reason (see the Closed Meeting below). Note that this doesn't mean that elected officials can't talk amongst themselves regarding City issues, but we can't hold meetings or make official decisions behind closed doors.
5. A discussion on a resolution approving the selection of an audit firm to provide audit services and authorizing the Council Chair to execute a contract with the audit firm. (16-049)
   Council Member George Stewart moved to stay with the current auditor. Seconded by Dave Knecht. Approved 6:0. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   The field of several companies were whityled down to three options, two of which were recommended, depending on which direction we wanted to go. Our current auditor compared very favorably among the field. The other cost a few thousand less over the five years. Mr. Stewart made a good point that with our recent personnel changes, now may not be a good time to change auditors.
6. A discussion on citizen access to and participation in the policy-making process. (16-042)
   Report Only.
   The Council heard a follow-up presentation on digital citizen engagement forums. Questions from Council's previous work meeting were addressed. The team formed to research this will continue to evaluate the options and come back to the Council at a later date with recommendations.
7. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 17, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation by C-SPAN
   The Council heard from C-SPAN Cities Tour on their activities filming in Provo. Footage will air on a special Provo Weekend July 2-3 on C-SPAN.
   After the segments are broadcast, you will be able to view them at the above link. You can watch segments from previously highlighted cities to get a taste of what our spotlight might look like.
2. A presentation by Paul Warner regarding Freedom Festival 2016
   Mr. Warner explained some of the upcoming events and invited the Council and the public to the events.
3. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a Tentative Budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017, in the amount of 200,614,858, setting a public hearing to consider a proposed change in the Certified Tax Rate, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code Section 4.04.060. (16-054)
   No Action
   The first of two public hearings on the proposed FY2017 budget was held. Council will be holding a special budget work meeting on June 16, beginning at 10:00 am. The public may attend in person or follow the live broadcast. Provo residents are invited to contact Council members with their input on the budget. Another public hearing will be held at the June 21 Council Meeting. Council will be voting on approval of the budget at that same meeting.
4. A public hearing on a resolution appropriating $150,000 in the General Fund to repair the roof on the building that houses the Community Development Department and Fire Station #1, applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. (16-062)
   Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   From the previous "What's Up?": "The City has been reluctant to put any significant money into the current City Center building because it is nearing the end of its useful life. But with no plans in the works for replacing it, some investments need to be made to keep it functional."
5. A public hearing on a resolution appropriating $307,500 in the General Fund to make purchase related to necessary capital projects in the Recreation Center, applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. (16-064)
   Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   From before: "The Rec Center has been wildly popular. The level of usage has exceeded all expectations. The revenue from passes (including day-passes) have exceeded yearly projections and more than cover the operating budget. Rec Center management are requesting the use of some of that surplus revenue to be reinvested into the operation to improve efficiency and to improve patron experience at the higher usage levels. For an efficiency example, mobile computing (tablets) are requested for some staff members so that they can better respond to customer needs throughout the facility without needing to return to desks to look up or record information. For a user experience example, more pool-side furniture is requested to accommodate the greater number of people using the outdoor pools."
6. A public hearing on a resolution approving the reprogramming of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to fund the Sidewalk Improvement Project on 400 West Street. (16-065)
   Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   From before: "This $55k is the final component for this $400k project. This is the last street in Downtown Provo with the old irrigation gutters, and unimproved parking."
7. A public hearing on a resolution to reprogram Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to provide for the relocation of a transformer to finalize the remodel of the startup building.(16-073)
   Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   From last time: "Rather than operate a City-run tech/start-up incubator, the City previously decided to support 'other groups who are working directly with early stage and start up groups like – 1 Million Cups, Startup Dojo, Startup Building, Braid, Startfest, etc.' The results of the tech-space provided at the Startup Building are impressive. This request would be part of our ongoing support in this area."
8. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)
   No Action
   This is part of the budget. We scheduled the public hearing over two Council Meetings because it is so important.
9. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,915 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)
   No Action
   This is part of the budget. We scheduled the public hearing over two Council Meetings because it is so important.
10. A public hearing on a resolution approving the Provo City Moderate Income Housing Plan for 2014-2015. City-wide Impact. (16-0003GPA)
    Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    From before: "This biennial plan is required by the State. The intent is to ensure that communities are providing enough median income housing. In reading the plan, it seems to be more of a report of our actions over the past two years than a plan for how we will proceed over the next couple. Maybe I'm missing something. Also, there are some inconsistencies in the report. I appreciate Councilor Knecht for really diving into the plan." It turns out that the discrepancies were in a different, but related report.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Sections 14.32.020 and 14.32.140 to allow for reuse of an existing commercial building in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone, specifically for the building generally located at 389 East 200 North. Joaquin Neighborhood and City-Wide Impact. (15-0020OA)
    Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    Many residents spoke to voice their support for the Bicycle Collective, which will now rent the commercial space from the applicant. A single resident voiced concern about the impact that operating a commercial building with no parking lot will have on the already trouble some parking problems in Joaquin Neighborhood. I love the Collective. I have bought bikes for a couple of my kids there and have worked on my own bike in their old shop. They do great things for our community. But the question that the Council was deciding wasn't whether or not the Collective is wonderful, the question was, should a very limited set of commercial uses be allowed in previously existing commercial buildings in the Residential Conservation zone. Parking is definitely a concern about operating commercial businesses within a residential zone. I voted for the zone amendment because I believe the language was carefully crafted to allow just two uses that will be compatible and helpful to areas with the RC zone. I do think that small, neighborhood grocery stores and bike shops like the Collective will bring more vibrancy and improve the quality of life in some of our older neighborhoods. It increases the walkability (and bikeability) of the area, and is the type of amenities that many are looking for when the choose to live in the Pioneer neighborhoods. Parking is a problem in Joaquin neighborhood, and this rezone may somewhat exacerbate the parking problem in the immediate vicinity. The residents I heard from, and I even went out soliciting opinions, were overwhelmingly in favor of this change. I hope we can all work together to address the broader parking problems in Joaquin.
12. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.34 acres of real property, generally located at 177 South 1000 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) Zone to Del Coronado PRO (PRO-20) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. (15-0013R)
    Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
13. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.50(20).040 to reduce the minimum project area size from 0.9 acre to 0.34 acre in order to build a new duplex on the property generally located at 177 South 1000 West, in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. (15-0014OA)
    From before: "I remember this item from last year when a four-plex was proposed and denied. The proposal this time around is for the dilapidated single-family detached home be replaced by a duplex." The duplex is a much better fit for the property and surrounding area.
    Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
14. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.46 acres of real property, generally located between 800 North and 880 North and between 250 West and 440 West, from One-Family Residential (R1.6A) to Health Care Facilities Zone (HCF). North Park Neighborhood. (16-0006R)
    Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
15. A public hearing on an ordinance vacating the public streets 250 West (between 800 North and 940 North) and 880 North (between 300 West and Freedom), adjacent to property owned by IHC Health Services for future hospital expansion located in the R1.6A (One-Family Residential) and HCF (Health Care Facilities Zones. North Park Neighborhood. (16-0001SV)
    Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    From before: "This is part of the project by Intermountain Healthcare to acquire property to the south of their Utah Valley Hospital campus."
16. A resolution approving an amendment to a Development Agreement regarding property generally located at 660 East 300 North in order to amend the covenants, conditions, and restrictions required by the Agreement. (16-072)
    Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    From before: 'Based on the supporting documents, it appears that the developer is asking for a reduction in the owner-occupied requirement from 15 years to 3 years, and from both units needing to be owner-occupied, only one unit must be owner occupied. I'm curious to learn more about what she found out by talking with different lenders. From last time: "My impression was that the Council is supportive of the proposed twin home, but is reluctant to completely waive the owner-occupation requirement unless it is completely necessary. The reasons for my reluctance are that I don't want to set the precedence of changing agreements without a really good reason, and I'm cautious to change something that I don't fully understand. Why did the Council at that time and the developer at that time decide to enter into that agreement? Maybe there was a really good reason that I am unaware of. What has changed that necessitates a change to the agreement?"'
17. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 4.18 acres of real property, generally located at 1040 South 1000 East, from Heavy Commercial (CM) and Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (13-0003R)
    Approved 5:1. Council Member David Harding opposed. Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    One of the last actions of the last Council was to approval the rezone this property to Medium Density Residential (MDR) (even though there were many restrictions, like housing type, which made the proposed project more like an over-stuffed LDR zone). A majority of the current Council felt that the rezone was a mistake, so one of our first actions was to rescind the approval, as the rezone had not yet taken place. One of my objections was to the way the project had lumbered through the development approval process, undergoing significant changes and then later reverting back. Other concerns included access, density, and design. Also, the South East Area Master Plan was (and still is) being drafted, and it was clear that the Plan would call for LDR in this area.
    Staff recently initiated the rezone for this parcel to LDR, arguing that the SEA Master Plan will make it clear that LDR is the appropriate zone for this area. The developer has created a project plan that will fit the LDR zone, including density and form. The Planning Commission was not asked to vote on the project plan, but they did see it when they voted 4:1 to recommend the rezone to the Council.
    I feel that the project plan, which is part of a development agreement that was proffered and accepted by the City, is better than the old plan, and partially addresses some of the concerns. I still feel that most of the concerns are still there, though some are lessened. In particular, I feel that this project has not followed the appropriate process, and that it is outside of the Council's typical practice to rezone a property in this manner. I did not feel that I could vote for it.
18. A resolution approving the selection of an audit firm to provide audit services and authorizing the Council Chair to execute a contract with the audit firm. (16-049)
    Approved 6:0 Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    See the description for this item from the Work Meeting (item 5) above.

What's Up? - 4 June 2016

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

2:30 PM, Tuesday, June 7, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on findings for sanitation, including curbside recycling and garbage collection, in Provo City. (15-045)
   There are no supporting documents in the packet for this item, so I am not sure what the findings will be. Our sanitation efforts have been in tumult for the last year or so. Our waste district decided that it would no longer run the green waste program, and the cost of recycling has gone way up because the market is so weak right now for recyclable materials. Provo decided to continue to offer some of the green waste recycling services and the associated mulch production, we also brought the curbside recycling pickup in-house and moved it from a bi-weekly schedule to weekly. I'm interested to get the update on the current status of sanitation.
2. A presentation on Utility Rate Increases (7-year plan vs. 5-year plan) (16-070)
   No documents on this one either. I believe this was requested by one of the Councilors to see what the consequences would be if we spread out the proposed utility rate increases over a longer period. I believe there will be both positive and negative consequences.
3. A discussion regarding the use of certain technology to gather data on smart devices in and out of Provo City boundaries for large events, traffic, tourism and economic development. (16-071)
   Based on the documents, this looks like a sales pitch for a service that a new company is offering. Basically their technology collects data on smart phones as they are used throughout our community. They tout it as a way to study anything from traffic flow, to how long customers stayed in the area.
4. Open Meetings Training (16-043)
   All elected officials are required to have this training each year. (I think this will be the third time I've had it so far this year.)
5. A discussion on a resolution approving the selection of an audit firm to provide audit services and authorizing the Council Chair to execute a contract with the audit firm. (16-049)
   This will help the Council in our role of budgetary oversight.
6. A discussion on citizen access to and participation in the policy-making process. (16-042)
   This is a follow up to the presentation at our last meeting (17 May) on software platforms for citizen engagement.
7. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 7, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation by C-SPAN
   This should be interesting. I wonder what it's about.
2. A presentation by Paul Warner regarding Freedom Festival 2016
   The Festival is such an important part of Provo and the broader community.
3. Public Comment
4. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a Tentative Budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017, in the amount of $200,614,858, setting a public hearing to consider a proposed change in the Certified Tax Rate, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code Section 4.04.060. (16-054)
   I believe that we will have the option to adopt a budget with no property tax increase, or schedule some Truth-in-Taxation meetings and plan to adopt the budget in a couple months. I still have some questions on the budget. I need to find out if I'll need to raise them on Tuesday or if we will be discussing it more later.
5. A public hearing on a resolution appropriating $150,000 in the General Fund to repair the roof on the building that houses the Community Development Department and Fire Station #1, applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. (16-062)
   We discussed this item at our last Work Meeting. Here is what I wrote then: "The City has been reluctant to put any significant money into the current City Center building because it is nearing the end of its useful life. But with no plans in the works for replacing it, some investments need to be made to keep it functional."
6. A public hearing on a resolution appropriating $307,500 in the General Fund to make purchases related to necessary capital projects in the Recreation Center, applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. (16-064)
   This item was also discussed previously. Here is what I wrote: "The Rec Center has been wildly popular. The level of usage has exceeded all expectations. The revenue from passes (including day-passes) have exceeded yearly projections and more than cover the operating budget. Rec Center management are requesting the use of some of that surplus revenue to be reinvested into the operation to improve efficiency and to improve patron experience at the higher usage levels. For an efficiency example, mobile computing (tablets) are requested for some staff members so that they can better respond to customer needs throughout the facility without needing to return to desks to look up or record information. For a user experience example, more pool-side furniture is requested to accommodate the greater number of people using the outdoor pools."
7. A public hearing on a resolution approving the reprogramming of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to fund the Sidewalk Improvement Project on 400 West Street. (16-065)
   This $55k is the final component for this $400k project. This is the last street in Downtown Provo with the old irrigation gutters, and unimproved parking.
8. A public hearing on a resolution to reprogram Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to provide for the relocation of a transformer to finalize the remodel of the Startup Building. (16-073)
   From last time, "Rather than operate a City-run tech/start-up incubator, the City previously decided to support 'other groups who are working directly with early stage and start up groups like – 1 Million Cups, Startup Dojo, Startup Building, Braid, Startfest, etc.' The results of the tech-space provided at the Startup Building are impressive. This request would be part of our ongoing support in this area."
9. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)
   This is basically the RDA portion of the budget.
10. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,915 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)
    This is basically the Storm Water portion of the budget.
11. A public hearing on a resolution approving the Provo City Moderate Income Housing Plan for 2014-2015. City-wide Impact. (16-0003GPA)
    This biennial plan is required by the State. The intent is to ensure that communities are providing enough median income housing. In reading the plan, it seems to be more of a report of our actions over the past two years than a plan for how we will proceed over the next couple. Maybe I'm missing something. Also, there are some inconsistencies in the report. I appreciate Councilor Knecht for really diving into the plan.
12. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Sections 14.32.020 and 14.32.140 to allow for reuse of an existing commercial building in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone, specifically for the building generally located at 389 East 200 North. Joaquin Neighborhood and City-Wide Impact. (15-0020OA)
    What I wrote after discussing this issue at the Work Meeting: "The Zone Text Amendment would allow small, neighborhood grocery stores, and bike repair/sales shops in existing commercial buildings inside of the RC zone. There are only two properties which fit this description. The applicant owns one of these properties and was looking to put in a neighborhood grocery store, but is now working with the Provo Bicycle Collective to allow them to move to a larger location. Though this affects only two properties, I hope it is the start of a trend to allow useful, neighborhood-scale commercial offerings in our neighborhoods, in a way to minimizes conflicts and serves our residents."What I wrote before discussing this issue at the Work Meeting: "There are two instances in Provo where a "non-conforming" commercial building is attached to a residence in the Residential Conservation (RC) zone. The owner of the one property in Joaquin Neighborhood is requesting a code change that would allow either a grocery or bicycle repair and sales use in these existing building. In addition to the City Staff, I have reached out to Joaquin Neighbors and have found them to be supportive and excited for this change. My only concern is the fact that there is no off-street parking associated with this commercial building. This concern is addressed in the Staff report, "However, in this case, the property is ideally located within walking or biking distance to the residents who will be utilizing the commercial use, thus greatly reducing the need for automobile dependence." I believe the current plan is for the Provo Bicycle Collective to move into this space. The Collective is currently in my home Neighborhood. Our neighbors have been very happy with having the collective nearby. But there is a parking lot at the current location, and it is used by Collective patrons. I have heard for years about problems with parking in Joaquin, I just want to make sure we don't regret this decision in the future if it compounds the parking problem."
13. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.34 acres of real property, generally located at 177 South 1000 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) Zone to Del Coronado PRO (PRO-20) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. (15-0013R)
14. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.50(20).040 to reduce the minimum project area size from 0.9 acre to 0.34 acre in order to build a new duplex on the property generally located at 177 South 1000 West, in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. (15-0014OA)
    From before: "I remember this item from last year when a four-plex was proposed and denied. The proposal this time around is for the dilapidated single-family detached home be replaced by a duplex. "
15. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.46 acres of real property, generally located between 800 North and 880 North and between 250 West and 440 West, from One-Family Residential (R1.6A) to Health Care Facilities Zone (HCF). North Park Neighborhood. (16-0006R)
16. A public hearing on an ordinance vacating the public streets 250 West (between 800 North and 940 North) and 880 North (between 300 West and Freedom), adjacent to property owned by IHC Health Services for future hospital expansion located in the R1.6A (One-Family Residential) and HCF (Health Care Facilities Zones. North Park Neighborhood. (16-0001SV)
    This is part of the project by Intermountain Healthcare to acquire property to the south of their Utah Valley Hospital campus.
17. A resolution approving an amendment to a Development Agreement regarding property generally located at 660 East 300 North in order to amend the covenants, conditions, and restrictions required by the Agreement. (16-072)
    Based on the supporting documents, it appears that the developer is asking for a reduction in the owner-occupied requirement from 15 years to 3 years, and from both units needing to be owner-occupied, only one unit must be owner occupied. I'm curious to learn more about what she found out by talking with different lenders. From last time: "My impression was that the Council is supportive of the proposed twin home, but is reluctant to completely waive the owner-occupation requirement unless it is completely necessary. The reasons for my reluctance are that I don't want to set the precedence of changing agreements without a really good reason, and I'm cautious to change something that I don't fully understand. Why did the Council at that time and the developer at that time decide to enter into that agreement? Maybe there was a really good reason that I am unaware of. What has changed that necessitates a change to the agreement?"
18. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 4.18 acres of real property, generally located at 1040 South 1000 East, from Heavy Commercial (CM) and Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (13-0003R)
    This is the property that the last Council rezoned to Medium Density Residential (MDR) (with a whole bunch of restrictions) at their last Council Meeting, and the current Council rescinded the rezone at our first Council Meeting. The developer has submitted a revised project plan and development agreement that is similar to the previous plan but has less units so that it conforms to the LDR zone.
19. A resolution approving the selection of an audit firm to provide audit services and authorizing the Council Chair to execute a contract with the audit firm. (16-049)
    This is the same item as item 5 in the earlier Work Meeting.