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- 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. - 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". - A discussion on the creation of a Council Audit Committee. (16-077)
*There is no material on this item.* - 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." - 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.)" - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - Closed Meeting
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 21, City Conference Room, 351 West Center
- A presentation by the Covey Center (Art Show showcase)
- Employee of the Month for the month of May, 2016 - Chad Roscher
- Miss Provo and Royalty presentation
Public Comment - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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."
No comments:
Post a Comment