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- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - Closed Meeting
A closed meeting was held.
COUNCIL WORK MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 17, City Conference Room, 351 West Center- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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." - 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." - 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." - 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." - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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." - 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?"' - 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. - 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment