What's Up? - 4 August 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:45 PM, Tuesday, August 2, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on noticing requirements for Land Use items referred to the Municipal Council by the Planning Commission. (16-100)
   Council Member Dave Sewell moved to have the two Planning Commission items mentioned at this work meeting be placed on the August 16, 2016 Work and Council Meeting agendas. He also moved to refer this item to the Development Review Process Committee for further discussion. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.
   State statute requires that 10 days of notice must be given before land use items are heard by the Planning Commission. Provo code requires 14 days. These requirements do not apply on the same items going before the City Council, but it has been our long standing practice to give 14 days notice. So long standing, in fact, that everyone just assumed it was required. In researching whether we had any options to get a couple of land use items on our 16 Aug meeting agendas, Brian Jones (re)discovered that technically only 24 hours of notice are needed. So we decided to put the items on the agenda (we will be able to give 13 days of notice), and to send this issue to our Development Approval Process Review Committee to study and recommend to the Council a policy that will be in the best interest of our residents.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amendment to Section 14.06.020 Definitions and Section 14.10 One-Family Residential, regarding yard definitions and required widths and setbacks for corner lots. City-Wide Impact. (16-0008OA)
   This item will be heard at the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting.
   This amendment is broader than I originally thought, but it appears to improve our code in a number of sections. It defines these terms in a more straight-forward manner. It doesn't reduce restrictions, but it does allow for more flexibility, particularly for corner lots.
3. A discussion regarding a resolution approving the proposed Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to fund the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area Plan (16-094)
   Council Member George Stewart moved this item forward to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 7:0.
   This item, and the next, will allow for tax increment financing to be used as our portion of a matching grant that will pay for infrastructure at the airport.
4. A discussion regarding proposed Interlocal Agreements between the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City and Provo City, Utah County, Provo School District and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to fund the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area Plan (16-095)
   Council Member George Stewart moved this item forward to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 7:0.
5. A discussion regarding an Impact Fee Funding Agreement for City View Apartments (16-099)
   Council Member David Harding moved this item to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0
   This simply directs our RDA to use the generated tax increment financing to pay the impact fees. This was already the plan, but this agreement formalizes it.
6. A discussion about Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) funding (16-092)
   Council Member George Stewart made a motion requesting Mayor John Curtis prepare the current agreement leaving energy efficiency, water conservation and charging stations but striking renewable energy, and to present it at the September 6, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.
   This is a national program, implemented by the states, and administered by municipalities. It provides capital to companies to build or retrofit more sustainable buildings. These improvements should provide more savings each year than the payments on the loans.
7. A discussion regarding the implementation options for applying the sewer base rate by residential housing unit and commercial meter size (16-097)
   Council Member David Harding made a motion to move this item to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting and that the Administration develop a model that implements the base rate increase on multi-family units to be 10% increase in the first year, 50% in the second year and 90% all subsequent years. Also, to modify the commercial rate as presented by the Administration at this work meeting. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 7:0.
   Currently a household in a single-family dwelling may pay the same base rate for sewer as an entire apartment complex. If this proposal passes, multifamily housing will be assessed 90% of the regular base rate PER UNIT, rather than 100% of the base rate PER CONNECTION (often whole complexes have just a single connection). We are considering a phase-in of this change to allow everyone time to plan for the impact.
8. A discussion on the impact of proposed phosphorous and nitrogen effluent limitations on Provo’s Water Reclamation Plant and potential impact on Wastewater rates (16-091)
   This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting. Council Members would like to hear from DWQ in the near future.
   See my description below.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.
   To fit everyone's schedule, part of the closed portion of the meeting was held at the beginning of the meeting, and part at the end.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 2, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council outlining their concern with the recent proposed standards from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality related to the impact of the wastewater effluent on the chemistry of Utah Lake. (16-091)
   Approved 6:1. Council Member David Harding opposed.
   Utah Lake is not known for clean, clear water. The water quality has been impacted by the communities that have grown up around it. Recently the State has designated the lake as being impaired, and is proposing a plan to address the water quality issues. A major aspect of this plan is to restrict the amount of nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen) that can be released into the lake from our water treatment plants. Nutrient level is one factor that leads to algal blooms. Meeting the nutrient standards would cost millions of dollars for Provo City to implement. (Provo is planning to do some major renovations to our water treatment plant, which is why our sewer rates are going up. If these restrictions go into place, even more money will need to be spent on water treatment equipment). Some scientists and water experts do not believe that the report on which these proposed restrictions are based has sufficiently strong scientific evidence to justify these restrictions. The Administration is worried that millions of dollars will be spent on something that may not have a significant impact on the water quality of the lake. In the joint resolution we declare, "The data collected for, and presented in, the Integrated Report is inadequate without further scientific studies and vetting by the scientific community to conclude that the quality of Utah Lake will be significantly improved by the proposed regulations."
   The reason I did not vote for the resolution is that we only heard from one side. We heard from scientists and water experts saying that the data is lacking. I wanted to hear from the other scientists and water experts who are proposing the restrictions. We had time to hear from the State DEQ/DWQ and still pass the resolution during the public input period, but chose to act before hearing from them.