What Was Up?
COUNCIL WORK MEETING
12:00 PM, Tuesday, October 4th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center- A report on vendor selection for software related to the Council priority to improve public engagement (16-042)
Council Member David Harding moved to accept the recommendations proposed by the Executive Director and to implement it. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.The staff selection committee presented the feature set and the pricing information on the top three options. Peak Democracy's Open Town Hall platform stood out and was the committee's recommendation. Staff will now prepare this item for formal consideration at a Council Meeting - A discussion on parking
- A discussion on the Joaquin Parking Study (16-068)
Report only.
Susan Krueger-Barber presented the documented parking violations over a week's period. It is obvious that something needs to be done. Joaquin Neighborhood has done everything that we ask residents to do when they bring us an issue to be addressed. They have put in a lot of effort to define the problem and suggest possible solutions, and they are willing to partner with the City to implement the solutions. - A discussion about potential amendments to parking standards in Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) & University zones (16-109)
What is the right amount of off-street parking in these areas? What factors are compounding the parking problem? What are some potential solutions? - An update regarding process for the quarterly review of 25 fees (16-102)
Update only.
To be honest, I don't remember what was discussed. I think it was a brief update about where Staff is at and their next steps. - A discussion on vendor selection and implementation of Body-Worn-Cameras for Police Officers (16-103)
Council member George Stewart moved to appropriate money to the recommended option of body cameras. Seconded by Council Member Vernon K. Buren. Approved 7:0.
The Police Department is recommending the Axion camera system by Taser. They made a compelling case and laid out their extensive review process. - A report and continued conversation regarding the balance of private solar energy generation, consumption, and net metering alternatives (16-093)
Report Only. This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting.
I'll discuss this item in the Council Meeting section below. - A discussion on potential legislation related to Trampoline Gyms (16-105)
Council Member David Knecht moved to make the changes to the proposed legislation. Brian Jones is to implement the changes into the ordinance for tonight’s meeting. Seconded by George Stewart. Approved 7:0.We briefly discussed the idea of requiring the public posting of the number of serious injuries in the last 6 months (or other appropriate time frame) in the area where people pay to enter the gyms. I believe such a provision is in the public's best interest, it allows them to make informed decisions, gives the safer gyms an advantage over less safe gyms, and gives the gym operators an added incentive to make sure the gyms are as safe as possible. The gym operator who has worked with the committee developing the regulations opposed the provision and the Council didn't want to derail what has been a very collaborative process. We decided to not include the provision, but some Councilors suggested that we keep the provision in reserve, to be added if the proposed provisions do not reduce the number and severity of injuries to more appropriate levels.
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 4th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center- A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of James Miguel as the Chief of the Fire Department for the City of Provo. (16-107)
Approved 7:0.
Chief Miguel replaces Chief Gary Jolley. - An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 6.11 (Trampoline Gyms) to regulate the licensing of Trampoline Gyms in Provo. (16-105)Approved 7:0.
This was hailed as a model of cooperation to create meaningful regulation. See item 6 in the Work Meeting above for more discussion. - An ordinance amending Energy Rates on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule. (16-093)Approved 4:3. Council Members Kim Santiago, David Sewell, David Harding opposed.
In 2009 the Council approved net metering for rooftop solar customers. Rooftop solar customers continue to use the electrical grid, and contributes to the ongoing costs, but reduce (or eliminate) the amount that they pay toward the grid. Roughly 10% of our power bill is transfered to the City's general fund, reducing the amount we pay in property taxes. Solar users reduce (or eliminate) what they pay towards the general services we receive. I think it is a legitimate policy question whether the City should use rates and fees to incentivize rooftop solar, and to what extent. What I don't think we should do is drasticly change the rate structure on our residents who previously financed rooftop systems based on the policies that the Council previously put into place. I have previous post that delves deeper into this issue. Currently there are discussions about revisiting this topic. - A resolution appropriating $260,000 in the General CIP Fund for purposes related to the Fleet Facility Project and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. (16-110)Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.
This fixes a bookkeeping mistake in the current budget. - A resolution approving a Power Plant Property Lease Agreement between Provo City and Utah Municipal Power Agency. (16-024)Approved 6:0. Council Member David Sewell excused.
This allows UMPA to build a backup power plant on the new Provo Power campus. The backup plant is a great resource for our critical institutions like Utah Valley Hospital. - An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.44 acres of real property, generally located at 1290 North Geneva Road, from Agricultural Zone (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.10), Lakeview North Neighborhood. (14-0013R)Continued to the October 18, 2016 Council Meeting.
The applicant requested a delay.
What's Coming Up?
COUNCIL WORK MEETING
12:30 PM, Tuesday, October 18th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center- A discussion with Shawna Cuan from the Governor's Office of Energy Development on proposed
legislative improvements/changes to the C-PACE program (16-092)
There are no documents on this. The Council recently approved the implementation of C-PACE in Provo. - An update from the Development Approval Process (DAP) Review Committee (16-023)
The DAP Review Committee has been meeting throughout the year on this complex issue. We are now entering the phase where we can report back our findings to the whole of the Council. I was very involved with this committee until about a month ago when I was selected to chair the Westside Planning Committee. In reading the current recommendations, my biggest concern is the focus on streamlining the process for developers and builders rather than improving the outcome for the community. - A discussion regarding the policy development of the Vision 2050 plan (16-051)
At the beginning of the year the Council was concerned with inconsistencies and redundancies between Vision 2030 and the General Plan. Community Development was worked to incorporate aspects of the General Plan into Vision 2030 and held five open houses around the City to gather community feedback. In this meeting we will be discussing the path forward to update Vision 2030 to Vision 2050 and an update to the General Plan. - A discussion on finalizing a name for the new civic engagement tool (16-042)
What's in a name? We will discuss naming our new civic engagement software platform. The current proposal is "Council Conversations." Do you have any suggestions? My concern with the current proposal is that it focuses so strongly on the Council. Many residents don't differentiate much between the Council and the Administration. They have an issue with the City and want some place to go have find answers or submit feedback, without worrying in whose court the issue currently resides. Many issues spend far more time incubating in the Administration before coming to the Council, and I think it would be good to get the information out there on a single platform from the beginning. The Council Office has a limited staff, and to get solid, up-to-date information on the issues, I believe we will need to work closely with department staff. For all of these reasons, I think we should consider this a City tool rather than a Council tool. (This is related to item #1 in the previous Work Meeting above). - A discussion on a potential revolving loan fund (16-111)
***Updated***The City use to have a revolving loan fund for small businesses that are not yet mature enough for traditional bank loans. It was funded with CDBG money and had many strings attached. A state-level non-profit is looking to partner with cities to offer a revolving loan fund. - A discussion on potential sales tax increment for a retail shopping center on University Parkway
(16-112)
***Updated***The owners of Parkway Village, across from the Plum Tree shopping center, now exists. They are requesting Sales Tax Increment Financing to assist with the project costs. To me, the policy question is, "Is it in the best interest of Provo residents to invest the increased sales taxes that this project will bring into the project itself?" Does it move us towards the future we want? - Kevin Fairbanks, representing Pie House LLC, requests a Zone Change of 0.31 acres from
Residential Conservation to General Downtown (DT-1). The property is located at approximately
245 North 500 West. No changes to the property are proposed with this Zone Change request.
Dixon Neighborhood (16-0010R)
As a resident of Dixon Neighborhood, I've seen this request coming for a while. I am struggling with it because I see very little advantage for the community, and a significant disadvantage. The desire of the applicant is to increase the number of residential units by one in two existing buildings. Current zoning for the properties won't allow for it. City Staff has suggested that the property could be rezoned to DT-1 which would allow the additional units, but also a whole lot more. The applicant has proposed (at least to the neighborhood) that they would enter into a development agreement saying that the land would only be used as-is, with the additional units. I don't see a huge public purpose in adding two new units to existing buildings. Rezoning property from RC to DT-1 seems like an awfully large step, usually reserved for a significant redevelopment that will significantly benefit the community. And the restrictive development agreement is my biggest concern. I think that this area of the 500 W corridor needs to be redeveloped. Signing an agreement to lock in the current use and exteriors will add a new obstacle to rejuvenating this stretch. - Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.04.010 of
the Zoning Ordinance, regarding proposed changes to the number of Planning Commission
members, their terms of office, and other details relating to Planning Commission rules. CityWide
Impact (16-0019OA)
The proposal will move the Commission for 7 members and two alternates to 9 full members while still only requiring 4 members to make a quorum.
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 18th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center
- A resolution appropriating $205,281 in the General Fund for body-worn cameras and equipment
for storage and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. (16-103)
The first year's cost of equipping our police force with body cameras. (Related to item 4 in the 4 Oct Work Meeting above.) - An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.44 acres of real property,
generally located at 1290 North Geneva Road, from Agricultural Zone (A1.5) to One-Family
Residential (R1.10), Lakeview North Neighborhood. (14-0013R)
My notes from last time: "This is a plot with a long and ugly history." - A resolution approving an online civic engagement services provider and appropriating $10,800 in
the General Fund for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2017. (16-042)
This will fund the online civic engagement platform discussed as item 4 in the earlier meeting and item 1 in the 4 Oct Work Meeting, both above.
No comments:
Post a Comment