What's Up? - 24 October 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, October 4th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. 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)
   Report Only.
   The State is considering changes to the program because of low usage. They've researched the biggest barriers as well as more successful programs around the country. They have developed a list of changes and wanted to get feed back from local officials to make sure they understand our concerns and won't be introducing more concerns. In general it looks like the changes will lower the perceived risk and staff time requirement to the local jurisdictions. The biggest question this raised with the Council is why do the local jurisdictions even need to be involved if pretty much everything is being handled by the State? For information on C-PACE see: http://energy.utah.gov/utah-c-pace/
2. An update from the Development Approval Review Committee (16-023)
   Report. The Development Approval Review process will continued at a future retreat.
   A long list of potential reforms were presented, which were developed by the DAP Review Committee and the Administration. I think that these reforms will improve many of the biggest short-comings of the current process. I expressed my concern, though, that the focus has been on improving the developers experience, and we need to carefully consider if these reforms also lead to better outcomes for the community. I also feel that we need more time and effort focused on the Pre-Council Approval Process (for rezones or General Plan amendments) to better define how projects can morph as they move through the process.
3. A discussion regarding the policy development of the Vision 2050 plan (16-051)
   Update Only.
   I was unaware that the document that was presented at the public open houses had been reviewed by various committees. I was under the impression that the only changes were some additions from the General Plan. A new draft has now been released which incorporate the latest round of feedback from the public. I will soon public a blog post dedicated to the update to our city's vision.
4. A discussion on finalizing a name for the new civic engagement tool (16-042)
   Council Member David Knecht moved to accept the name “Council Conversations” as the name of the civic engagement tool and to accept the policy statement as written. Seconded by Council Member Kim Santiago. Council Member David Harding made a substitute motion to call the new civic engagement tool “Open City Hall” and to accept the policy statement as written. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 5:2. Council Members David Sewell and Kim Santiago opposed.
   I am very excited about the potential of this new tool, which I have written about in several past editions of "What's Up?" This discussion focused mostly on what to call the new tool. The name "Council Conversations" was proposed first, and would have worked well. For a variety of reasons, likely different for each voting Councilor, we chose to call it "Open City Hall". Look for a future announcement that the tool is up and running.
5. A discussion on a potential revolving loan fund (16-111)
   Council Member George Stewart moved to advise Dixon Holmes that the Council feels Economic Development is moving in the right direction regarding this issue. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.
   We previously had a revolving loan for small local businesses struggling in the "financing desert" before reaching the point that commercial banks are willing to invest. Work is underway to bring back a revolving fund in a new format.
6. A discussion on potential sales tax increment for a retail shopping center on University Parkway (16-112)
   Council Members approved the direction in which this item is heading.
   This is for the area across from the Plum Tree Shopping area. In order for a full "four-legged" intersection to be put in, which will improve access to both sides of University Parkway, a current building will need to be torn down. A sales tax increment is being considered to partially reduce the cost to the property owner.
7. 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
   This item will be heard at November 1, 2016 Council Meeting.
   No vote was expected or taken, it was already scheduled to be heard November 1st in the Council Meeting, but I was able to express my concerns that little public good will come of the proposed rezone, but there may be increased uncertainty. The biggest surprise to me was that no development agreement was being discussed in the meeting, though the City Staff who were presenting said that that doesn't mean that one won't be proffered in the Council Meeting. This surprised me because the development agreement was a major part of the presentation to the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting.
8. 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. City-Wide Impact. 16-0019OA
   This item will be heard at November 1, 2016 Council Meeting.
   The Council's Rules Committee explained this amendment to the full Council. The only change that was made was the removal of a phrase that was proposed which gives the Mayor the ability to remove a Planning Commissioner "without cause". The Commission by-laws already address this issue, it was not requested by anyone in the administration, and was only added because other boards and commissions have this phrase and we were looking to make the governance of the various boards more uniform.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 4th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. Consideration of a motion to rescind the adoption of Ordinance 2016-27, approved on October 4, 2016, which amended energy rates on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule by adding a Solar Generation Capacity Charge. (16-093)
   Approved 4:3. Council Members Kay Van Buren, George Stewart and David Knecht opposed.
   In the latest turn of this saga, the Council overturned it's own 4-3 decision to add a new charge on roof-top solar customers. We did so by another 4-3 decision. The reality is that the Council supports the creation of a Joint Commission with the Administration to more fully study the broader impacts of coming changes and how solar generation fits into the long-term vision of the City. We also supported delaying any changes for 3 months while this Commission works, with the caveat that we do not expect to grandfather any new solar customers, so they should only proceed understanding the risks. We were just divided about whether we should rescind the (unimplemented) solar charge in the mean time.
2. 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)
   Approved 7:0.
   I believe the timing is right on this issue.
3. 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)
   Approved 5:2. Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposed. (The motion was to deny the resolution)
   The General Plan calls for this property to become residential, but there are access issues and integration issues with the rest of the area, as well as a complicated history. I am uncomfortable approving a rezone until we are presented with a viable development which addresses these issues and complies with the General Plan.
4. 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)
   Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.