What Was Up?
This is the report of the Council meetings from nine days ago. It took considerably longer to write than usual. There were many tricky items that require careful consideration. The report is relatively long. I recommend skimming through it and only reading about the items that you care about. Items of particular interest might be: clean air and diesel, concept plans for rezones, moving from Vision 2030 to Vision 2050, tax increment financing, impacts of the PHS relocation, and the adequacy of land-use tools.
COUNCIL WORK MEETING
12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center
- A presentation regarding diesel emission testing in Utah County
Presentation only. The Council seeks to further discuss this item at a future date with the Utah County Commissioners.
What I wrote previously, "Don Jarvis, chair of Provo City's Sustainability Committee, addressed this issue in the Daily Herald. I believe that clean air is a serious quality-of-life issue here in Utah County. Requiring diesel vehicles to be tested for emission compliance, similar to how gasoline vehicles are tested, will have a meaningful impact on our air quality, and is not asking anything of our diesel drivers that we don't ask of our gasoline drivers. Provo City does not have the authority to require testing, but we can urge those who have the authority to require it."
The Utah County Commission will hear the item next Tuesday, 29 November. I am hopeful that the testing will be reinstated. - A discussion regarding the use of concept plans for general plan amendments and rezoning applications, in the context of the Development Review Process
Council Vice-Chair David Sewell moved to accept the first two steps common between the proposals—use of concept plan and rezone—then to review staff recommendations for a text amendment at a future date. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 7:0.
When considering legislation, I try to ask, "what is the worst that can happen?" I don't always vote with the assumption that the worst will happen, but I think it is important to consider the potential unintended consequences.
I think that the worst-case in this instance is that an applicant could submit an insincere concept plan, just copying-and-pasting pretty pictures off of Google. The new development rights are vested with the r5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, Council Chambers, 351 West Centerezoning and General Plan amendments, so the applicant could build whatever they want or sell the property off to someone else who has no connection to the concept plan.
The current requirement of a full application, rather than just a concept plan, doesn't by itself preclude this from happening, but it makes it costlier to present an insincere plan.
I hope that we can make reforms to the process that lower the barriers to "good" development while strengthening the protections against "bad" development. The use of "development agreements" was discussed a lot during this item. Unfortunately, development agreements seem to cycle in and out of favor in Provo City, both in terms of entering into them as well as enforcing them, so I don't have full confidence in them. - A discussion regarding Lot Line Adjustment in the context of the Development Review Process
Council Member David Knecht moved this item to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0. This item will come back to Council after the Planning Commission has heard it.
This cuts much of the red tape required to make minor lot adjustments. I feel this is an example of a change that reduces barriers that aren't helpful in protecting the community. - A discussion on the Budget Committee's recommendation regarding the impact fee process
Council Member George Stewart moved to proceed with the Budget Committee recommendation to complete an Impact Fee Analysis. Council Chair Kimberly Santiago moved to add to Mr. Stewart’s motion the creation of a committee to move this impact fee study forward. Mr. Stewart agreed. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.
It is time for Provo to update our impact fee analysis which is necessary to adjust the fees which developments pay to help cover the costs of extending city services to them. If a proposed state statute amendment passes, we will be able to update components of the analysis as various utility plans are updated, rather than continuing to do monolithic updates once the whole analysis is out-of-date. - A discussion regarding sections of Vision 2050
- Section 3: Recreation and Parks
- Section 4: Natural Resources
- Section 5: Heritage
- Section 6: Prosperity
Our review continues. I think that the suggestions that the Council made will strengthen the document. I really need to assemble the peices together on the blog to make it easier for you all to review it as well and provide meaningful feedback. I'll try to get it done over the holiday weekend. [With as long as the report took to write, ,I'm not sure I'll be able to get to this over the weekend.] - A discussion on updates to Chapters 4.02 and 4.03 of the Provo City Code regarding the Unclassified Civil Service
Presentation only. This item will be heard at the December 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
See item #4 below. - A discussion on a zone change request: Brady Deucher requests a Zone Change from A-1 Agriculture to Residential R1.10 for approximately four acres of land located at 54 West 4200 North in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
Discussion only. This item will be heard at the December 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
I don't recall any opposition from the neighbors or anyone else, and I don't recall having any concerns myself. - Closed Meeting
A closed meeting was held.
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center
- A presentation on the Employee of the Month for September, Ryan Rieske, Firefighter/Paramedic
- A presentation on the Employee of the Month for October, Rebecca Hunt, Senior Customer Service Representative
Hats off to Ryan Rieske and Rebecca Hunt for their exemplarly service to the people of Provo. Provo City could not provide the quality of services it does without the dedication of our city employees.
Public Comment - A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City Corporation to negotiate and execute a sales tax increment reimbursement agreement between Provo City Corporation and Parkway Village Provo Holdings 2, LLC.
Ammended 5:2. Council Members David Harding and George Stewart opposed. Approved amended resolution 6:1. Council Member David Harding opposed.
Tax increment financing (TIF), whether property tax or sales tax, is controversial. In a nutshell, taxing entities give some of the higher tax proceeds, generated by a new investment, back to the entity that made the investment. At its best, TIF spurs investment and development that wouldn't occur on its own, by returning some of the newly generated taxes that wouldn't have occurred without the development. At its worst, TIF is a form of corporate welfare, violating basic tax premises that businesses help pay for the services they consume and pay into the community on which they rely.
When evaluating requests for TIF, I consider multiple criteria:- Is there a distinct public benefit to the investment?
- Would the investment happen without the TIF?
- Are there exceptional circumstances which justify public investment?
- Is the public benefit derived by using TIF significantly more than the value of the TIF? (When considering the "public benefit derived by using TIF", this is not the future value of the development with the investment vs. the current value of the development, it is the future value of the development if TIF is used vs. the future value of the development if TIF isn't used. The TIF formulas are based off of the current value, but it is a mistake to assume that no future development would occur if the TIF isn't granted.)
- Is the value of the TIF offered as small as possible to accomplish the goal of the incentive?
So how does this request for TIF measure up? The original request was to reimburse the owners of the Parkway Village up to half of the cost (estimated at $1.2M) to remove (and replace) a building to accommodate a new four-way intersection that is proposed as part of the BRT/University Parkway widening project, using the increase in sales taxes for up to the next ten years.- Is there a distinct public benefit to the investment? Yes, the investment of Parkway Village will allow for a full signalized intersection which will improve access to both the Parkway Village and The Mix. This investment will make the area more economically productive.
- Would the investment happen without the TIF? I am not sure, a case could be made that the return on the investment for the Parkway Village would more than justify the investment without TIF. I have to rely on our Economic Development team's judgement on this question. It is their opinion that TIF is needed to get this done.
- Are there exceptional circumstances which justify public investment? In order to accommodate the four-way intersection a building needs to be torn down. That is pretty exceptional.
- Is the public benefit derived by using TIF significantly more than the value of the TIF? Assuming that the intersection wouldn't happen otherwise, yes it is significantly more valuable.
- Is the value of the TIF offered as small as possible to accomplish the goal of the incentive? I made this request of Economic Development when they were negotiating, and I have to trust them that that is what they negotiated.
It was easy for me to oppose this additional request. The investment would happen without the additional TIF. The value the TIF is more than what is necessary to achieve the goal of the TIF. Because of this, I don't think that granting the additional request is in the best interest of the people of Provo.
I should note that the Council added in a cap, so that not more than the cost of the investment will be reimbursed. In order to reach that cap, it was estimated that the $25M in sales that took place on this property over the last year would need to increase four-fold to $100M per year over the ten years. It is unlikely that we will reach this cap, but this gives you an idea of the kind of economic development we expect from the BRT/University expansion project. The public is investing $190M in this project, and there will be real returns on our investment. The commercial property owners along the route stand to benefit greatly from our investment. Sales tax returns roughly 1% back to Provo City. TIF reduces this amount. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to specify which individuals are part of the Unclassified Civil Service and which may appeal certain personnel actions.
Approved 7:0.Here is what I wrote before, "Changes to City Code are proposed to bring it in line with State statute regarding the grievance procedure for certain city employees. " - An ordinance granting Extenet a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
Approved 7:0.
As I've written in the past, "This allows a new business to access utility right-of-ways in the City," and, "As long as they meet all the requirements, it is proper to grant the franchise." - A resolution authorizing the transfer of $650,000 from the Independence Avenue project to the Lakeview Parkway project for the purpose of funding the construction of Lakeview Parkway from 620 North to 1280 North in conjunction with the relocation of Provo High School.
Approved 7:0.
As I pointed out last time, this is yet another consequence of the relocation of PHS that may not have been fully appreciated at the time the decision was made. Significant money has to be spent to extend the necessary infrastructure to the new location. Other projects, which have been planned for several years, and have waited their turn, are being bumped back several more. In a committee meeting this week, the Fire Chief commented on his concern over the new location and the challenges that it has created in providing acceptable response times for a building of that size.
I have continued to point out these negative consequences. I mention them here on this blog, I mention them in Council meetings, and I mention them in joint meetings with the School Board. I'm not trying to be a sore loser, I'm not trying to publicly embarrass the School Board. I'm trying to raise the awareness, of the Board and the public, of the full consequences of moving a centrally located school, in an area that is fully developed and already has significant infrastructure in place, out to the edge of the city, to an area that only has infrastructure planned and in place that would serve low density residential. There are infrastructure costs as well as societal costs. I want everyone to be aware of these costs, as our city experiences them first hand, so that it will help inform our decisions in the future.
Sadly, we are not the first community to make a move like this. It has been well studied and the consequences well documented. These are the consequences warned of by some of the opponents of the relocation. I do not feel that these warnings were appropriately considered when the decision was made. At the time we were told that the School Board makes its decisions based on the best interest of the students over the impact to the broader community. I hope that the next time a decision like this comes up, that we will consider all of the consequences, and will look to the experiences of other communities as well as our own in the relocation of PHS.
I do want to express my appreciation to the members of the School Board for their service to our community and our children. Just because I disagree with some of their decisions does not mean that I question their dedication or commitment to our children. The quality of our school district has a huge impact on the quality of life we enjoy here in Provo. The quality of the School Board has a huge impact on the quality of our school district. - An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.31 acres of real property, generally located at 245 North 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Downtown (DT-1). Dixon Neighborhood.
Approved 7:0.
In voting for this rezone, I helped authorize the use of a sledge hammer (the DT-1 zone) to put in a finishing nail on which to hang a picture (convert an office to a residential unit), and duct tape (the development agreement) to try to mitigate the consequences of using the sledge hammer. Of course the duct tape will have its own consequences the next time we want to do something different with the wall (redevelopment).
I'm not particularly proud of my vote. We could have asked if putting in the finishing nail was worth the hassle given the tools that we had available. We could have also asked why we don't have a better tool for the request before us. We could have gone to the store and bought a new tool, but that costs time and money. Instead, when asked nicely by a member of the public, we accommodated the request the best we could with the tools we had available.
