What's Up? - 4 November 2016

What Was Up?

The commissioning of a Solar & Energy Committee, and changes to business licencing and the Planning Commission.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, November 1st, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on Land Trusts in Provo
   Council Member David Harding made a motion to indicate the Council’s interest in further exploring a community land trust with NeighborWorks of Provo. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.What are community land trusts? According to the National Community Land Trust Network, "CLTs are nonprofit organizations—governed by a board of CLT residents, community residents and public representatives—that provide lasting community assets and permanently affordable housing opportunities for families and communities. CLTs develop rural and urban agriculture projects, commercial spaces to serve local communities, affordable rental and cooperative housing projects, and conserve land or urban green spaces. However, the heart of their work is the creation homes that remain permanently affordable, providing successful homeownership opportunities for generations of lower income families."
2. A discussion regarding Housing Committee recommendations
   Council Member David Knecht moved that the Council support the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Housing Committee that the West Side Committee work with Community Development to answer the questions displayed on the screen. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Council Member David Harding made a substitute motion to [adjust some of the wording].  Approved 7:0.
   At the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Housing Committee, the Council requests that Community Development work with the West Side Planning Committee to address the following policy questions: 
1. What is the vision for the west side regarding Land Use? 
2. Does Provo want to allow the west side to develop spontaneously or does Provo want to designate areas for development and other areas for conservation? 
3. Is the City interested in preserving land for agriculture or is it interested in development on the west side/ If both, how do we balance those? 
4. Could Transfer of Development Rights help? 
5. What would be an appropriate area from which development rights would be sent, and what would be appropriate receiving area(s) for development credits? 
6. What steps should be taken to put new, residential owners on notice that they have moved into an agricultural area and are subject to the typical impacts of agricultural uses?
3. A discussion on the creation and mission of the Solar & Energy Committee
   Council Member Gary Winterton moved this discussion on solar to tonight’s Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member Kay Van Buren. Approved 7:0.
   See Item 5 in the Council Meeting report below.
4. Changes to Provo City code related to Provo 360 software implementation for business licensing
   Council Member David Knecht moved that the Council request the neighborhood emails be included on the messaging for Provo360 business licensing messaging. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 6:0. Council Member George Stewart excused.
   This includes rental dwelling licences, as well as regular business licences. It was already scheduled for our Council Meeting later that evening. The motion was to add a feature request.
5. A discussion about the Provo Metropolitan Water Board appointments and related updates to Provo City Code
   Council Member Gary Winterton moved that the Council recommend a Metropolitan Water board of seven with two staff members: (1) Water Resources Director) and (2) Director of Public Works or his designee. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approve 7:0. All other decisions regarding this item will be made at the Council Meeting on November 15^th.
   Previously the Board consisted of five members, including only one member of City staff (the Water Resources Director).
6. A discussion on Provo City property and the proposed conversion to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
   Report Only. Once the environmental process is complete, this item will be placed on the agenda for Council consideration.
   See my description of this item from last time.
7. A discussion regarding section in Vision 2050
• Section 1: Family and Neighborhoods 
• Section 2: Land Use and Growth 
• Section 9: Transportation and Mobility
No action taken. Review only. (Council will forward comments to Bill Peperone.)
This review of Vision 2050 and update to Vision 2050 helps set the vision of Provo City for some time to come. Now is the time to influence it.

8. Provo City Community Development Department requests review and recommendation of the Southeast Neighborhoods Plan. Provost, Provost South, and Spring Creek Neighborhoods.
   This item will be heard at the November 15, 2016 Work Meeting.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 1st, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. An ordinance amending Provo City Code and the Consolidated Fee Schedule with regard to license administration and fees charged for Business Licensing.
   Approved 7:0
   Same item at #4 above. Business License renewals will be conducted on the month of application, rather than all of them on the same month.
2. An ordinance granting First Digital a non-exclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   Approved 7:0
   This allows a new business to access utility right-of-ways in the City.
3. 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.
   Continued to a future meeting date based on the developer bringing promised items forward. Approved 7:0
   I have several concerns about this application. The first and foremost is that the applicant (as required) presented it first at a neighborhood meeting, and the neighborhood voted on the proposal. At that meeting the applicant explained that they would proffer a development agreement with some specific commitments. When the neighbors voted, they voted on a proposal that included the development agreement. When the proposal went before the Planning Commission and before the Council no such development agreement was proffered. Neither the Neighborhood Chair nor the applicant attended our Council Meeting. What worries me the most is that if I hadn't attended the neighborhood meeting no one would have known that the neighbors had voted on something different than was being presented.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to alter the number of Planning Commission members, their terms of office, and other details relating to Planning Commission rules. City-Wide Impact.
   Approved 7:0
   My previous explanation: "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."
5. Solar Item.
   • Motion to approve the Joint Commission as constituted on the document. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
     Solar/Energy committee member recommendation:
   • Brent Norton, Chair
   • Don Butler, Vice Chair
   • Travis Ball
   • George Stewart
   • Cheryl Taylor
   • Steve Christiansen
   • Dave Sewell
   • Melissa Kendall
   • Ryan Evans
   • Kate Bowman
   Support Staff:
   • Dustin Grabau
   • Brian Jones 
   • Karen Larsen 
   • Larry Walters 
   • Kevin Garlick 
   • Bryce Mumford
   • Motion to approve having the Joint Commission answer the established policy questions and report back to Council by January 3, 2017, or January 17, 2017, at the latest. Approved 5:2. Council Members Kay Van Buren and Gary Winterton opposed. Considerations for what Solar & Energy Committee should talk about (We made some changes to this list, but I don't yet have access to the updated list): 
   • What is the best way to protect the long term health of Provo Power/City while at the same time appropriately supporting our citizens’ desire for alternative energy sources? 
   • In answering the above question, the committee should consider issues of equity and transparency, and the following issues:
   • Future/Vision of clean energy in Provo
   • How much do we want to subsidize or not subsidize solar energy? 
   • Is solar energy different from wind energy or other forms of energy? Are we subsidizing those other forms of energy as well?
   • Do we want to promote solar energy? At what cost?
   • How will the impact be on the power company if/as we move away from traditional energy?
   • The power company gives 11% of its revenues to the General Fund
   • What is our policy on clean energy already? What do we want it to be in the future?
   • What will technological advancements in clean energy do to power?
   • How will this affect power revenues, and consequently, power contributions to the General Fund?
   • Considering that other cities are likely watching what we do, what precedent do we want to set for the rest of the state? Do we care?
   • How will solar fees impact bringing in high-tech companies to Provo? Do we want high tech companies in Provo?