What's Up? - 13 April 2017

Springbreak delayed our meetings by a week which means we will have Council Meeting Tuesdays in back-to-back weeks. I'm posting this meeting report today and hope to be able to post the meeting preview tomorrow.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, March 21st, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction to the future City Recorder
   Presentation only.
   Amanda Ercanbrack comes highly recommended by the city employees who have worked with her over the years. She seems like a very capable person. I am glad that she will have a chance to shadow our current Recorder, Janene Weiss until she retires at the end of the year, and head up the implementation of the new OnBase document management system.
2. A request for a resolution appropriating $1,040,000 in the General Fund for acquisition of 4.15 acres of property generally located at 320 North Geneva Road.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.
   This item was voted on in the later meeting. See item 5 in the Council Meeting below.
3. A discussion on recommendations from the DAPR Committee regarding land use agenda noticing
   Discussion only. The DAPR Committee will review feedback gathered during this Work Meeting with the DAPR noticing subcommittee at an upcoming meeting.(DAPR stands for the Development Approval Process Review) Overall I felt that the Council was receptive to the recommendations. We spent much of the time talking about parts of the proposal that raised concerns. One Councilor wants to make sure that hearing land use issues first in Work Sessions remains the default practice. If I understood it correctly, there was another concern that the Council may feel some pressure to vote unanimously in the first Council Meeting so that the item can be passed without an added two-week delay. We will discuss this feedback in the DAPR Committee and will consider changes.
4. A discussion on the Ice Sheet Authority
   Discussion only. This item may be scheduled for a future Work Meeting and the Council may discuss during a closed strategy session as needed.After reading the comments by our County Commissioners in the newspaper, I wondered if Provo City was over reacting, and causing unjustified alarm in the community. After listening to our attorneys explain the legal contract and the provisions that have been invoked, it doesn't appear that we are over-reacting. Perhaps it is a simple mistake and a misunderstanding that we can quickly correct, but the words of the Commissioners in the newspaper do not appear to align with the notice that we received. If the County is simply looking for another public agency to take over their position, then they should have invoked Section 15e of the contract. Instead, they invoked Section 15c which gives us an opportunity to buy their position, otherwise the whole facility goes up for sale and we lose our position as well. I hope it's true that if the County can't find an interested party to take over then they will continue as our partner, but that is not what the legal notice that they gave us says. Until that notice is withdrawn, we have to respond as if it will be carried out.
5. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   A substitute motion for a 600 square-foot minimum and 800 square-foot average dwelling unit size Failed 3:4, with Council Members David Sewell, David Knecht, David Harding, and Gary Winterton opposing.
   The original motion for a 500 square-foot minimum and 800 square-foot average dwelling unit size was approved 5:2, with Council Members David Sewell and David Harding opposing. This item was already scheduled to be heard at the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.We were voting on which option to prepare for the Council Meeting later that night. What we selected in the Work Meeting became the implied motion which is our starting point in the Council Meeting.When the DT1 and DT2 zones were first created they had a hard minimum unit size of 600 sqft/unit and a minimum average unit size of 800 sqft/unit. The ITOD zone has never had a minimum. In 2012, the Council decided to remove the minimum size restrictions.At the beginning of this process, Community Development Staff recommended a 400 600 sqft/unit minimum or a 600 800 sqft/unit minimum average. The Planning Commission recommended both a 400 sqft/unit minimum and a 600 sqft/unit minimum average.
   Community Development Staff has since adjusted their recommendation to 400 to 500 sqft/unit minimum and 800 sqft/unit minimum average.
   The bulk of the discussion was centered around the hard minimum. Should we select 400, 500, or 600 sqft/unit?I want 400/800, some other Councilors wanted 600/800 but they did not have enough votes, 500/800 was finally selected to be used as the implied motion for later that night.See item 7 in the meeting below to see how it turned out.
6. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.
   See the description of item 8 in the later Council Meeting.
7. A discussion on budget appropriations for Public Works
   Discussion only. This item is scheduled to be heard at the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
   We had so much snow this winter that we blew through our salt budget and incurred overtime for the plow operators, to the tune of $48K. The other part is basically a $1.1M advance from the water and wastewater CIP funds that is scheduled to be used in FY17-18 but would be helpful if we can use it this year. We'll vote on this next week.
8. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only.
   This was part 3. The main point of this discussion was that there are times during the peak of summer when we use water faster than we can source it. At these times we depend on our storage capacity. They fill overnight while demand is low and then drain during the day when demand outstrips supply. Our storage capacity and interconnectivity is something that we need to carefully manage.
   
   Notice the significant increase in money going into the Water Capital Improvement fund starting in about 2012. That is what it looks like when the City gets serious about properly maintaining and properly investing in infrastructure. It hasn't been painless, but it is the prudent thing to do.
9. A presentation on the Airport Master Plan
   Presentation only.
   Our current master plan is about 17 years old and has served us well. The process of updating the master plan has just begun and soon the public will be asked to weigh in. We have outgrown our one gate terminal and have not been able to accommodate requests for expanded service. The airport is looking for ways to fund a new terminal which will likely start out with four gates. This will become better defined through the master plan process.
10. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 21st, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

Public Comment


2. A report from the Elected Officials Compensation Commission
   Presentation only.
   The Commission recommends raising the mayoral compensation from $109,500 to $120,000. It recommends raising the council compensation from $12,485 to $18,000. The mayoral compensation was last adjusted in 2013. If I heard right, the last time the council compensation was adjusted was in 2007 and it was a "cost of living adjustment". The Commission based its recommendations on the compensation of comparably sized cities around the State and also noted that the responsibilities of the Mayor and Council are greater than most cities because we run a power department and an airport.
   It doesn't surprise me that the council compensation lags behind other cities, even though we are asked to do more. Our Councilors are very concerned about the frugal use of public money. My guess is that even now many will not want to accept more money from the City. Of all the areas to "cut" during the budget process, a pay increase for ourselves will be the easiest.
   No Councilor runs for the money, but it can help take the edge off of the lost income caused by the time off work. The problem is that there is a large swath of our community who cannot take hundreds of hours off of their "day job" without some compensation. If Council members aren't compensated reasonably then Council service may become the domain of retirees and the independently wealthy. I believe that we should accept the Commission's recommendation to open the service opportunity to more people. I will suggest that any Councilor who is uncomfortable with the increase can donate it to the Provo City Foundation, or another charity.
3. An ordinance granting MCIMetro a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   Approved 7:0.The only change they asked for was a 10-year contract rather than our default 5-year. Our code allows for contracts between 5 and 15 years.
4. A resolution on a 2017 Utah County Recreational Municipal Grant
   Approved 7:0.It will be used to engineer parts of the Provo River Trail which will then be built with RAP money.
5. A resolution appropriating $1,040,000 in the General Fund for acquisition of 4.15 acres of property generally located at 320 North Geneva Road.
   Approved 7:0.This is a great opportunity to address one of the difficult, unpleasant parts of the Provo River Trail. Our General Fund Balance has been increasing over the years and would be over the 25% State limit at the end of this fiscal year without some appropriations. With this appropriation, along with previous appropriations, and contemplated appropriations, the general fund balance will be under 22%. This is a significant amount of money, and can't be taken lightly. This money could be used elsewhere or it could be used to reduce taxes. But this could also be an opportunity to significantly improve one of the most beloved public facilities in the City. This is an investment in the future. A gift to future generations. We will use RAP money, already earmarked for River Trail improvements to realign the Trail. Will not have enough RAP money to fully develop the rest of the area, but hopeful it will eventually be used in a creative and special way.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A substitute motion to continue the item at the April 18, 2017 Work and Council Meetings was Approved 5:2, opposed by Council Members Gary Winterton and Kay Van Buren.
   There were some discrepancies between the version of the proposed ordinance we have previously received and the one that was presented during the meeting. The item was not urgent so we continued it until next week.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
   A substitute motion to continue the item to the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 4:3, opposed by Council Members Kay Van Buren, David Knecht, and George Stewart.The discussion was pretty much the same as in the Work Meeting (see item 5 in the above meeting). I believe there is a consensus around 800 sqft/unit being the minimum average, but some disagreement about what the hard minimum should be. But since the final decision will likely be more restrictive than what had been noticed, there was a desire to postpone final action until the public could be notified that we are considering something greater than the 400/600 recommended by the planning commission and noticed to the public.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code with regard to development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines.
   Approved 6:1, opposed by Council Member Kay Van Buren.There were three main parts to this proposal: code clean up, changing the name of the preliminary plan to a concept plan, and moving the checklist of what is needed in an application outside the code. Moving it out of the code means that it could be changed without Council approval. Everyone was good with the code clean up. I personally don't like the changing the name until the substantive changes are ready to be made but the administration wanted the name changed now so that it can be put into the new Provo360 platform. There wasn't enough support on the Council to even warrant a discussion on moving the checklist.