What's Up? - 23 May 2017

The meetings last Tuesday lasted almost 12 hours. It's days like those that make me question my sanity for running again.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:00 AM, Tuesday, May 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Discuss the feasibility review of a new city center and public safety complex
   Presentation only. The majority of council members were in favor of the direction the Administration proposed to continue looking into the feasibility review and coming back to the Council with more information, including a proposal for public outreach and a commission to study the issue.
   Our City Complex is aging and the maintenance is getting more expensive every year. So we will need to decide if we want to sink some significant money into it to renovate it, or invest significant money into the creation of a new complex. It doesn't help that we have long outgrown the current building. The committee has recommended that we look at rebuilding at the current site. I am hopeful that we will continue to look into the possibility of joining the County and State complex on the southeast corner of Center and University. I am also hopeful that we will be wise with our resources in both the short and long terms. If we do build a new city hall and a new public safety complex, I hope we will not be talking about tearing it down in 40 years. I hope that we will build something long lasting, something worth saving.
   
   The first 140 or so pages of the meeting documents are related to this item. Feel free to dig in as much as you would like.
2. A discussion regarding the proposed FY 2018 Tentative Budget
   Discussion only. Council members were invited to submit specific questions to Council staff for distribution to Department Directors in advance of the Council’s Budget Retreat on June 8, 2017 and Public Works Budget Retreat on May 24, 2017.
   This was another in a long line of opportunities for Councilors to be briefed and to ask questions about the budget. We are preparing for a couple of retreats to dig deeply.
3. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only. This was the final installment of the Water Division’s presentations to the Council. Public Works Director Dave Decker indicated that it would be helpful to present one or two more sessions to the Council addressing issues for Stormwater and Wastewater, respectively. The Administration proposed that together with Council Leadership they evaluate the effectiveness of these presentations and whether this would be beneficial to continue with other departments.
   In this presentation, we focused on the final step of the water system: delivery to homes and businesses. We looked at the hardware used to prevent contaminations from entering the system from customers, as well as new wireless meters. We looked at how the Division delivers water at pressures within an appropriate range.
   This was the last of six presentations by the Water Division. They represented a significant investment in time, but I felt that it was a valuable use of our time to more fully understand the issues surrounding this most basic of all city services.
4. A discussion on sanitation rates and an update on composting
   A motion to direct Public Works staff to include in updates to the Consolidated Fee Schedule rate increases in the compost pickup for residents from $2.00 to $3.00 per load, and for non-residents from $5.00 to $6.00 per load was Approved 6:0, with Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   A substitute motion to adopt option 1 for Sanitation rate increases and for Public Works to return to the Council in July 2017 with a recommendation for long-term rate changes was Approved 6:0, with Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   The second vote was the significant one. We need to implement a rate increase along with the budget this year. Because of the time that it would take to implement a new rate structure, we are limited to just adjusting the rates. I am hopeful that when the Sanitation Division returns in July that we will be able to adopt a more rational structure. I would like to see a simple fee that covers all sanitation service, but at the very least, I hope we will eliminate the "Triple Play Penalty"
   If you are interested in the wonky details, I'll post some excerpts from some email I sent discussing the topic. If you aren't, just skip down to item 5.
   As requested, I am sending you my preference on the sanitation fee increase proposals that you presented on Tuesday, and I would like to suggest another option as well.
   I support Option 4 with the uniform price for all three cans. I support Option 2 in the interim until Option 4 can be implemented.
   I also suggest another option, which I'll call Option 5. Perhaps Option 5 could be used in the interim, or could be considered longer term if Option 4 does not have enough political support at this time.
   Option 5
   
   

   Black Can	$16.25
   Blue Can	$3.75
   Green Can*	$4.75
   Triple Play Discount	$1.00

   *only charged March - November
   
   I switched the cost of the blue and green cans. Because the yard waste operation costs the City more, the green can is now a dollar more than the blue can. The $2 black can discount for recycling is gone. Instead, the cost of the blue and green cans was taken down a dollar each. And now instead of a Triple Play penalty (see next paragraph) there is a $1 per month Triple Play discount.
   
   With our currently our rate structure and with Option 2, if you have a single black can, adding a green can costs $18.75 per year, adding a blue can costs $45 per year. It is odd that the blue can costs so much more than the green can since the yard waste operation costs the City more than the household recycling operation. This is mainly due to the black can discount applying all year even though the fee for the green can is not applied over the winter when the can is not picked up. Now for the Triple Play penalty: if you have a black and a blue can, adding a green can costs $42.75 per year. If you have a black and a green can, adding a blue can costs $69 per year.
   With Option 5, adding a blue can to a black can still costs $45 more a year. Adding a green can to a black can costs $42.75 more a year. Adding a blue can to black and green cans costs $36 more per year. Adding a green can to black and blue cans costs $33.75 more per year. I think this makes far more sense.
   
   Here is a head to head comparison, using the annual total:
   
   

   	Current	Option 2	Option 5
   1 Black	$174	$195	$195
   2 Black	$348	$390	$390
   Black and Blue	$219	$240	$240
   Black and Green	$192.75	$213.75	$237.75
   Black Blue Green	$261.75	$282.75	$273.75

5. Steven Sweetwood requests a Zone Change from the Heavy Commercial (CM) Zone to the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone for 0.279 acres of property located at 801 West 500 South. Franklin Neighborhood.
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting.
   So far I've only heard positive things about and support for this proposal.
   
6. Ken Menlove requests Street Vacation of 1780 South running west from Industrial Parkway to facilitate development of self-storage units on 4.79 acres of land in the Planned Industrial Commercial Zone. East Bay Neighborhood.
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting.
   There are many good reasons to return and land, and no good reason not to. The street was built by the developer and given to the City. Now the development going in doesn't want the street.
   
   
7. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A motion to amend the proposed draft of the ordinance from an average depth of 105 feet to an average depth of 113 feet was Approved 6:0, with Council Member Kim Santiago excused. This item was already scheduled for the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting and the draft ordinance and materials were updated to reflect the change.
   With this motion we changed the implied (default) motion that we would be considering in the later meeting. One hundred and thirteen feet was selected because that is the depth that an R1.10 zoned lot of minimum width would need to be before the additional provisions would take place. See more discussion in item 9 of the evening meeting.
8. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 16th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for April 2017.
   Presentation only.Public Comment
2. A resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
3. A resolution approving the HOME Investment and Partnerships (HOME) Program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   I felt strongly that we should have seen items 2 and 3 in a Work Meeting before hand. The presentations in the Council Meeting were very helpful, but having the opportunity to really consider, explore, ruminate, and discuss big items is important. Much of the federal funding will be used outside of Provo next year. For a long time, we have said that we would like to see subsidized housing spread more evenly across the County. These proposals will definitely move us in that direction. I can't help questioning if we could put some of our funding into programs like a land trust here in Provo. I was very tempted to ask that we continue the item, but I wasn't sure that it would make a difference at this point.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) zones to be permitted for the Special Development Plan Overlay zone. City-wide Impact.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   This is really a book-keeping ordinance that should be passed either way, but the timing is necessary if we were going to approve item 6.
5. An ordinance to amend the General Plan text regarding land use for the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue to allow Retail Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential land uses. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
6. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately four acres of real property, generally located at the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue, from Agriculture (A1.5) to Specialty Support Commercial (SSC), Professional Office (PO), and Low Density Residential (LDR), with a Specific Development Plan (SDP) Overlay. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Approved as amended 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   Items 5 and 6 were heard and discussed together. Once we decided that we wanted to accommodate the proposal, both the zoning and the General Plan needed to be updated. See the last What's Up? for more details on the proposal.
   
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Approved 4:2, Council Member Kim Santiago excused; Council Members Kay Van Buren and David Sewell opposed.
   This item was much more difficult to decide on than the last. Some people liked it, some people thought it went too far, a few others wondered if it didn't go far enough. The developer and neighbors met many times and went through many iterations. The process definitely was not truncated, the applicant circled around after every significant change to present again to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. After split votes and significant neighborhood opinion against the proposal, the last proposal received a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation and was nearing a 50/50 split amongst neighbors.
   
8. A public hearing regarding a proposed expansion of the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   A motion to send this petition to the Parking Committee was Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   At this point, the Council was anxious to move quickly through the meeting and not spend extra time on items where there was already support. We were all willing to move this issue onto the next step. I wonder if it would make more sense to wait until our incoming Parking Manager is in place and can provide input.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   I would have preferred to simplify the requirements and have a simple 20' setback for both front and back yards, but in the end, the modified committee recommendation functionally provides what I was looking for in the regulations, so I voted for it.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Mayoral compensation.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    As discussed many times before, this ordinance increases the mayoral salary up to $120,000, which is on par with mayoral compensation in comparable cities.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Municipal Council members' compensation.
    Approved 5:1, Council Member Kim Santiago excused; Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
    I would have preferred by far to approve this ordinance earlier in the evening when more people were in attendance. It had been many years since any adjustment had been made. This would raise the compensation to $18,000 which brings us into line with comparable cities. I am hopeful that the new compensation will make it so that fewer people will find it financially prohibitive to serve on the Council.
12. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
13. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
14. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    We had two weeks to look over the proposed tentative budgets and happily adopted them as a starting point for our discussions that will be ongoing over the next month.