In an interesting development, yesterday afternoon Karen Tapahe, the Council's Public Relations Coordinator, published a "Citizen's Budget" on the Council Blog. I'm very excited at the possibility that I'll be able to rely on her work to format the agenda and give the background (typically what's in black and brown below) and I can focus on my thoughts and questions on the items (typically in blue). We'll see how this works out in the future.
As a reminder, the 'Public Docs - Howto' link above gives instructions on how to access all of the documents in the Council's meeting packet.
Black text comes from the agenda,
Blue text is my current comments,
Brown text comes from the support documents, and
Light blue text comes from past reports.
What's Coming Up?
COUNCIL WORK MEETING
12:00 Noon, Tuesday, Aug 29th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center
- A discussion on a conservation easement for Rock Canyon
At the work meeting on June 20th, 2017, Erik Davis from the Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance presented the idea of placing a conservation easement on Rock Canyon to preserve the property’s natural habitat in the future. Council members asked that representatives from the Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance return to a future work meeting with a draft of the conservation easement.I think the Conservation Easement is an interesting idea. There are some advantages of having a CE but also some disadvantages. The benefits are that we know that this area will be protected indefinitely, and would ensure fidelity to the (what I assume are the) expectations of the people who donated money towards the purchase of this property. The downside is that it limits the flexibility of future leaders of our community. A familiar phrase in the Council office is 'we can't bind future Councils'. We can plan, and we can signal our intent to future Councils, but in many cases, we can't legally bind them, and in most cases, it is poor governance to try. I feel that it is important to trust that future leaders will do the right thing and that they will be in a better position to weigh the situation then than we can predict what the situation will be. One other "nice" thing about the Easement is that it becomes a settled matter. Without it, there may be times when a future Council questions if it should be sold to the Forrest Service, but if we have the easement then it isn't even a question that would come up. - A discussion on the Economic Development Department's efforts in workforce development, startups, and women, minority and underserved populations
This is the latest installment in the ongoing series from the Office of Economic Development - An update on the General Plan review
The Council is working to update the City's General Plan. A lot of effort last year went into updating Vision 2030 to become Vision 2050. Now we are incorporating Vision 2050 into the General Plan. The Council Office is working to align all of these documents. - A discussion on fee updates for Stormwater, Wastewater, Utility Transportation Fund, and the Fire Department
Council staff have been meeting with Administrative staff to compare City fees to the cost of providing City services. The fees and services most recently reviewed are tied to Stormwater, Wastewater, the Utility Transportation Fund, and the Fire Department. In addition, Council staff have compared Provo’s fees to other cities’ fees.
Stormwater and Wastewater, like other utilities, are on a five-year plan of rate increases which should put us on a sustainable path, where we are paying enough to keep up with the maintenance of the system. The UTF was done as a five-year program, and it is now time to start looking at whether it should be continued. The Fire Department is mostly funded out of our General Fund, not fees. There are some long term needs that aren't in the funding plan that we need to address. - A discussion on the Stormwater Fee Schedule
An intended new fee for Stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule that the Council (acting as the Stormwater Service District) passed in June 2017. As a result, Public Works has asked that the Council add the new fee to the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule, as shown below.
SWPPP Inspection Fees SWPPP
Re-Inspection for Violations Fee $60.00 each<= 1 Acre $100.00 >1 Acre and <= 5 Acres $200.00 >5 Acres and <= 20 Acres $400.00 >20 Acres $500.00
This was intended to be in the main budget. It makes sense to the taxpayers of the City to have developers pay the cost of reviewing these plans. I'm not a big fan of the tiered fees, though. A 5.1 Acre inspection costs as much as a 19-acre inspection and twice as much as a 5-acre inspection. I understand why this is done, it makes for a small table and is easy to determine the cost of a review. But I think there are better approaches that are simple enough, for example, $20/acre + $80 base fee. Or $80 base fee, $20/acre up to 20 acres and $5 after that.Acres Proposal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 1 100 100 100 2 200 120 120 3 200 140 140 5 200 180 180 6 400 200 200 10 400 280 280 15 400 380 380 20 400 480 480 25 500 580 505 35 500 780 555 - A discussion on the Zoning Committee's recommendation to amend Provo City Code 6.26.150
The Provo City Municipal Council previously adopted the Code Enforcement Strategic Plan as a guideline for increased enforcement of the City Code. Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan is to use enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses to increase compliance among landlords with Provo City occupancy laws. The proposed addition to the City Code would seek to implement this goal.
So far this item has generated the most feedback from the community. There is some question about who would be held responsible (the landlord or the tenant). This is a preliminary discussion with no vote scheduled, so it'll be a good time to find out more about it. In my mind, this would do more to protect the tenant. Often when enforcement is required, the tenant faces the brunt of the consequences as they are often are forced to leave. In the end, I believe this proposal would make it harder for everyone involved to claim, "I didn't know!" - A presentation and discussion on Budgeting for Outcomes
At the June 20th, 2017 Council Meeting, the Council passed a resolution appropriating $50,000 to hire a “budget performance consultant” beginning in January 2018. The intent was that the consultant would “work with the Administration and Council to identify performance metrics that demonstrate the implementation or achievement of priorities.” Provo is not the first city to explore this concept. Over the past two decades, many cities across the U.S. have been implementing models that use performance measurements to link overarching City priorities and desired outcomes to the budget process. One common model is called “Budgeting for Outcomes.” At the request of Council members, staff has been researching Budgeting for Outcomes to formulate a clearer understanding of how Budgeting for Outcomes has helped other cities and what the model looks like.
The description focuses mostly on performance metrics. BFO or other Priority Based Budgeting systems rely on performance metrics but are broader in scope. The main idea is to set the budget so money is allotted based on the strategic goals, and then measure how well funded projects acheived the goals. - A discussion on the Council's goals concerning minimum unit size requirements
Recently, the City Council amended the ITOD and the Downtown zones to have a minimum square footage of 500 and an average square footage of 800. During deliberations for this ordinance amendment the minimum square footage for apartment buildings along from Sandy to Provo were considered by the Council. The amendment that was adopted represented a rough average of other apartment buildings, some of which were also in TOD zones.
We've been grappling with this issue for a while now. What are the long-term impacts of these decisions? - A discussion on possible code changes regarding signage
Council Chair Dave Sewell has suggested that the Council update Title 14 in the City Code in reference to signs. Brian Jones will show the Council which sections of the Code would likely require changes that are in line with Mr. Sewell’s suggestions. If the Council would like to pursue the changes, Mr. Jones would eventually bring back a revised version of the Code for Council approval at a future meeting. - A discussion involving the Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA) and the Hunter Power Plant Assignment
UMPA has requested the transfer of the Hunter Power Plant assets from Provo City to UMPA as agreed upon in principle under the Power Sale Agreement dated January 1, 2016.
The Department is proposing that the assets be transferred to fall in line with the agreements signed. Seems pretty straight forward to me, and in the City's interest. - A discussion on funding and appropriations related to an airport improvement project including issuance of sales tax revenue bonds, execution of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement and development agreement by the Redevelopment Agency, and a resolution appropriating $11,529,568 in the Airport Fund for infrastructure improvements
See discussion in item #5 in the later meeting - LaVorn Sparks requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.17.020 to add to Conditional Uses SLU #4603 Long-term Vehicle Storage including autos, trucks, and boats (on unimproved lots when non-contiguous to residential zones) within Public Facilities Zones. Citywide impact.
It is uncommon to have privately owned land within the Public Facilities Zone, and many of the uses called out as either permitted or conditional are more related to government or institutional ownership. As it is, there are only a limited number of privately owned properties and sites which might be included in a PF Zone and even fewer which might be developed for the use proposed in the amendment. Therefore, the consideration of appropriateness easily becomes site specific rather than a broader analysis for all of the properties within a PF zone. For years Mr. Sparks has looked for ways to obtain enough economic benefit from this property to at least pay the property taxes. Staff believes the additional land use allowance through the amendment, will not be burdensome on the City nor adjacent property owners and could be considered appropriate.
My first question is, "Why keep it as Public Facilities at all?" I met with a representative of the applicant quite a while ago. I think it is better to use the lot unimproved so that there is a lower bar to develop it later into something better. - Closed Meeting
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, Aug 29th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center
- A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council and Mayor sitting as The Board of Canvassers accepting the election returns and declaring and certifying the results of the municipal primary elections held in Provo, Utah on August 15, 2017.
I'll save my thoughts on how this year's primary voting went for another post. - A presentation from the Provo Bicycle Committee of the Golden Spoke Award to the Police Department's Bike Patrol
- An introduction of the new Provo Bay Neighborhood Chair
Public Comment - A resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $6 million aggregate principal amount of sales tax revenue bonds for the purpose of financing certain airport infrastructure facilities; and related matters.
See item 5. - A resolution appropriating $11,529,568 in the Airport Fund, Airport Improvement Project Division for funding infrastructure improvements to the airport applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018.
See item 5. - A resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement and a development agreement relating to the construction and financing of certain airport infrastructure facilities; and related matters.
Many of these commitments were made by a previous Council. I feel a fairly strong obligation to live up to our commitments. I'd only vote against this if I strongly felt like it was not in the communities best interest, or if I felt there was a better way to fulfill our commitments. Fortunately, I do believe that the expansion of Duncan into the City will be a very good thing for the City overall and that the commitments made were reasonable and the programs used were exactly what the programs were for. - A resolution approving an Environmental Assessment and a proposed Land and Water Conservation Fund Property Conversion.
Wow, those are some thick documents. Some land was purchased almost 40 years ago using money from a federal program. Five years ago it was disposed of, but not following the requirements of the federal program. This oversight wasn't noticed until recently. This assessment considers the proposed action to remedy the situation. A parklet is proposed at roughly 300 N and 2950 W, on the banks of the Provo River. I work for a company that designs and manufactures medical devices. Our President has stated that we aren't in the medical device business, but that we are in the document generation business. I thought that he was joking at first, but now, having European regulatory approval, and taking the first steps towards US approval, I realize that he was quite serious. Apparently, the government is also in the document generation business. You might be able to cover the whole plot of land that was traded if you were to lay out each sheet of paper in the document bundle. - A resolution authorizing the mayor to approve an application for a Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and to execute an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah County relating to the 2017 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program.
The grant will be used to help replace aging tasers. Why do we need to enter into an interlocal agreement if the County is not getting any of the grant? I guess I'll find out in the meeting. - An ordinance granting Mobilitie a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
Provo City and Mobilitie have come to terms on a Franchise Agreement. Pursuant to Provo City Code, “[n]o franchise contract shall take effect until it has been approved by the Municipal Council.” 5.03.020 (5). The parties are seeking the Council’s approval for the agreement that they have reached.This is mainly a standard contract that we have entered into with a number of companies. This one is a little different, mostly in that it is a 10-year contract rather than a 5-year contract.
This meeting's document packet is filled with a lot of legalese. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to make city noticing requirements consistent with State law. Citywide impact.
This brings our code into alignment with the State. We will no longer require more noticing than the state, but our practice will continue, and with new Council practice, will be enhanced. - An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 58.6 acres of real property, generally located at 1500 South State Street, from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Spring Creek Neighborhood.
There were some land owners who opposed the rezone. One, in particular, was just about to sell the land to someone who wanted to put in more storage units. For the City's and Neighborhood's vision for this area to be realized, we need to be fully committed and not allow new industrial uses to go in. While the discussion played out in the meeting, potential partnerships and agreements between developers and land owners were being explored. I applaud these conversations but I didn't think the Council Meeting was the best place for them to take place. I am confident that land owners and developers will be able to work out the details to move forward to redefine this area of Provo. I think we should have just moved forward with the rezone and allow the parties to work the rest out. But I was willing to support the continuance, as long as we eventually end up moving toward the community's vision.
It will be interesting to hear if everything worked out. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.20.160 to increase the size of signs permitted in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) zone. Citywide impact.
The PTC had a larger sign on University Ave, but it was taken down when the new hotel was going in. Instead of replacing it in a similar location, the proposal is for two smaller signs, which are located in the middle of the access roads, next to the turn lanes, to be replaced with larger electronic signs. As is the rules in other parts of the City, no motion video would be allowed, only static screens with at least a 8-second hold.
I understand the Mall's desire for such signs. I do worry though that continuing down this path will make our City less enjoyable to live in in the future. Am I the only one who doesn't like being on certain sections of University Parkway north of the City because of the visual assault of some of the signs there? - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to eliminate the façade step-back for buildings in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown Neighborhood.
I'm still not convinced that these setbacks are not an important part of our design standards. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the average apartment square footage from 800 feet to 600 feet in the General Downtown (DT1) and Downtown Core (DT2) zones. Downtown Neighborhood.
I think this development would be good for downtown and good for releaving some of the rental pressure off of our surrounding single family detached neighborhoods. - Stormwater Service District An ordinance amending the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule.
See Item 5 in the earlier meeting
No comments:
Post a Comment