PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda
12:00 PM, Tuesday, June 5, 2018
- A discussion on funding options for Miss Provo and parade float (18-055)
This was initially discussed at the May 1 work meeting. Provo City and Miss Provo have been partners in promoting Provo for many years, with the City providing limited financial support for the Miss Provo Organization, and a parade float to promote the City with the expectation that Miss Provo participants would ride in the parade. Since 2016, the City Council Office has been Provo City’s liaison to the Miss Provo Organization—a role that had previously been fulfilled by the Mayor’s Office. As a result, the Council Office budget includes funding for Miss Provo and the associated city float. This discussion will address support regarding regarding the Miss Provo pageant and their involvement with the Provo City float. A public survey was conducted to gauge public opinion and help with Council’s discussion. I don't believe that Miss Provo should be an official representative of the City. I do not believe that we should be using tax-payer money to sponsor scholarships for this program. I do believe that we should continue to have a float in order to participate in the various local parades and celebrations. I am okay with a transition period to get from where we are to where we should be. - A discussion on appropriating $160,000 in the General Fund, Parks and Recreation Department to fund needs in the Recreation Center (18-064)
The popularity and growth in Recreation Center attendance has led to additional expenses. An appropriation of $160,000 is requested to finish the FY2018 budget year to cover expenses for personnel, merchant fees, concessions, and supplies. Funds for the appropriation will be covered by the additional revenues generated by the Recreation Center during the budget year and will not affect the $500,000 that the facility has been budgeted to return to the general fund, nor the $412,000 budgeted to go towards current and future capital needs for the facility. The success of our Rec Center, both financially as well the impact it has had on our community, is remarkable. I was doing some rough estimations on the costs to taxpayers to run the old rec centers, the golf course, and the ice sheet just before the voters approved the bond. Tax-payers spend less now on these facilities, even when inluding the bond payments. Consider that for a moment. That's like getting a new, better car and paying less in monthly payments. It is understandable that the surging usage of the Rec Center would increase the expenses. These expenses are dwarfed by the additional revenue. - A discussion on rental dwelling license fees (18-065)
The Council has asked for regular reviews of City fees to assess how those fees compare to actual costs and determine if adjustments need to be made. Currently the cost of a rental dwelling license is $20 for one rental unit or $60 for more than one rental unit. Community Development will provide the Council with additional information, including a comparison to other cities’ rental dwelling licenses. Renting property is a business, and are licensed like most other businesses in Provo. Are the current fees for the license appropriate? Occationally I hear from renters complaining about unsafe conditions at their property. Could Provo inspect properties more regularly to ensure that they met basic standards? - A presentation on reinvestment for the Shops at Riverwoods(18-066)
This is a request for a post-performance incentive agreement for The Shops at the Riverwoods to offset certain costs associated with a $10,000,000+ investment to encourage additional improvements to the shopping center. This seems like a routine refresh of a commercial center. Unfortunately, it is now routine to expect local governments to kick back new taxes for routine remodeling. - A discussion with officials from Utah League of Cities and Towns regarding State legislative items (18-067)
Cameron Diehl will be discussing the final disposition of various bills from the 2018 State Legislative session. He will specifically address bills related to the utility transportation fund and free expression. He will also highlight anticipated bills for the upcoming legislative session. At our annual meeting with our representatives in the State Legislature, we brought up several issues that we wanted the State to address. In each case they asked us to work through the League. - A discussion on Bulldog Blvd. construction (18-068)
Council members requested an update on the project in light of receiving email from quite a few residents. The intent of the project is to prepare for increased traffic while providing a safer travel experience for all modes of transportation. Bulldog Blvd. has a crash rate 7.5 times higher than the statewide average for similar roadways. Studies show that installing center medians and removing unexpected midblock movements significantly reduces traffic incidents. In addition, the current average daily traffic amount is 27,000 vehicles, and it is estimated that average daily traffic amount in 2040 will be 31,000 vehicles. I wrote a whole blog post about my thoughts on this - An update on the proposed budget (18-005)
This discussion will serve as follow-up to some of the motions the Council made during the May 22nd Budget Retreat, in addition to covering other budget-related topics. Topics include budget adjustments related events coordinator funding, Urban Deer Program, and Sustainability/Parking position; status of coming up with a police retention plan; and an update on the General Fund balance. I am hopeful that we can get to a better place in regards to funding our Police force. They have been understaffed and overworked for too long. - A presentation on an amendment to Section 14.06.020 (Definitions) to make the definitions of "Baching Singles" and "Family" consistent with Utah State Law. Citywide application. (PLOTA20180121)
A constituent recently informed City Council Member David Sewell that the definition of “Family” in Provo City Code was inconsistent with Utah State Code. While Provo has utilized the correct definition per State Code, the definition in Provo Code had not been revised.
Section 14.06.020 (Definitions) currently limits the definition of “Family” for unrelated individuals to two in some areas of the city that are listed under the definition of “Baching Singles”. The amendment removes this limiting section and renders the definition as “Three (3) related or unrelated individuals and any children of such individual, if any.” The related sections of the definition of “Baching Singles” were also removed.This does align the City code with State statute, but there appears to be even more going on. I am interested in the presentation on Tuesday. I am not comfortable with the government defining a "family", and would rather regulate "households". The last time I read the State statutes, they did not refer to families. - The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above.
Business
Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission
A presentation on a zone change from Planning Industrial Commercial (PIC) to Region Shopping Center (SC3) for property from 920 S to East Bay Blvd and from University Ave to 180 E, to encourage commercial redevelopment. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180100)
Closed Meeting
PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda
5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 5, 2018
- Approval of Minutes
- This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
- For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
- For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.
Opening Ceremony
Public Comment
- A resolution approving the Program Year 2018 Annual Action Plan, Fourth Year Update to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, including CDBG and HOME Funding recommendations (18-056)
This is the approval following the two required public hearings and public comment period for the 2018 draft of the Annual Action Plan on proposed usage of CDBG and HOME funds. These are federal funds provided through Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The funding amount from the Federal Government was greater than expected, and some of the applicant/partners are receiving more funds than they requested. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with that. - A resolution appropriating $160,000 in the General Fund, Parks And Recreation Department to fund needs in the Recreation Center applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-064)
The popularity and growth in Recreation Center attendance has led to additional expenses. An appropriation of $160,000 is requested to finish the FY2018 budget year to cover expenses for personnel, merchant fees, concessions, and supplies. Funds for the appropriation will be covered by the additional revenues generated by the Recreation Center during the budget year and will not affect the $500,000 that the facility has been budgeted to return to the general fund, nor the $412,000 budgeted to go towards current and future capital needs for the facility. From the earlier meeting, "The success of our Rec Center, both financially as well the impact it has had on our community, is remarkable. I was doing some rough estimations on the costs to taxpayers to run the old rec centers, the golf course, and the ice sheet just before the voters approved the bond. Tax-payers spend less now on these facilities, even when inluding the bond payments. Consider that for a moment. That's like getting a new, better car and paying less in monthly payments. It is understandable that the surging usage of the Rec Center would increase the expenses. These expenses are dwarfed by the additional revenue." - An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 43 acres of real property, generally located from 920 S to East Bay Blvd and from University Ave to 190 E, from Planning Industrial Commercial (PIC) to Regional Shopping Center (SC3). East Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180100)
The Provo City Economic Development Department requests a zone change for several properties in the East Bay neighborhood between University Ave and 180 East in order to attract more businesses to that area of the City and encourage redevelopment of the site. The current PIC zone limits sign allowances and permitted commercial uses in what has become a commercial corridor for Provo. Changing the zone to SC3 will open up the area to better uses and allow for more commercial signage and development to occur. From the earlier meeting, "This one is pretty much a no-brainer. Staff recommends it, the Planning Commission unanimously supports it, it would reflect the current use, and it reflect the use the City would like to see there." - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to make the definitions of “baching singles” and “family” consistent with state law. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180054)
A constituent recently informed City Council Member David Sewell that the definition of “Family” in Provo City Code was inconsistent with Utah State Code. While Provo has utilized the correct definition per State Code, the definition in Provo Code had not been revised.
Section 14.06.020 (Definitions) currently limits the definition of “Family” for unrelated individuals to two in some areas of the city that are listed under the definition of “Baching Singles”. The amendment removes this limiting section and renders the definition as “Three (3) related or unrelated individuals and any children of such individual, if any.” The related sections of the definition of “Baching Singles” were also removed.From the earlier meeting, "This does align the City code with State statute, but there appears to be even more going on. I am interested in the presentation on Tuesday. I am not comfortable with the government defining a "family", and would rather regulate "households". The last time I read the State statutes, they did not refer to families." - CONTINUED TO JUNE 19 COUNCIL MEETING: A resolution to adopt the amendments to the General Plan text for the General Plan update. (PLGPA20180142)
Previously noticed for the June 5 Council meeting, the item was not ready to be heard at this time. - A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $211,626,977, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo City Code Section 4.04.060. (17-067)
This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. Take a look at this Citizen's Guide to the Proposed Budget. - A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019, in the amount of $7,377,462 . (18-062)
This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget. - A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District in the amount of $4,713,241 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. (18-063)
This is the first of two public hearings on the proposed budget. More information on this process is available at https://www.provo.org/government/city-council/budget.
No comments:
Post a Comment